Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Magic item rarity revision forthcoming?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5403152" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Derisive mocking tone?! LOL, this is my NICE VOICE. You don't want to hear derisive and mocking. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Really, pardon me if you find it derisive. It was an entirely honest question. Pointed perhaps, but not at all intended to be sarcastic. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5403152, member: 82106"] 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. [B][/B] 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Magic item rarity revision forthcoming?
Top