The new, shiny "Stuff I Have/Would Ban" thread!

brassbaboon

First Post
Also 5 levels higher and a consumable item, which means that over the course of even a single level it would cost more gold, require a minor action every combat (minor actions often being useful to rangers at the beginnings of combat), only applies to one weapon, etc. It's certainly a more effective option if you ignore those restrictions however.

Also stacks with a bracer item, and if you don't have IAoP to hedge out all competition in every secondary slot, they're still looking pretty darn good compared to nothing.

Arrows are consumable items. Encounter or daily items are also "consumable items" they just recharge for free. So what if it costs more gold if it is making your encounters more successful? That's the whole point of the game isn't it? What else are you going to spend your gold on? Sure, they are probably expensive for a lower level character, but by the time you get to level 8 or so, 100g isn't that big of an expense for an additional +2 over a fourteen round encounter. Of course that's all game play style. People are willing to pay 5,000 gold to upgrade to a +2 weapon, well, 5,000 gold will buy a whopping pile of whetstones. I'm not "ignoring" any restrictions, I'm making a cost/benefit analysis.

I had earlier made the point that there were two reasons people banned items. The first was that an item was "broken." I stated, and will state again, that if a +2 damage item "breaks" the game at level 8, the game is broken by definition. You're talking about adding a MAXIMUM of 4 damage to round when fighting enemies with hundreds of hit points. If a +2 item truly "breaks" the game, then the game is inherently broken to begin with.

It is the SECOND reason that items are banned that are the real issue here, and that reason is "everyone takes it because it is manifestly the only reasonable choice for your character." I believe I said it would amount to party malfeasance to not take it since nothing else was remotely as useful.

So all this arguing about how it's so much more powerful than the other items at that level is just silly. IT'S NOT BROKEN. THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM. The problem is that ALL THE OTHER STUFF IS VIRTUALLY USELESS IN COMPARISON. There's no compelling reason that every other arm slot item should be so pathetic in comparison. Not if the IAoP don't break the game. Since they DON'T break the game, then that means the other stuff is crap.

I think that's a pretty obvious statement.

Compared to other items in other slots, it is manifestly not overpowered. Cloaks of distortion give +5 to AC on ranged attacks more than 5 squares away. Gauntlets of blood give a +2 to bloodied targets. Bloodclaw weapons can give up to a +6 damage per hit.

They are MANIFESTLY NOT BROKEN. All the other armslot items are simply crap.

Or, to make the negative argument, if they ARE broken, then so is just about every other decent item in the game.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

keterys

First Post
Arrows are consumable items.

Of negligible cost.

Encounter or daily items are also "consumable items" they just recharge for free.
Well, costing time only :)

So what if it costs more gold if it is making your encounters more successful?
It only nets you more gold if it saves you gold in some other way, such as by not failing an encounter, or not dying. And either way, the whetstones still cost more, require a minor action, stack with the bracers, etc.

That's the whole point of the game isn't it? What else are you going to spend your gold on?
More items?

Sure, they are probably expensive for a lower level character, but by the time you get to level 8 or so, 100g isn't that big of an expense for an additional +2 over a fourteen round encounter. Of course that's all game play style. People are willing to pay 5,000 gold to upgrade to a +2 weapon, well, 5,000 gold will buy a whopping pile of whetstones. I'm not "ignoring" any restrictions, I'm making a cost/benefit analysis.
I've never had a 14 round encounter, and am a lot more used to 5, so in your case it would in fact be more valuable. Of course, if you spend 2000 gold and 20 minor actions on whetstones, you might have had another option. But it's really quite immaterial if the triggering condition is 'The DM gave us an item' since then you're comparing a single whetstone to the sell/disenchant value of the item (20% of a the value of a level 2) _obtained 6 levels later_... especially since you can use the item until you get something better, and then still sell it.

The first was that an item was "broken." I stated, and will state again, that if a +2 damage item "breaks" the game
Of course it doesn't break the game.

But nor would the game be broken if I decided that all barbarians deal +Level damage once per round and all fighters get +2*Level HP.

Made more unhealthy? Sure. That's a totally unnecessary change that gravitates play towards barbarians and fighters, unbalances encounters by a step (and every step adds up), etc.

