Magic item rarity revision forthcoming?

[Ahrimon]

Didn't they come out and say that the "standard" would be create/buy common only. High magic would be create/buy common and uncommon and super magical (can't remember what they actually called it) would be create/buy anything. They pretty much said it's up to the DM to decide the world he wants to create. If they altered CMI, then that would lock everything down to one option only.

I wish I could find that article.

It does seem like they're downplaying the second two options and focusing on the first, hoping we don't remember though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Bleah. In every real sense, it was already always up to every individual DM to decide, but it sure would be nice if there were some guidance from WotC on how to use their system.

Another bleah: this brings back the social engineering "play the DM" mini-game.

A third bleah: this makes the passive-aggressive route the default for prohibited items. You mysteriously can't find the ingredients for the creation ritual! And you don't seem to find the item, even though it's on your wish list!

There's nothing wrong with giving the DM all the power he already had, but there's something wrong with the social dynamics encouraged by this particular indecisiveness.

Cheers, -- N

Good grief, when did you start playing D&D Nifft? Maybe it is a matter of what edition people started in or got used to but I started with White Box 1974 D&D and the game told the DM next to NOTHING, you figured it all out for yourself, and it was fine. Nowadays the game practically holds the DM's tender little hand 97% of the way to the bank and people spit and fume about how some detail is actually left to the judgment of the people playing.

Buck up and enjoy the little room that the official rules leave you as a DM. Honestly, it is just a knob that the devs painted bright red and left there for us to twist. You're right, you always had the power to do this, but now you have a framework for doing it in. Compared to the 'crafting' rules of 3.x and the Enchant Item spell of AD&D this is bliss.

Didn't they come out and say that the "standard" would be create/buy common only. High magic would be create/buy common and uncommon and super magical (can't remember what they actually called it) would be create/buy anything. They pretty much said it's up to the DM to decide the world he wants to create. If they altered CMI, then that would lock everything down to one option only.

I wish I could find that article.

It does seem like they're downplaying the second two options and focusing on the first, hoping we don't remember though.

Yeah, though I'd venture to say that without the Daily Item Use rule unlimited crafting is right out in any type of setting, unless you can keep your players from expressing their inner munchkin and making dozens of certain items.

 

[Nifft]

Good grief, when did you start playing D&D Nifft?

Red box.

Maybe it is a matter of what edition people started in or got used to but I started with White Box 1974 D&D and the game told the DM next to NOTHING, you figured it all out for yourself, and it was fine.

Dude, I can re-write the damn game myself if I had the time, and it would come out better. I'm not paying WotC to tell me that I can do a bunch of work myself. I already know how to do that. What I want is for them to do all the boring work for me, so I can make high-level decisions intelligently in the context of that work.

Running through the magic item list one-by-one and deciding if each one is balanced against all the others in its slot is time-consuming and boring and exactly the kind of thing I want to pay someone else to do for me.

Buck up and enjoy the little room that the official rules leave you as a DM.

All of the room is already mine. They aren't doing anyone any favors by shoving the drudge work on every individual DM, certainly not me.

- - -

Back when I was a kid, I had lots of free time. Re-writing a setting or a game myself was no daunting prospect. It was more like the natural result of having a lot of free time to think and play.

These days, I'm a grown-up, and I have less time. What time I do have I don't want to throw away compensating for someone else's poor design choices, indecisiveness, or laziness.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Felon]

Bleah. In every real sense, it was already always up to every individual DM to decide, but it sure would be nice if there were some guidance from WotC on how to use their system.

The DM always had line-item approval power, approving or disapproving on a case-by-case basis. What he has now is more akin to a template he can apply. Or at least, that's what he would have if WotC didn't just apply the new concept without any desire to execute it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The DM always had line-item approval power, approving or disapproving on a case-by-case basis. What he has now is more akin to a template he can apply. Or at least, that's what he would have if WotC didn't just apply the new concept without any desire to execute it.

Personally I think the execution was a done in a wise way. Instead of trying to go through 4000 or so items and make an arbitrary decision on each and every one of them cold with no real experience of how the new system will exactly work in practice they made the bulk of items uncommon. With the understanding that the DM can easily adjust that on a case-by-case basis as needed in the context of their game. This way there are no large number of revisions needed in the list later on to make items LESS available because someone didn't consider every possible ramification of every item the first time around.

Later on they can easily go through and either add a few more common items or based on feedback and experience they can open up a few uncommon items and make them common. It is a lot easier to loosen up restrictions on the players later on than it is to tighten them up.

