Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eldorian" data-source="post: 4010552" data-attributes="member: 10504">Isn't it obvious why rings and Ioun stones are now tier dependent?  They wanted some item creation feats to be high level feats.  I figured that was obvious, but I'm pretty sure I've read most of the thread and no one has mentioned it.  They're not just changing flavor for the sake of flavor, they are making a game design decision for item creation.  And, if you don't like it, you can make the high level feat "craft ring of power" or something, and it makes the big guns, and have wimpy rings for heroic tier stuff made by the feat you use to make amulets or whatever.Btw, I love the idea of implements.  I was going to add these to the next campaign I ran (I play more than DM), in the form of a hand held object that increases the save DCs of your spells.  (I was thinking of holy symbol, book, rod, staff, wand, and, like in D2, shrunken heads, but any object, such as the classic tankard from EQ).  If the current game I'm in survives until conversion to 4e, my wizard is definitely calling his implement an "Implement of Destruction."  Though it looks like it's form is fixed by rules, I might try to weasel it out as a mean looking iron claw or something.As for the basic change of having 3 items do fundamental math stuff, and the rest of the stuff be the fun stuff you often don't wear in favor of your buff gear, it sounds OK to me.  And no stat increasing item makes me happy from a rules standpoint  (they broke the game) but unhappy from a literary standpoint  (bye bye Thor's Belt of Giant Strength).</blockquote>

Verification