How I Stopped Worrying and Learned To Love Standard Plusses

[Lizard]

Why NOT special case rules for rings? I just don't understand the hostility to making one item different from the others. It's flavor.

Cauliflower ice cream has a flavor, too, it doesn't mean I like it.

"Flavor" is fluff which has no mechanical impact. "All rings are made of gold and silver and topped with rubies" is flavor. "This item, for no adequately explained reason, cannot be used by a lower-level character when every other item of the same level can be." is not flavor. It's an arbitrary design decision which seems to be based on a perceived need for balance, except for the part where the campaign can be just as easily unbalanced by giving a level 19 sword to a level 5 character. (Unless all magic items have level limits, which means we really enter MMORPG land as well as basically saying "You are not smart enough to judge magic item placement in your campaign." to DMs. Guidelines, si, rules, no!)

It doesn't even have the weight of tradition (Tradition!) behind it, since low level rings have been part of the game since Day One -- and there has never been a 'You are not uber enough to use this item' mechanic in the game before, at least not that I can recall.

The folks behind 4e are competent, skilled, creative, talented, designers. Their past work proves this. So decisions like this really throw me for a loop and make me wonder what's going on "behind the scenes" we don't know about.

 

[ruemere]

On naming items:
Items names in my campaign are not common. They are usually added only if the maker of the items felt some special connection to the item (like being exceptionally proud of that) or if the item was designed with some special purpose in mind.
Hence semi-generic items made by Church of Corean to battle infidel hordes are not named. But a crude +1 stone axe of human-bane does bear runes stating something to the effect of "I am the doom of stone hut dwellers, crafted by Orog in the Year of Turning Skies".

On level dependent items:
Just say no to obvious level-base limitation.
"Ding-dong! Your level is still too low use me. Thanks for calling. Bye."
It's GM's job to ensure that items fit the campaign, not game's. Game's to provide guidlines, not to set painfully obvious barriers.

In the memory of terrible showstopper in 3.x:
"Ding-dong! This detect spell has detected that mayor you're talking to is Evil. Kill? Yes / No / Cancel?"

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Lizard]

In the memory of terrible showstopper in 3.x:
"Ding-dong! This detect spell has detected that mayor you're talking to is Evil. Kill? Yes / No / Cancel?"

Regards,
Ruemere

I've never been in a game where PCs could kill someone just because they claimed a spell said they were "evil" and get away with it. If you detect the Mayor is Evil, you need to go do some digging to find out if he's just skimming some gold away for himself and taking kickbacks from the Merchant's guild (in which case, you work to get his rival elected), or if he's part of a secret cult of demon-worshippers sacrificing babies (in which case you find evidence and make sure everyone knows it, not just stab him and dump his lifeless body in the town square and expect to be lauded as heroes instead of lynched as murderers).

Any DM who allows his players to get away with "He's evil, let's kill him!" really ought to hang up his screen and go play tiddlywinks or something. And I don't even know what "tiddlywinks" is.

 

[Just Another User]

MMMH, I don't know. If I could choose between have the magic sword +2 and just have the +2 I just keep the bonus. first because the bonus come for free, while I suppose the sword must be earned someway, by gold or quest, second because a sword can be lost, stolen or broken, a bonus can't. I supponed it all depend on how interesting are the effects of magic weapons, armors & cloaks, but is just a little too counterintuitive to me.

 

[TwoSix]

Cauliflower ice cream has a flavor, too, it doesn't mean I like it.

"Flavor" is fluff which has no mechanical impact. "All rings are made of gold and silver and topped with rubies" is flavor. "This item, for no adequately explained reason, cannot be used by a lower-level character when every other item of the same level can be." is not flavor. It's an arbitrary design decision which seems to be based on a perceived need for balance, except for the part where the campaign can be just as easily unbalanced by giving a level 19 sword to a level 5 character. (Unless all magic items have level limits, which means we really enter MMORPG land as well as basically saying "You are not smart enough to judge magic item placement in your campaign." to DMs. Guidelines, si, rules, no!)

It doesn't even have the weight of tradition (Tradition!) behind it, since low level rings have been part of the game since Day One -- and there has never been a 'You are not uber enough to use this item' mechanic in the game before, at least not that I can recall.

The folks behind 4e are competent, skilled, creative, talented, designers. Their past work proves this. So decisions like this really throw me for a loop and make me wonder what's going on "behind the scenes" we don't know about.

But the only problem you're really expressing isn't one of imbalance. You're complaining because it's arbitrary. But why is that a problem? It's like complaining that Boardwalk is worth more than Park Place, instead of the other way around. In this edition, rings are super powerful items that only the strongest of heroes can weild. It could have been gloves, or weapons, instead. They could have not done it for any items. But they did it with rings. I just fail to see how that makes the designers bad designers.

 

[Dragonblade]

I've never been in a game where PCs could kill someone just because they claimed a spell said they were "evil" and get away with it. If you detect the Mayor is Evil, you need to go do some digging to find out if he's just skimming some gold away for himself and taking kickbacks from the Merchant's guild (in which case, you work to get his rival elected), or if he's part of a secret cult of demon-worshippers sacrificing babies (in which case you find evidence and make sure everyone knows it, not just stab him and dump his lifeless body in the town square and expect to be lauded as heroes instead of lynched as murderers).

Any DM who allows his players to get away with "He's evil, let's kill him!" really ought to hang up his screen and go play tiddlywinks or something. And I don't even know what "tiddlywinks" is.