So honestly, while in a perfect world they would have some finely tuned list of common/uncommon/rare a week after they made this fairly significant adjustment in the rules the reality is WotC probably has a LOT of other stuff for their guys to be working on and wants to take the time to do it right. It will probably be a somewhat gradual process. It isn't perfect but it is what realistically makes sense IMHO.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It really isn't an issue as long as in general the PCs have reasonably equivalent items. The cleric may have a Brooch of Healing, the melee ranger may have IAoP, etc. Yes some specific items stand out to a certain extent, but other items exist which have utility equivalent to an IAoP, so it really is no big deal. Also as long as your game isn't entirely focused on vanilla combat encounters there are a WIDE range of items that can have a very significant effect on a regular basis, such as the various high quality skill boosting items, etc. Obviously if you focus too much on only one dimension of the game then items that are particularly effective in those situations will have excessive value. The designers of the game can't really be held accountable for that.

No, but they can certainly be held accountable for situations where two items that contribute to the same dimension in game are wildly incomparable in effectiveness with no mitigating factors. 90% of the items in game are direct combat boosters, there's really no excuse for the wild disparity that's present.

p.s. With the way the game is designed, high quality skill boosters are a bit of a mug's game too.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, but they can certainly be held accountable for situations where two items that contribute to the same dimension in game are wildly incomparable in effectiveness with no mitigating factors. 90% of the items in game are direct combat boosters, there's really no excuse for the wild disparity that's present.

p.s. With the way the game is designed, high quality skill boosters are a bit of a mug's game too.

That's what I'm saying though, everyone does NOT need an equally good arms slot item. In the course of things every character is going to get some set of items, some of which are going to be the most choice items and some of which are not. It all balances out pretty well in practice.

I don't think skill boosters are a mug's game at all. Some of them are exceedingly handy and in fact I've found they're some of the most frequently used items. Sure IAoP is pretty much an ideal cream item, but the truth is you're not going to have a crap character just because that isn't the item you happened be blessed with. People already complain about items being less interesting than they would like. They would SURE be a lot less interesting if every item had to adhere perfectly to an identical power level.

I mean we played 1e and 2e for YEARS without even the faintest equivalence between items. It hardly ever caused a problem then and I'm going to venture to say that I don't think it is an issue now that is worth losing any sleep over.

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

4th

ed way upped the monster HP...so yeah those IAoP do help minimize the kludge of chopping that huge blob of tofu down so you can get back to the plot.

Does anyone think combats in 4th ed are TOO short? If not, what the heck is the problem with an item that reduces the grind. Please, if they could be twice as good that would make the game twice as good, but then non-melee characters would be penalized.

It seems those Bracers of Mighty Striking being common while IaoP are uncommon is a big FU to classic 4e melee characters, while Essentials get a free pass.

Yay, item favoritism.

I say screw item rarity rules.

Q) If one Essentials guy can use his melee basics in the same game and buy Bracers of Mighty Striking for 1800gp, and still get his striker bonus to damage on his at-wills, why should IAoP not be common as well, so that Non-Essentials characters can do the same thing?

Answer : To push people to Essentials classes...and profit!! by selling more books.

See how cheap a ruse this item rarity rule is? QED

 

[Nifft]

The DM always had line-item approval power, approving or disapproving on a case-by-case basis. What he has now is more akin to a template he can apply. Or at least, that's what he would have if WotC didn't just apply the new concept without any desire to execute it.

Yeah, it would be nice if it were more of a template.

- - -

Another thought: the 20% sale price rule was supposed to compensate for the variance in power between optimal items and whatever the DM gave you. This rule wasn't changed, was it?

Item prices (and item levels) were supposed to be how you separated weak items from strong ones, but these haven't been changed (have they?), rather WotC decided to overlay rarity.

If some items are just plain better than others, those items should be more expensive than others. If some items are too good to fit in the level system, they should be artifacts, or they should disappear from the game.

Cheers, -- N

 

[KarinsDad]

Does anyone think combats in 4th ed are TOO short? If not, what the heck is the problem with an item that reduces the grind. Please, if they could be twice as good that would make the game twice as good, but then non-melee characters would be penalized.

I didn't used to think this, but when we went through 4 encounters in 2.5 hours due to the Essentials Thief in the party (75% or so chance to hit, 20+ points of damage at level one) dropping a foe in round one in two encounters and nearly dropping a foe in round one in the other two encounters, the grind disappeared pretty darn quick (and that's with the PCs only using half of their action points and none of their Dailies). The increased synergy of 4 PCs vs. 3 NPCs starting in round 2 (where the thief is still doing 60% or so damage per NPC per hit) makes a big difference.

I know exactly which items (BoMS) are instantly becoming rares in my campaign.

PS. I find it amusing that artifacts are showing up as uncommon in CB. You'd think that WotC could put in a little more effort than that.