Magic item rarity revision forthcoming?

[AbdulAlhazred]

- - -

Huh, if you say that beast companion and familiar rules not there now I'll take your word for it, but I'm certain Rituals are in there (one of your examples), and I know that there previously was enough info either in CB or in the Compendium to play a beast dude... or maybe someone talked to that player specifically before the session.

I would assume the later, since it has NEVER been true that you could find out what the action economy for a beast companion was from the Compendium, unless some major new piece has been added in the last month or two. The problem is that very general rules sections like that don't have an easy place for Compendium to categorize them. They do manage to do OK with 'glossary' type stuff, which covers a fair amount of ground, but there is still a pretty good amount of stuff that simply isn't in there at all.

With rituals you have all the text OF the rituals, certainly. But you cannot find the general rules for ritual casting anywhere in the Compendium. So it is a fine reference when you want to look up rituals. It tells you nothing however about their general mechanics. Most players probably don't often care about that as it is pretty straightforward, but someone who say owns the Essentials line of products cannot determine how mastering a ritual works or how to make a scroll or the rules for ritual books specifically. At least not without buying a copy of PHB1, the only place they appear.

I tend to read the CharOp guides and then use the Compendium for details on powers or items that I don't know.

I don't tend to pore through either the 4e books or the online Compendium. I use both as references, and in that role I strongly prefer the online Compendium.

Cheers, -- N

Again, I totally agree with you, there's no comparison at all between the books and Compendium as reference material on game elements. If you are solid on the rules you can certainly leave your books on the shelf in terms of looking up most 'crunch'. It is just when you get to one of those general questions about certain things or you want to read one of the many very nice sections of the DMGs on a particular topic, or want to go through one of the other books like say Draconomicon for some adventure ideas that you need books. Still I would say a number of the Power books and core player books have stuff in them you will need to read at some point, or ask someone else about.

Each source has its good and bad points. I like having them all personally.

 

[Nifft]

OK, in that case I can see how the CB, Compendium and CharOp board provide all you need. If the only characters you are interested in playing are those someone else thinks are good, that should work fine.

Yes, I like to learn from the mistakes of others. Learning from my own mistakes might damage my youthful charm.

However, it is incorrect to assume that one MUST play a certain pre-made PC just because one knows how and why that PC was made.

It is also incorrect to assume that making choices in ignorance == originality.

I would assume the later, since it has NEVER been true that you could find out what the action economy for a beast companion was from the Compendium, unless some major new piece has been added in the last month or two. The problem is that very general rules sections like that don't have an easy place for Compendium to categorize them. They do manage to do OK with 'glossary' type stuff, which covers a fair amount of ground, but there is still a pretty good amount of stuff that simply isn't in there at all.

Alright, I did some digging, and here's what I think is happening (in the cases that I've seen first-hand).

The general rules are available in the form of forum threads discussing those rules.

Basically, if a player wants to know how something works, he'll look for a FAQ or guide or whatever, which may give optimization advice and tactical play advice. During the course of discussing the rules choices, the rules are covered to enough of an extent that they can be used by someone who doesn't own the book. So, in the process of researching whether a Beastmaster Ranger is something he wants to play, he also learns enough to play it.

That's my current theory.

Cheers, -- N

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Alright, I did some digging, and here's what I think is happening (in the cases that I've seen first-hand).

The general rules are available in the form of forum threads discussing those rules.

Basically, if a player wants to know how something works, he'll look for a FAQ or guide or whatever, which may give optimization advice and tactical play advice. During the course of discussing the rules choices, the rules are covered to enough of an extent that they can be used by someone who doesn't own the book. So, in the process of researching whether a Beastmaster Ranger is something he wants to play, he also learns enough to play it.

That's my current theory.

Cheers, -- N

Well, that and just the fact that in a group of 5 players and a DM SOMEONE at least knows the rule, and probably has MP1. Some players may well learn about it by asking questions and reading guides. I keep the books around for those situations where someone really wants to know the official answer to that kind of stuff. I rarely consult a book while playing, and often consult the Compendium. I totally agree that when you know those rules it works fine. Then again I know that before I run a Beastmaster Ranger I want to reread that stuff.

 

[Nifft]

Well, that and just the fact that in a group of 5 players and a DM SOMEONE at least knows the rule, and probably has MP1.

Since I'm actively disputing that last bit, you won't be surprised that I don't agree with that last bit.

IMHO -- and in my practical experience -- it's possible to get all the rules online, though I hadn't previously considered the importance of guides / FAQ threads / rules help threads.

So, you can be technically right (in that the DDI doesn't give you all the rules), but for practical purposes I'm also correct (in that you can get all the info online, legally, without buying any books).

- - -

Anyway, I feel we may have drifted off-topic. Since we're both (technically) correct, this may be a good place to stop our discussion.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Balesir]

However, it is incorrect to assume that one MUST play a certain pre-made PC just because one knows how and why that PC was made.

It is also incorrect to assume that making choices in ignorance == originality.

Oh, I agree - I was just razzin' ya (hence the smiley)

IMHO -- and in my practical experience -- it's possible to get all the rules online, though I hadn't previously considered the importance of guides / FAQ threads / rules help threads.

So, you can be technically right (in that the DDI doesn't give you all the rules), but for practical purposes I'm also correct (in that you can get all the info online, legally, without buying any books).

It's possible, sure - I just wouldn't want to, and find it hard to understand why anyone else would want to .

 

[Saeviomagy]

That's hilarious. Were they all vanilla Rangers, or did they use builds which took them into other roles (i.e. you can turn a Ranger into a Defender with the right paragon path)?

Cheers, -- N

As I understand it, they were all ranged combatant rangers with a side of shaman, so that they had their own portable roadblocks at least at the start of a combat. But by far the biggest benefit they had was that they were all high-damage at range with nearly zero complexity. They simply nuked their way down the list of priority targets until nothing was left.