I think there are some examples that can be found: Riding Boots, Muleback harness, Arcanist's Glasses.
To me, this isn't the real issue though.
The real issue is that there are ~300 common items out of ~8900 items and the vast majority of those 300 are not useful to any given current group of PCs. If nobody can use a Rod in the group, 24 items out of 300 are useless as common items. Split across 30 levels, that pretty much leaves 10 common items per level, a third of which are pretty worthless or repetitive for a given group of players/PCs.
There are also entire areas of magic like Wondrous items that have no common items.
Plus, there are items like Dragonshard Augments where many of them should be common, but are not.
Don't get me wrong. I really like the concept. But, I think that the definition of common is too restrictive because it's going to somewhat force the DM's hand when handing out magic items if the DM is someone who likes to follow the WotC treasure parcel guidelines closely.
I'm personally trying to come up with my own house rule on what a common item should be, just because of how limited the core rule definition is.
Now see, if I were working for WotC this is pretty much like what I'd want to hear. I agree, the breakup between common and uncommon is pretty conservative. I'd hope to see some careful relaxing of the list.
So far as I have seen, the only person in this thread bringing up anything like those hyperbolic complaints is you.
Oh, I don't really expect them to stop, but you never get what you want if you don't ask for it, and it is always best to ask in no uncertain terms. I could have made the same complaint in any of 100 threads of course. You can't really deny that it is a constant refrain. Maybe not everyone bothers to say anything, but after reading 90,000 repetitions of basically the same thing I am going to guess I'm not the only person that would love to just not see it again. As I said in my last post it is beyond any amount of credibility that WotC hires idiots and has a master plan that involves 4e D&D as a mechanism for fleecing people (that's what oil companies are for).
There are lots of other threads on the forum. No need to stay here and be bored.
Ah yes, the old "don't complain, just move on." And I guess my answer is the people doing all the complaining could just move on to a different game too. In each case the thought is equally appreciated.
Drop the derisive, mocking tone, and I'd be happy to oblige.
Derisive mocking tone?! LOL, this is my NICE VOICE. You don't want to hear derisive and mocking.
Really, pardon me if you find it derisive. It was an entirely honest question. Pointed perhaps, but not at all intended to be sarcastic.
Previously:
Humble Hamster - "Can I make this item?" - "Sure, if you can afford it."
War Weasel - "Can I make this item?" - "Sure, if you can afford it."
-> A clear rule gives no wiggle room.
It was a rule so loose that it required another highly restrictive rule to make it work (daily item use). We already know that rule was intensely unpopular. Basically the old crafting rule was no rule at all, you could just make anything.
Now:
Humble Hamster - "Can I make this item?" - "The rules say it's Uncommon." - "Oh..."
And here is exactly where the DM has the chance to say something besides "No". That is the whole point. There's no reason to just brush off this player. A good DM tip is to make sure that these types of players are constantly engaged.
- "Can I make this item?" - "The rules say it's Uncommon." - "Yeah but they also say you can waive that if you want, and if you look at this pie chart you'll see that the group's item distribution blah blah and besides, it's very similar to this item blah blah, and you totally gave Dave that awesome sword and I want to make something awesome too. And you owe me ten bucks from pizza last week. So can I have it?"
-> Vague rules reward wiggling.
It has nothing to do with vague rules. There are 1000's of vague rules in the game for said player to pester the DM about. This is a player issue, not a rules issue. Just like with young children, when you clearly lay down the rules and don't reward annoying behavior you will have the best results. Maybe I'm just an old codger at this point but players of this ilk usually don't survive long at the table.
Why should it be uncommon? It fits the common profile to a T. (As do the IAoP, which are not common.)
Cheers, -- N
And this is an interesting point. It demonstrates that a simplistic "it doesn't have item powers, so it should be common" kind of rote rule simply doesn't work. Someone understood this with IAoP since the item has been infamously ubiquitous since it was introduced. BoMS OTOH as you say APPEARS to be a candidate for a common and was made common. It wasn't a known problematic item because up until recently it really wasn't all that exciting. With the introduction of Essentials it becomes a problem. You can't make a simple rule that sorts the items and gets it right. Ergo it is better to make items uncommon and then justify reasons for them to be common at need. BoMS is going to have to be kicked to uncommon. Good job they didn't overdo it or there would be 200 more items that would likewise need to be reclassified. Now maybe there are 200 other items that need to be moved to common from uncommon, but at least that doesn't involve taking away things players had before, always a better policy when possible.