The funny thing is, Balesir, I think you've actually advanced every argument for the position you stand against quite admirably.
I think you mistakenly identify what I stand against, from this reply - but let's see if light may be generated rather than heat
If items that are 'over the top' but not 'full artifacts' are a useful part of the game, then why not have rules for them (IE rare items)?
That's not what I said. Let me (try to) break it down more clearly:
- All item powers have an "appropriate" level at which they may reasonably be introduced.
- Some items have more, or more widely usable, powers than others. The means that an item with powers, all of which are reasonable to introduce at level X, may have more utility than an item with just one power (say) at level X.
- The Enchant Item ritual has an inbuilt problem in that it becomes more useful/powerful the more magic items are published, unless some additional factor is required to be able to make some items.
None of this has to do with some items being "over the top" - such a judgement would indicate merely that they were either (a) set at too low a level or (b) carrying too many or too wide ranging a set of powers without an increased price. It does, clearly, indicate that there were flaws with the original items system that need to be addressed.
On the other hand, I think the 4E system addressed some flaws with earlier edition systems:
- Money treasure, originally the vector for awarding the majority of adventure xp and later reduced to a muddled "reward because we have always had treasure", is given a clear role and purpose in the system.
- Artifacts, originally the "level ten spell" of magic items, are given a definite and coherent role; they are the plot/world related items that do cool things for the scenario or the setting and are not "character attributes".
- The clear role of magic items placed them as an interesting player party resource, with (literal) currency to control their quantity and a mix of DM gift/reward (from treasure items of higher than character level) and player control (for items of PC level or lower), adding a new and interesting aspect to party design and development.
While I would love to see the flaws in the system addressed, I do not want to lose the advances that I see as having been gained. Thus, specifically, I do not want to see items transferred entirely to DM fiat and artifacts to lose their logical (and useful) part in the system.
I also see a significant element of player fun with the game coming from clever control of the stuff they have control over. Taking away some of the elements they can control thus removes, directly, some of the potential fun, for them.
If some items are going to be problematic in numbers, then restrict them, like rarity does.
Other than items with daily powers (which were addressed by the milestone-reinforcing "daily item use" mechanic), what items fit this category?
Sure, the designers COULD in theory go on to list a long laundry list of different rare plants, monster body parts, etc needed to make all these various items, but those are STORY elements, so why not leave them to the DM? I'd be all for a more in-depth discussion of this topic in some DM material, but it isn't a requirement to have a perfectly serviceable item rarity system. I'm honestly not at all understanding why you feel that this MUST exist for such a system to work. The rules already state flatly that such items require rare ingredients etc to make.
Yeah, in the cold light of day, I can see that this form is just a displacement. When it boils right down, I think there are only two options that keep the elements I want to keep:
- Random control. What I mean here is a skill roll requirement or random determination of the item that a ritual actually produces. The logical outcome in the game-marketplace would be a higher cost for lower probability items and longer waiting times to acquire them.
- Another, arbitrary, form of currency. At its simplest, this would be "tokens" that need to be expended, in addition to money, to make the restricted items. The logical outcome in the market would again be higher costs and longer waiting times.
The "logical outcomes" in both cases point to items that have more than the "standard" cost for their level - which I saw a need for way back. They also point to possibly some sort of "wait time" - maybe such items have to be "ordered" at one level and picked up at the next?
Basically, I want items to remain (a) a money sink/reason for the resource of money to exist, and (b) an interesting party strategic resource, with tradeoffs and resource management decisions to be made. 'Active fun' for the players, as opposed to the 'passive fun' of receiving higher level items or artifacts as treasure.
I disagree that I'm taking away something that is a player resource. The game is simply being updated to a slightly different approach.
In what way can removing magic item configuration into the DM's hands possibly be "not taking away a player resource"? You are clearly removing (potentially) interesting choices from the players' purview.
What has the function of monetary treasure EVER been in any edition of the game?
It was originally the (main) source of experience points - it was a kind of quest reward and motivational reward all in one. Then it became a status counter for a while. Then it became a magic item resource in 3E.
Why suddenly in 4e does it have to have one specific purpose and no other?
Because, practically, that is the only game function it has. There is no other (apart from mundane purchases, but even before Paragon they have become pretty much negligible).
Actually I find this requirement of 4e to be rather limiting. Players in all of my AD&D games were quite happy to amass treasure. It can serve many purposes besides being an 'ingredient' used to power up your character. And the things you dismiss as 'just color' are the most interesting and fun elements of the game. Building a stronghold, acquiring a ship, any of 100 other things are actually the things that are most likely to allow the players to drive their character's story forward and make it interesting and help them create buy-in to the story and the world. Treasure isn't REQUIRED in order to do this, but it is a great tool.