In this particular case, the main thing it does is devalues all other magic items. To the point where you're openly scoffing at all other reasonable options because they don't measure up.

Very, very few things 'break' the game. But lots of stuff injure it.

It is the SECOND reason that items are banned that are the real issue here, and that reason is "everyone takes it because it is manifestly the only reasonable choice for your character." I believe I said it would amount to party malfeasance to not take it since nothing else was remotely as useful.
Yep, it degrades choice. Worse, it does so in a way that does not make the game more inherently interesting.

There's no compelling reason that every other arm slot item should be so pathetic in comparison.
Of course there is. Because the others ones all follow the standards of balance decided upon for the game.

Not if the IAoP don't break the game. Since they DON'T break the game, then that means the other stuff is crap.
If someone creates a class that is identical to the rogue in every single possible way, except it also deals an additional +1d8 per tier on all attacks, does it break the game?

Does that mean the rogue class is crap, and this new class is correct?

I think that's a pretty obvious statement.
Unfortunately, there are clear logical holes in your statement. If all of the items in the game were balanced equivalent with the IAoP then there'd be no reason for people to object to them.

Compared to other items in other slots, it is manifestly not overpowered. Cloaks of distortion give +5 to AC on ranged attacks more than 5 squares away. Gauntlets of blood give a +2 to bloodied targets. Bloodclaw weapons can give up to a +6 damage per hit.
1) Don't compare to primary slot items - they're intended to just be better. Compare a cloak of resistance to an ironskin belt, for instance.
2) Gauntlets of Blood are nowhere near as good as iron armbands of power. _And_ are in the previously mentioned upper 2% of items. As are cloaks of distortion and bloodclaw, of course.

They are MANIFESTLY NOT BROKEN. All the other armslot items are simply crap.
Which means that the balance point for armslot items is 'crap', and you have proven the armbands are overpowered for their slot and should not be allowed. Congratulations.

For most builds, the armbands of power (level 6) are more powerful than gauntlets of destruction (level 18). Are the gauntlets also crap?

It may not have been clear, but the objection isn't even with giving out a +2 bonus to damage necessarily. Several people against the armbands have said they'd be fine _giving that out for free instead_.
 
Last edited:

brassbaboon

First Post
Of negligible cost.

For most builds, the armbands of power (level 6) are more powerful than gauntlets of destruction (level 18). Are the gauntlets also crap?

It may not have been clear, but the objection isn't even with giving out a +2 bonus to damage necessarily. Several people against the armbands have said they'd be fine _giving that out for free instead_.

Look, I didn't invent the Iron Armbands of Power. Wizards did. If Wizards thinks they are a legitimate item, and they list them as comparable in value and cost to other items, then those items should be balanced.

They are not. This is manifestly obvious.

So the only FACT here is that the IAoP are obviously HUGELY superior to the other options Wizards has provided.

You seem to be arguing that Wizards should never have offered the IAoP. I am arguing that their other choices are ridiculously lame. The introduction of the IAoP did not "break" anything, it simply revealed how crappy the other options were.

To me this is a game balance issue that Wizards screwed up. I would rather all of their items were reasonably competitive with the IAoP, not that the IAoP were never created.

There is no way that I am the only person who has perused the magic items available in the Character Builder shop and has laughed out loud at how lame a HUGE NUMBER of these magic items are.

I suppose the original idea was that the designers didn't want to have magic items overpower encounter powers or feats. They also obviously wanted magic items to be common and easily created, modified or transferred.

But after awhile even they looked at what they had created and said "geez, these magic items suck. Let's at least make some magic items that people will actually be excited about using."

My personal opinion is that their main mistake was in deciding to make magic items so easily available in the first place. That more or less led them to create magic items that were lame BY DESIGN to avoid unbalancing the game. But even they eventually conceded that magic items should be rare and valuable things that provide a significant boost to a character's abilties. Magic items that are laughably lame don't do anything for the game but make people shake their heads and say "geez, OK, I guess an item that lets me add a 1d6 on every 20th attack roll is better than NOTHING, but geez..."

So the end result is what we have now. A few really nice magic items that people are excited about and a whole lot of "legacy" magic items that nobody in their right mind would take.

