Essentials: Magic Item Rarity Explained, it's actually good!

[Scribble]

So every time the group has players of both they first need to settle which ruleset (core or essentials) is being used? What if the DM insists of using core rules -- does the "essentials guy" convert his items to the core versions? And if the rule-of-thumb is to use the "latest" version of the rules (essentials), doesn't this make it a revised edition of 4E? Or am I missing something?

Essentials is using the same rules as are already in existence. Those rules have received a number of updates and errata throughout their lifetime. Essentials assumes you are playing using those updates/errata.

 

[MrMyth]

So every time the group has players of both they first need to settle which ruleset (core or essentials) is being used? What if the DM insists of using core rules -- does the "essentials guy" convert his items to the core versions? And if the rule-of-thumb is to use the "latest" version of the rules (essentials), doesn't this make it a revised edition of 4E? Or am I missing something?

Well, the easy answer is that yes, it is a revised version of 4E. Just like the very first errata was, when they changed Stealth. Or when PHB2 clarified some keywords.

But the question is, it is a revised enough version to consider a new edition? Well, that will really depend on the individual. I found the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 to be significantly more extensive (and farther reaching) than everything that has altered in 4E thus far. So I don't consider it as such - at least, not for me.

In the case of this change... ok, your existing characters can now use their 3-4 daily item powers at the start of each day, rather than after a few fights. I don't forsee this as the end of the world.

Honestly, the only real issue is making sure they don't have any existing items that become abuseable with this system, with certain consumables being the only danger. But I don't think we'll see too much fall-out from this, or any imbalance between characters.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Or am I missing something?

That the changes will probably be folded into the official errata and update document here?

If the DM insists on a rules-as-printed and without errata game, this problem will have cropped up much earlier (since every new book assumes the use of updated rules).

Cheers, LT.

 

[malraux]

Color me confused... how are Essentials and Core players going to feel equal at the same table, if one guy can use magic item powers at will, and the other ("core guy") obviously can't?

The more I read, the more it seems like a revised edition, no matter what WotC says.

This new information puts me into the "4.5" camp as well. Basically my standard was that if my old books stayed valid and fully usable (even if they get heavily modified) then its not a new edition. The change in monster layout from MM1 to MM3 doesn't count, because I can still use the monster, it just looks a bit different.

However, this change in magic items would seem to invalidate AV1 (and possibly AV2). Either every single item is missing a keyword (commom, uncommon, rare) or the whole thing needs to get changed and updated.

So at least by my own standards, to me this is major edition point update.

Now, of course, this doesn't horribly upset me. At worst, it minorly inconveniences me. My style of treasure management is pretty hands off. I've been handing magic item coupons instead of items for a while (You find a coupon for one level 15 item instead of a +3 fire sword), so now I'll have to either start picking items again, or just let the party find uncommon items that way, and hand out rare items specifically.

 

[Kelvor Ravenstar]

So every time the group has players of both they first need to settle which ruleset (core or essentials) is being used? What if the DM insists of using core rules -- does the "essentials guy" convert his items to the core versions? And if the rule-of-thumb is to use the "latest" version of the rules (essentials), doesn't this make it a revised edition of 4E? Or am I missing something?

That the changes will probably be folded into the official errata and update document here?

If the DM insists on a rules-as-printed and without errata game, this problem will have cropped up much earlier (since every new book assumes the use of updated rules).

Cheers, LT.

This

Now, I'm admit I'm biased being from a DDI heavy group, where I as DM, make sure that everyone has access to the Character Builder with latest updates, this way ensuring that we're all playing with the same ruleset. I can understand that from the perspective of people only playing things from the books this would be like a revised edition.
But really, if you're playing with the book versions of some items at this point, letting your players use less or more daily powers isn't going to make a big difference. I think the balance of things that will get nerfed with the October updates will put essential characters back on par if they can only use one daily item power per milestone.

 

[mneme]

Indeed. If you're playing with book items/rules/powers at this point, everyone's still going all brokencheasy with reckless/bloodclaw, Salve of Power, righeous Brand, pre-eratta stealth, etc.

Basically, if you ignore eratta, then yes, Essentials presents a new edition as it's the first time the majority of eratta has appeared in print (and adds a lot of new eratta). But if you don't, it's got some major changes--and the r/u/c item change does present some issues (though if they're going to go through and give every item a rarity, rather than just saying that 90% of them are uncommon, thus making legacy characters potentially overpowered, maybe they'll also add schools to every wizard spell? Ok, probably not).

 

[keterys]

Either every single item is missing a keyword (commom, uncommon, rare) or the whole thing needs to get changed and updated.

They already answered that: Uncommon.

Unless clarified otherwise, everything from AV1, AV2, etc is Uncommon, and that pretty much works. Up the DM what they hand out, players can only make the new Essentials common items. I'm sure they'll have some items, like +1 through +6 Magic Weapons that'll be common in Essentials. But otherwise, we already know the deal, and can move on from there.

So, your party wants 6 Frost weapons so they can go crazy with frostcheese? Come Essentials time, you shrug and go 'Sorry, you got the one. Maybe you'll find another within the next 5 levels that is +1 higher. Maybe you guys shouldn't all do that tactic as it's not very sustainable.'

 

[Kelvor Ravenstar]

As to the Wizard spell schools, WotC have said that they will be giving the keywords to the old spells during one of the Gencon seminars. This will be necessary if you want to make a Mage with spells mostly from pre-essentials without being underpowered, as the school specialization replaces the benefits like Implement Mastery.

 

[BASHMAN]

The article on item rarity is up. This is actually one of the Essentials changes I'm most looking forward to.

Common items are the boring stat-boosting items like +2 swords. They're the ones that characters can make and buy. This is a huge fix: I'm sick of giving out magic items, only to find that the PCs have already cherrypicked the best items and don't want my treasure.

Characters get one Rare item PER TIER. That is an exciting - as they say, "character defining" - level of rarity. I like the idea of characters having a signature item power. I wish the article had included an example rare item, so we could see exactly what its level of complexity was.

So I guess then that us dummies who bought the Adventurer's Vault should stack it on the woodpile? Will the existing magic items cease to exist then? This doesn't sound like 4.5... more like 5.0.

 

[abyssaldeath]

So I guess then that us dummies who bought the Adventurer's Vault should stack it on the woodpile? Will the existing magic items cease to exist then? This doesn't sound like 4.5... more like 5.0.

All magic items (up till this point) are uncommon. There are no rare items yet, unless you count artifacts.