All good simulationist stuff, but not tied into the game system, game activities or character power. As such, it really should be handled as fluff, not confused with elements that do have game relevancy (like making magic items, even if they are only boring ones and mother-may-I odds and ends). It's actually a similar argument to the 'mixing resources for in- and out-of-combat capability" one. Money that has (only limited) use as a game element resource and is given use for fluff gives the dilemma of "you can get fluff at the cost of character power, or character power at the cost of fluff" - not a great mechanism.
The assertion that an item is 'broken' and has to be 'fixed' simply because it isn't suitable to have many instances of it in the game is just wrong. I don't know any other way to put it. I rarely use that term, but in this case I can't see any other adequate way to put it. The whole history of 4e items is replete with instances where genuinely interesting and fun items have been 'fixed' into utter irrelevance because of this issue. An issue which is fully addressed by rarity and NOT addressed by any other solution I have ever seen proposed. Item rarity is an elegant solution to a serious design issue with 4e.
I share your frustration at some of the heavy-handed nerfing, but I don't see DM control as a good remedy for items that cause issues when spammed. I don't see it as "elegant" in the least - pretty much the opposite, in fact. It adds "heavy-handed influence over character design" to the DM's core role in 4E of "setting up fun, fair and interesting challenges for the players", both compromising and diluting the DM's effectiveness in one fell swoop.
Ultimately I think you bought into the original PHB1 design and you're just not really looking hard at its flaws and the advantages of this change. Another dimension WAS needed for items. It is all well to say that powerful items are 'high level', but in 4e levels don't really mean that much. They're a great way to move the players on to new and interesting things and elegantly evolve the theme of the game, but you said yourself that another variable was needed.
I can see the flaws, and I agree another variable would be very beneficial. But I don't want the new "variable" to be DM fiat.
I just don't see a convincing counter-argument to the obvious advantages of rarity. You can contend that giving the DM a hand in item selection is taking away player's 'right' to build whatever character they want, but I don't buy that either. 4e has a VAST array of player options already.
It's not so much the removal - it's the bolting something onto the character that is too powerful to ignore but is added as an alien intrusion by a third party. Without recourse, since selling the item or rendering it into residuum would be pointless if there's nothing else you can make with the money/residuum.
Surely the players will still have plenty of opportunities to pick and choose what items they use, buy, quest for, etc.
If the DM lets them, sure. We're back to "mother-may-I" and the 'game' of influencing the DM instead of playing the darned game.
Instead of this process being a bland process of acquiring generic 'treasure', chanting for an hour, and having the exact item they need the whole process is much richer and more closely integrated into the overall story now. When your character DOES get that flaming sword now it really is interesting and meaningful, not just "I got 3,600 gp worth of treasure."
That may be how your games work - in the game I run it looks nothing like this. The party get treasures, typically of above their level, that they pore over and analyse the utility of. They then have (extended) debates about how to best leverage the money, items and other resources they have available. Sometimes they craft new items, sometimes they 'level up' items they already have and sometimes they move enchantments around from one physical object to another. If treasure is "bland and generic" I can only suggest that the system is not being well used.
How would specific monster parts etc. not be a way of putting control into the DM's hands? It just removes it by a step--the DM controls access to the components or rituals rather than access to the items themselves.
Yeah - what seemed a neat idea when I was tired didn't bear scrutiny - see my comments above.
Hey, I still disagree with everything you say in your first post Balesir...*
Fine - that's your right
As long as you allow me the same right we'll get along fine (as long as we don't play D&D together for too long
).
I can accept, that you like to have control over your items, and I really can feel your pain as a plyer...
Actually, I have only DMed 4E long term - I have yet to play it beyond one-offs. My comments are those of a DM who was sick of the old game of "whoever can butter up the GM best wins" reality of dysfunctional gamist systems (including, but not limited to, earlier editions of D&D).
but one of the most exciting things is finding an item you always searched for... at least for me... if yu know you can get it everywhere, it loses any excitement...
I understand your point, but I came to realise that finding such stuff came down to either (a) the GM has included stuff in the campaign by either random methods or their own preferences (which, as a player, amount to the same thing), so finding it would be dumb luck, or (b) the GM had included it because I wanted to find it, in which case why not cut the crap and just let me have it, since I'm now just the equivalent of a performing animal, jumping through the right hoops to get what we have already established I can have. Neither case adds to the fun, for me, any more.
As a DM it is even worse... players that start getting items to support frostchese, because they read about that on a forum aredisruptive in my opinion...
I don't think it's disruptive, just boring. If a player can't be bothered to find their own "neat combos" I don't really know why they're playing the game (unless 'neat combos' don't matter to them - in which case why would they copy one from a website?).
For me this "I want access to all items" desire is an indicator of a (power-)game style I don´t want to have on my table... call me intolerant... I am!
Yes, I would share your irritation about petulant "I want" behaviour, but that is once again the "bad player" argument. Bad players assuredly exist, but taking away their candy and saying they can only have it when mother says they can will not fix their immaturity.