If it were me I'd completely revise magic items, make them rarer and more powerful.

My ninth level ranger has about ten magic items. He just went to the store and bought them. It's like a Super Walmart. My 14th level ranger in 3.5e had fewer magic items, but they were all VALUABLE and POWERFUL items. Most of them were EARNED because you couldn't just walk into a store in 3.5e and buy what you wanted, nor could your party wizard take a few minutes and some gold and create a +2 sword for you.

It is my opinion that 4e has truly screwed up magic items royally, and is now in a no-win situation.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
There's no compelling reason that every other arm slot item should be so pathetic in comparison.

I think the word "lame" is adequate and expresses it well enough... hence several people saying lets boost other items... but thats a lot of work to do it responsibly hence most saying its way more practical to ban the very useful non broken out lier :eek:
 

brassbaboon

First Post
Since I'm being so hard on the arm slot items, I feel I should point out that I think the designers actually did a fairly good job on magic weapons. There are a lot of interesting and comparable weapons to choose from, many of which fit well with particular character builds.

It appears to me that they gave a lot more thought to the weapon options. Some of the other slots are also not bad, such as the neck slot options. I sort of like that virtually all of the neck slot items provide a boost to Will, Reflex and Fortitude defense, plus some power or property that is also useful.

So I think they got SOME of it right. Or close enough anyway.
 

keterys

First Post
So the only FACT here is that the IAoP are obviously HUGELY superior to the other options Wizards has provided.

Exactly. So the options, roughly, are:

1) Leave them as is. Implement users are SOL compared to melee and archers in this regard. Also, there's no point to having any of the other arm item types. Even giving out level 10-15 arm items will be ignored compared to the level 6. That level 16 one, snapped up like hotcakes.
2) Replace or add other options to the game that are on par. This is a totally valid tactic, but as discussed above, one complicated by the degree of work required and the fact that we're talking about fairly literally 49 out of every 50 items.
3) Drop them from the game. Opens up the arm slot to other options, doesn't leave the warlock in the dust, and hey... it's just +2 damage, the lack of it isn't breaking the game. So poof, easiest option.

You seem to be arguing that Wizards should never have offered the IAoP. I am arguing that their other choices are ridiculously lame.
Both can be true, of course. Though I still am dubious that '+1d6 to all crits' and 'Reroll an attack' are ridiculously lame. Not very powerful, sure.

To me this is a game balance issue that Wizards screwed up. I would rather all of their items were reasonably competitive with the IAoP, not that the IAoP were never created.
In for a penny, in for a pound. They need to pick a spot on the scale and _try_. In the very same book, in the very same slot, very same level, there's an item that gives you +1d10 _once per day_ and one that gives +1d6 to OAs only. You think there was an actual plan involved in the IAoP?

There is no way that I am the only person who has perused the magic items available in the Character Builder shop and has laughed out loud at how lame a HUGE NUMBER of these magic items are.
By design.
Secondary Slots

These items don’t have enhancement bonuses. That makes them essentially optional. You could adventure with no items in your secondary item slots and not see a huge decrease in your overall power. Take what looks cool, but don’t worry about having empty slots.

You can dislike it. That's totally cool. You can update every single item they've put out to put them to a higher level of balance. That's wicked cool, and I'd love to see the result.

But it doesn't make you right. Nor the armbands.

But after awhile even they looked at what they had created and said "geez, these magic items suck. Let's at least make some magic items that people will actually be excited about using."
This would almost make sense, if it's what actually happened. What actually happened is there were some outliers in almost every single product put out. They're a few prominent ones in AV. There are a few more in AV2. But still the lion's share (or perhaps the dinosaur's share) follow the pattern.

My personal opinion is that their main mistake was in deciding to make magic items so easily available in the first place.
Maybe - but they decided back in 2000 with 3e to make magic items easy to obtain, and they've only continued that principle. At least now they have levels on items to constrain things and selling items is 20%, so it's actually more difficult than it was in the previous edition.

