Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living Eberron
[Proposal] New Magic Weapon
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="stonegod" data-source="post: 5198437" data-attributes="member: 36973"><p>Thanks for the feedback. My responses are below.</p><p>r1 has countered this one. More items are going to introduced, just as more powers and feats are going to be. Of course, it is in WotC's best interest to do so, but may/may not be in ours.</p><p>I actually checked before. There are several mace->rod items (or rod->mace items) already. Most are paragon or higher except for the ones for divine characters; the ones not at heroic are mostly arcane (warlock & artificer specifically).</p><p>I am using WotC's own items here as the basis for the creation which (other than discussions like this or on the CharOp board) are our balance indicators. </p><p></p><p>As a comparison: There are 0 cleric, 7 avenger, and 1 paladin power that benefit from the unforgiving cudgel (there are 2 invoker powers that would, except they don't get holy symbols). There is only 1 artificer power that benefits, 1 warlock, and 0 wizard powers. Swordmages can benefit 3 of their powers and sorcerer's 9 if they take a feat. Thus, artificers and warlocks are not actually gaining all that much from the critical part, though the 1 artificer power at-will.</p><p></p><p>One could address the perceived crit balance issue by (1) limiting it to artificers only or (2) removing the crit. I'm not opposed to 2, but then it becomes a less powerful "pact-dagger" like weapon and thus should be at a lower level.</p><p>It doesn't work with Blade Channeling. You are correct that it does work via hybridization, something I did not foresee. This makes the arguments for either of my revision's stronger which I am comfortable with. This is why we have these discussion here.</p><p>And the designer add new ones all the time (the recent addition of crossbows to artificers via a feat). If we are never to add anything, then the proposal system becomes questionable (see below).</p><p>Then that raises the question of "what is the proposal system for?" If we accept (which I do not, but I will for the sake of argument) that adding to the system will inherently unbalance it, than the proposal system is moot other than for removing things (which also could also be argued against for balance reasons) or changing LEB's charter. Are you suggesting that we remove the 2/3rds of the proposal system entirely?</p><p></p><p>The proposal system has been put into place to allow and encourage these sorts of customizations. It is also in place to make sure that any such customization does not overpower said characters (as there are methods to correct for this as well via the proposal system). I understand the school of thought that suggests "RAW only"; I subscribe to it at large but not 100% as that leaves less room for creativity in designing powers/items/feats for individual campaigns.</p><p></p><p>The main thing to keep in mind when the proposal system is being used this way (as it was intended) is to make sure that the proposed item does not grant something that makes the Living system as a whole unbalanced as you pointed out. I want to repeat that where are methods for correcting such imbalanced: Its the proposal system itself. Anyone can propose an option be corrected if it is too powerful.</p><p></p><p>In any case, I cannot vote on this proposal, of course. If the judges vote this down, they vote it down. If they vote to accept, then anyone (even KD) can propose to remove it later if it appears too powerful.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stonegod, post: 5198437, member: 36973"] Thanks for the feedback. My responses are below. r1 has countered this one. More items are going to introduced, just as more powers and feats are going to be. Of course, it is in WotC's best interest to do so, but may/may not be in ours. I actually checked before. There are several mace->rod items (or rod->mace items) already. Most are paragon or higher except for the ones for divine characters; the ones not at heroic are mostly arcane (warlock & artificer specifically). I am using WotC's own items here as the basis for the creation which (other than discussions like this or on the CharOp board) are our balance indicators. As a comparison: There are 0 cleric, 7 avenger, and 1 paladin power that benefit from the unforgiving cudgel (there are 2 invoker powers that would, except they don't get holy symbols). There is only 1 artificer power that benefits, 1 warlock, and 0 wizard powers. Swordmages can benefit 3 of their powers and sorcerer's 9 if they take a feat. Thus, artificers and warlocks are not actually gaining all that much from the critical part, though the 1 artificer power at-will. One could address the perceived crit balance issue by (1) limiting it to artificers only or (2) removing the crit. I'm not opposed to 2, but then it becomes a less powerful "pact-dagger" like weapon and thus should be at a lower level. It doesn't work with Blade Channeling. You are correct that it does work via hybridization, something I did not foresee. This makes the arguments for either of my revision's stronger which I am comfortable with. This is why we have these discussion here. And the designer add new ones all the time (the recent addition of crossbows to artificers via a feat). If we are never to add anything, then the proposal system becomes questionable (see below). Then that raises the question of "what is the proposal system for?" If we accept (which I do not, but I will for the sake of argument) that adding to the system will inherently unbalance it, than the proposal system is moot other than for removing things (which also could also be argued against for balance reasons) or changing LEB's charter. Are you suggesting that we remove the 2/3rds of the proposal system entirely? The proposal system has been put into place to allow and encourage these sorts of customizations. It is also in place to make sure that any such customization does not overpower said characters (as there are methods to correct for this as well via the proposal system). I understand the school of thought that suggests "RAW only"; I subscribe to it at large but not 100% as that leaves less room for creativity in designing powers/items/feats for individual campaigns. The main thing to keep in mind when the proposal system is being used this way (as it was intended) is to make sure that the proposed item does not grant something that makes the Living system as a whole unbalanced as you pointed out. I want to repeat that where are methods for correcting such imbalanced: Its the proposal system itself. Anyone can propose an option be corrected if it is too powerful. In any case, I cannot vote on this proposal, of course. If the judges vote this down, they vote it down. If they vote to accept, then anyone (even KD) can propose to remove it later if it appears too powerful. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living Eberron
[Proposal] New Magic Weapon
Top