• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Mordenkainens Magnificent Emporium saved by last minute adventurers?

Aegeri

First Post
The real problem with things like Iron Armbands of Power and such, is that while +2 damage seems small it is the fact it stacks with a bunch of other stuff. Combined with lots of attacks - particularly due to leader enabling or just powers in epic (Hurricane of Blades, Blade Cascade and such) it means that +2 damage soon turns into a MUCH more beneficial bonus (because it's always on).

I am certain that Wizards with the initial design of 4E did not realize the impact that multiple attacks would have on the overall metagame. So something like a +2 bonus seemed incidental, but turns out to be way too powerful in practice. Especially as these items scale into paragon/epic to +4 and +6 as well.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The funny thing is, Balesir, I think you've actually advanced every argument for the position you stand against quite admirably.

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)?

If some items are going to be problematic in numbers, then restrict them, like rarity does. 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.

I disagree that I'm taking away something that is a player resource. The game is simply being updated to a slightly different approach. The rules are clear when players begin the game, or if the game is changed during play then the players surely always have the option to object if they wish. Nor do I think that every little detail of the game has to be specified up front. That realistically never happens. Part of the fun is discovering how the DM has crafted the world you will be interacting with.

What has the function of monetary treasure EVER been in any edition of the game? Why suddenly in 4e does it have to have one specific purpose and no other? 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.

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.

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 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. Surely the players will still have plenty of opportunities to pick and choose what items they use, buy, quest for, etc. 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."
 

Dice4Hire

First Post
Agreed. I do not always like it, but D&D has always been about magic items, for good or ill.

Taking them out partially works well, with inherent bonuses, but taking htem ouout totally remobvves a lot of cool effects and powers, plus some individualization of the characters.

I really s\dislike the tier system, though I know why they made it. Having characters make magic items is pretty cool, and the rare materials..... lost processes .... stuff can be fun, but tedious to insanity if done too much.
 

SabreCat

First Post
The "rarity" system as proposed, however, by just bunging everything into the DM's hands, was/is just a cop-out. A system where the items remain in the players' hands, but require more effort (specific monster parts, specific rituals, specific craftsmen/helpers) for the more useful items might actually improve matters. It would, of course, require more design work...
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.
 


pemerton

Legend
Bleh - let's us DMs patronise the players some more... The 'old' system wasn't broken (even though some of the individual elements in it were - but, as you note, that applies to the new system, too), so it didn't need fixing. Especially as it seems to be an excuse in some areas to be lazy about balance and good design on the pretext that "a good DM will handle it".

The old system had just the categories needed:

- stuff the players have control over (can make if they have the ritual, can buy, etc.) = "magic items".

- stuff the DM has control over = "artifacts".

Adding a couple of "levels" of "pseudo-artifacts" was just unneccessary, IMO.
I agree with this.

the problem uncommon rarity is intended to solve is that some items retain their value as their price drops to a negligable one, whereas other items become obselete once you can afford or find their next version. Making the former category uncommon stops players from powering their characters up with large quantities of low level items n the first category.
This makes sense, but I personally would prefer a solution that trades on the daily item use limit or the inability to effectively change clothes during combat. I would prefer this as a constraint on item design to punting it all to GM fiat.

The problem rare rarity is intending to solve is that the game is more fun with some over the top items, but giving out too many will distort the power curve of the game; marking an item "rare" is a sign that it is of this category.
To me, you're talking about artefacts here. If not - if we're talking about viable elements of core PC build - then it should be the player who has control (perhaps using some other rationing system, but not GM fiat).
 

Hey, I still disagree with everything you say in your first post Balesir...*

I can accept, that you like to have control over your items, and I really can feel your pain as a plyer... 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...

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...

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!

*the second post is reasonable:
item bonuses to the same thing need to be available in different slots, otherwise there is no sense in calling it an item bonus...
 

eamon

Explorer
Hey, I still disagree with everything you say in your first post Balesir...*

I can accept, that you like to have control over your items, and I really can feel your pain as a plyer... 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...

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...

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!

This smacks of control-freak DM-ing. If you're going to run a world in which tens of items are found every level (and most eventually sold), and items are made in the course of story constantly, it's just inconsistent to presume that the PC's can't eventually find many items. There's a big difference between intervening as a matter of exception (because some items are simply broken) and doing it as a rule.

If you feel that items don't fit in your campaign, there's a fine rule variant; the inherent bonuses. You seem to presume that everyone shares this preference for every campaign.

As to the item rarity system; well, I feel that the pricing wasn't thought out well, that it was introduced poorly (making most items uncommon), and that I strongly disapprove of errata such as this which have major changes to expectations halfway through a game. I hate them as a player, and I find them completely unacceptable as a DM (bye-bye consistency). To pour salt in the open wound, it's an entirely unnecessary change. As are so many of the errata.
 
Last edited:

Balesir

Adventurer
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.
 

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.
This may be the root of the disagreement: different styles of games. My game is much closer to AbdulAlhazred's. I run a fairly traditional game more in line with the the AD&D 1e and 2e games that my players and I used to play when we were younger. They have adventures, they find treasure. Sometimes it's a "common" object like an elven cloak, sometimes something more unusual like a flaming weapon. My players seem to enjoy the tactical nature of 4e combat well enough, so they do appreciate the "gamist" nature of 4e, but so far they haven't shown much inclination towards wanting to fine tune their characters by purchasing magic items (even although I have mentioned that it's possible). I think this comes from our prior expectations from playing AD&D.

I select the magic items that they find and nobody's really complained yet. But I can understand your viewpoint - if the players feel that a major part of their enjoyment is figuring out which magic items to equip their characters with and the DM is OK with making the entire item list available for purchase, fine. I'm not going to tell you how to enjoy your game!

The nice thing is, if you don't like the rarity system, just ignore that little word in the upper-right corner and carry on as before. Problem solved.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top