If it were me I'd completely revise magic items, make them rarer and more powerful.
A totally valid option. I played around with the concept myself. I even played around with trying to keep things balanced if someone did go a little hogwild - like have items all have reasonable but not earth shattering passive bonuses, and then one kickass item usage, and you get 1 item usage per tier per encounter. That way the guy with 1 item is a little behind the guy with 6, most particularly in terms of versatility, but they get equal opportunities to shine by smashing a guy through a wall with their shield of bashing or whatever.

But, it was a lot of work, and I realized it wouldn't go in the character builder. So instead I just give out a lot of magic items to my players. And they're happy for it. They love their Couters of Second Chances and Throwing Shields. Even though I didn't give them armbands of power.

My ninth level ranger has about ten magic items. He just went to the store and bought them. It's like a Super Walmart. My 14th level ranger in 3.5e had fewer magic items, but they were all VALUABLE and POWERFUL items. Most of them were EARNED because you couldn't just walk into a store in 3.5e and buy what you wanted, nor could your party wizard take a few minutes and some gold and create a +2 sword for you.
My 10th level 3.5e fighter had over three dozen items, including all manner of swift action gadgets, wands I bought solely to loan out to others in a pinch, maxed out AC gear, bonuses to three or four stats, etc. And I got them by traipsing down to a store and buying 'em all.

My 4e 10th fighter has 7 pieces of gear. I found 4 of them, and 3 of them are low level (1 6th, 2 2nd) and I bought those.

I did have a 10th-ish 3e monk once who got a... helm of crazy gems that gave fire resist 30 and exploded if it took fire damage and you could hurl off fireballs, walls of fire, prismatic sprays and stuff. Something like a 108,000gp item, straight from the DMG, probably intended for 16th-ish level characters and randomly found as treasure from a random encounter.

This isn't an edition thing, on getting treasure easy, even if you want to make it out to be.

It is my opinion that 4e has truly screwed up magic items royally, and is now in a no-win situation.
Was there ever a 'win' situation for magic items? People hate and love every way you can do it.
 

Bayuer

First Post
@brassbaboon
I don't understand one "gold rule" about WotC. What they do isn't always well designed. We have plenty of such a individual examples:
* Expertise feats - they said it's just temporary solution to fix the math
* Epic Will, For, Ref - they didn't said it's solution but if expertise is, then this is too
* Skill Challenges
* Minions, Solos, Elittes, Brutes and Swarms...
* Orb of Imposition and stacking of penalties
* Battlerager and Dual Strike got big nerf after one year! This is absurd.
* etc.

There are many things that will be broken, unbalanced or must-have, but you must open you mind and look at those bad designed items and make them work as intended (to be a choic, not a must-have). WotC will at some point make crucial changes, but I will not make a bet on that.

Bloodclaw, Reckless are very broken things, Righteous Rage of Tempus even after errata is broken, Cloak of Walking Wounded (I made it daily power), Cloak of Distortion (daily power again; used as minor action; work untile end of next turn). Iron Armbands etc. are now banned too.

What do I have now? Balance? Probably not, but I have arms slot free, no stupid RRoT and crit combo, no huge dmg outstandin strikers becouse of bloodclaw, reckless and hundreds of items that are at almost the same balance level. My game is better now. Changing 1,000 items to be as good as 10 items isn't simplest way of making things better. It is going into mountains with big rock over you neck and saying there's nothing wrong with this rock, just change the freakin' mountains! :)

Cheers!
 
Last edited:


Bayuer

First Post
Interesting that Walking Wounded made your list. Just cause of dwarves...?
No, but dwarves have huge adventage when they use this item.

CoWW give you ability to heal= 1/2 of your hp. And you can do it every encounter. It's standard action for many characters but still gaing +1/2 of your max hp with one standard action every encounter makes many fights not challenging at all. Dwarves have even better times with this item. And ther is no other item that give so much healing and can be used every encounter.

Dwarven Armor is Daily. It's strong but as a Daily power it won't be used when really need or in final battle. CoWW is far more superior than this item. Making it daily left it still very solid choice for Dwarves, but overall just optional item for everyone.
 

keterys

First Post
Dwarven Armor is actually a lot better than walking wounded in my experience. It's rare people are willing to burn an action to second wind at all, but a free action that you can trigger as you're about to fall down, doesn't cost a surge, that also gives you a bonus to Endurance? Dwarven Armor is reeeeally good. Walking Wounded on a non-dwarf is just something that would make me think about second winding, maybe.