Not to hijack the thread but this really depends on your world and how your paladin code and their authority is handled. In one of my worlds, paladins are judge, jury, and executioner. Their word is sufficient to execute anyone they feel needs executing. They are given this power by god, but are also accepted by the people. Because in my fantasy world, the people KNOW that a paladin is their hero. They know that paladins put their lives on the line for them. And they know that when a paladin finds and burns a necromancer, its because they really actually did catch a necromancer who really actually did intend on raising an undead army and razing the town.

And if a paladin wrongly accused someone or kills an innocent, the people (and the paladins themselves) know that that paladin will face a very harsh judgement from a very real and demanding god. The people know this thus they accept the paladin's authority.

Evidence and trials and such are fine for a real world where we have no tangible proof of the divine and impartial laws serve to protect men from other men. But, in a fantasy world where gods make their presence felt, this is not nearly as necessary.

 

[Lizard]

Not to hijack the thread but this really depends on your world and how your paladin code and their authority is handled. In one of my worlds, paladins are judge, jury, and executioner. Their word is sufficient to execute anyone they feel needs executing. They are given this power by god, but are also accepted by the people. Because in my fantasy world, the people KNOW that a paladin is their hero. They know that paladins put their lives on the line for them. And they know that when a paladin finds and burns a necromancer, its because they really actually did catch a necromancer who really actually did intend on raising an undead army and razing the town.

And if a paladin wrongly accused someone or kills an innocent, the people (and the paladins themselves) know that that paladin will face a very harsh judgement from a very real and demanding god. The people know this thus they accept the paladin's authority.

Evidence and trials and such are fine for a real world where we have no tangible proof of the divine and impartial laws serve to protect men from other men. But, in a fantasy world where gods make their presence felt, this is not nearly as necessary.

So, in your world, merely being "Evil" -- without regard to what ACTUAL DEEDS HAVE BEEN DONE -- is a capital offense? "What ho! That bartender is watering the booze, short-changing the drunks, and pressuing the barmaid for sex if she wants to keep her job! He shall DIE!"

Wow. That's the point where "Lawful Good" just wraps right around to "Lawful Evil" without taking a pit stop at Port Irony. Ever play Ultima V?

 

[Lizard]

But the only problem you're really expressing isn't one of imbalance. You're complaining because it's arbitrary. But why is that a problem? It's like complaining that Boardwalk is worth more than Park Place, instead of the other way around. In this edition, rings are super powerful items that only the strongest of heroes can weild. It could have been gloves, or weapons, instead. They could have not done it for any items. But they did it with rings. I just fail to see how that makes the designers bad designers.

If every property in Monopoly cost 100 dollars, but Boardwalk, and Boardwalk alone, cost 500 dollars, and there was no other distinction...then, yeah, I'd say that was a pretty bad design decision.

If there were a hierarchy of 'leveled' items -- swords at L1, armor at L3, amulets at L5, and rings at L11...it would make a twisted, horrible, awful, kind of sense. It would be part of a pattern -- a stupid pattern, mind you, but a pattern.

You keep missing the point that other, equally powerful, items, can be wielded by less-mighty heroes. 15th level sword in the hands of a 5th level fighter? No problem! 11th level ring in the hands of a 10th level character? Sorry, can't do that.

Magic item levels, by themselves, solve the problem of not being sure which items are suitable for a character and give the DM the right tool he needs to know how much he risks unbalancing his campaign by allowing a particular item to enter early. The "ring rule" is just the icing on the sardines.

"You don't put icing on sardines!"

Bingo.

 

[TwoSix]

If there were a hierarchy of 'leveled' items -- swords at L1, armor at L3, amulets at L5, and rings at L11...it would make a twisted, horrible, awful, kind of sense. It would be part of a pattern -- a stupid pattern, mind you, but a pattern.

"Down with needless symmetry" is a quote I saw repeated several times in W&M. Rings are most likely an example of this.

You keep missing the point that other, equally powerful, items, can be wielded by less-mighty heroes. 15th level sword in the hands of a 5th level fighter? No problem! 11th level ring in the hands of a 10th level character? Sorry, can't do that.

I'm not missing that point, I merely don't think it's relevant. Not giving rings to heroic characters isn't a balance issue. The powers rings have followed from the decision that they shouldn't be used by heroic characters, not vice-versa.

 

[Dragonblade]

So, in your world, merely being "Evil" -- without regard to what ACTUAL DEEDS HAVE BEEN DONE -- is a capital offense? "What ho! That bartender is watering the booze, short-changing the drunks, and pressuing the barmaid for sex if she wants to keep her job! He shall DIE!"

Wow. That's the point where "Lawful Good" just wraps right around to "Lawful Evil" without taking a pit stop at Port Irony. Ever play Ultima V?

Not quite. First of all, Detect Evil only detects supernatural evil in my game. Free-willed undead, fiends and such. So this problem doesn't exist.

Second of all, paladins are also expected to keep the big picture in mind and use their power prudently. A paladin who starts cutting people down in the street won't be paladins for very long. But a paladin who uncovers evidence the mayor is secretly a cultist of Orcus, doesn't have to get approval from anywhere before publicly denouncing the mayor and cutting him down. Its assumed that paladins will use good judgement in such matters. Paladins who don't, fall quickly and then it is them that will face the judgement of their former peers.