Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5581176" data-attributes="member: 27160">I think you mistakenly identify what I stand against, from this reply - but let's see if light may be generated rather than heat <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=";)" />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.Other than items with daily powers (which were addressed by the milestone-reinforcing "daily item use" mechanic), what items fit this category?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.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.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.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).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.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.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.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.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.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.Yeah - what seemed a neat idea when I was tired didn't bear scrutiny - see my comments above.Fine - that's your right <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 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 <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=";)" /> ).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).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.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?).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.</blockquote>

Verification