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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5583030" data-attributes="member: 82106">Daily item restriction isn't a restriction on individual items, it is a restriction on the character's number of item uses, so I don't actually see how it relates to any particular item. Daily item restriction was a bad rule, but one that was required in order to allow CHARACTERS to function properly in an environment where the players could pick and choose their item daily powers freely.I think the problem here is the whole idea that every PC needs an array of items. I don't think this is true. I think character concepts work fine on their own. A perfectly good charging barbarian can exist for instance without needing horned helms, badges of the berzerker, rushing cleats, and a vanguard weapon. You guys may have set your expectations there, but I don't think this kind of thing is genuinely required at all. Once you don't simply have free access to all of these items then actually acquiring ONE (or eventually more) of them becomes a real genuine valuable goal.Except the 3.5 masses of CLW wands were EXACTLY a huge problem. They are a vastly meta-gamey heap-o-nonsense. In fact the entire 3.5 crafting system ended up reeking of meta-gaming. The 4e crafting system likewise where the object was what? To fill in the checkboxes of some optimum build? That to me is a horrible set of motivations to run a game on in general. I want the players engaged in doing things for STORY reasons, for reasons that are related to the inner life of the character, not because the game mechanics happen to dictate that X, Y, or Z combination of items means you can pump out more damage, etc. I mean, yes, I can imagine a character concept where a character is obsessed with the need to say squash his enemies with the utmost effectiveness and you could sort of justify that, but that isn't the majority of characters in most games. Well, it is inarguably true that artifacts CAN fill that kind of slot, but they carry a lot of other connotations. I think it is a legitimate need to have a grade of items without all the baggage of being an artifact that is still under DM control.As for 'hijacked to the dubious aim of making PC's less interesting', lul wut? Yeah, that's WotC's aim, to make all the characters dull and boring 'cause you know that will sell more books... The rarity system IS exactly offering you more interesting and potentially not 'balanced' items, what exactly concept do you really think it is in service of?[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION], yeah, we have different concepts. It isn't so much to me a matter of I want the players spending all their time exploring stuff that I've come up with. It is that we don't want to spend our time on the whole very meta-gamey constant searching around for that next +1 or playing accountant all the time. I mean the resource sub-game is a fun part of D&D, up to a point. I just see it having gone way too far with having to track whether or not you used each item yet, plus tracking per-character daily item use, etc. Ugh.You're probably correct, you could implement a whole bunch of different tweaks to the system which HOPEFULLY combined together might deal with the issues surrounding items, but at the cost of now I have to track not only daily item uses but which ones are also character item daily uses and some are and some aren't? FEH! I don't think that's taking the game in the direction most people are interested in going. I don't think rarity was a 'lazy' at all. It was an ELEGANT solution. In the software engineering world we have a sort of a saying which is that laziness is a virtue. In other words the elegant minimalist solution, the one that perhaps requires a bit more work up front to come up with but makes things simpler and easier down the road is often the best. It also has a connotation of practicality to it. Don't overcomplexify things to achieve dubiously useful ends. IMHO in that sense rarity is a 'lazy' solution, one that is both minimally complex to implement and minimally complex to administer in play.</blockquote>

Verification