But, I'm also used to clerics and warlords healing people for half with any old heal, I suppose.
 

Bayuer

First Post
Dwarven armor only heals 1/4 of you overall hp (once per extended rest), while CoWW give you +1/2 of overall hp every encounter. While you can argue that this is free action compared to standard, still standard and +1/2hp every fight is better than +1/4hp as free once per day... For dwarves it's even stronger. As a Daily this item is optional for people who like to be survivor guy. Dwarves will not have huge adventage when using this item too.
 
Last edited:

brassbaboon

First Post
You guys aren't understanding me. I'm the one saying that the IAoP and similar items AREN'T broken.

Let's do a little ranger math. Most encounters are designed for appropriately built strikers to hit 60% of the time. That means the IAoP are adding 2.4 damage per round, max, unless you use an action point, or some minor attack power or something, when it can get as high as 6 damage per round, but that would be no more than once per encounter and use a bunch of encounter powers at least.

Let's say you are fighting an elite solo with 400 hit points. Let's say three melee attackers have the IAoP, but that the other two aren't rangers, so are only getting 1.2 extra damage per round, meaning a total of 4.8 damage per round.

Let's say the encounter would last 7 rounds without the IAoP. That would mean an average damage of just more than 57 per round. With the IAoP in seven rounds you would add 33.6 total damage, which, since it isn't a full rounds worth of damage, means that the fight would take EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF ROUNDS. And that's with THREE of them on different party members. At best it will reduce the odd fight by a round.

Based on my experience in combat in 4e, with the incredible overhead of tracking all the different save ends, ends on next turn effects (We've had seven or eight foam circles under one miniature to track all the effects on it), that means instead of a 45 minute fight, it's a 40 minute fight, giving five more minutes to actually role play.

If I were to start a list of "problems with 4e" I would put "combat takes FOREVER" right near the top of that list. So anything that reduces the number of rounds I'm probably going to be OK with.

But, the point is THEY AREN'T BROKEN. So those of you banning them are banning a PERFECTLY LEVEL APPROPRIATE ITEM, not because it damages game play, but because you don't like them. And you don't like them because you think they get picked too often by players.

That strikes me as an odd reason to ban an item.

I would argue that other items are only "broken" if you interpret them too broadly. The reckless gloves, for example. I would simply rule that you can't use them with another weapon. Period. I don't believe they were designed that way, and it doesn't make SENSE to me that you can gain the benefits of the glove in an attack unless YOU ATTACK WITH THE GLOVES. Problem solved.

Bloodclaw is only "broken" when you allow double weapons to be treated as two handed weapons. This takes the x3 damage intended for TWO HANDED use and applies it to double weapon use, allowing rangers to get it TWICE in one round. That's just wrong. I wouldn't allow it. Double weapon use does not mean two handed weapon use. I would rule that you can't simultaneously gain the advantage of an off-hand weapon and the advantage of two handed attacks. If you have a spiked chain and you use it two handed, you aren't dual-wielding anymore. If you are dual-wielding, then you aren't using both hands in one attack. Duh.

Anyway, this won't get resolved here. I do think Wizards made a terrible error in how they created magic items in 4e. Not just in their crazily wide range of powers for supposedly equally valuable items, but the whole encounter and daily power stuff just makes the game more complex and confusing and MAKES NO SENSE. Why in the name of all that is holy would one magic item's use suddenly make another magic item unusable? That's just plain nuts.

I know WHY the game designers did what they did, but I think the whole magic item mechanic is totally, and probably unfixably, screwed.

That doesn't mean I won't play the game. There were parts of the 3.5e game mechanic that were totally, unfixably, screwed (grapple, anyone?).

But that doesn't mean I won't acknowledge that that part of the game is totally bolluxed up. It is.
 
Last edited:

Bayuer

First Post
Anyway, this won't get resolved here. I do think Wizards made a terrible error in how they created magic items in 4e. Not just in their crazily wide range of powers for supposedly equally valuable items, but the whole encounter and daily power stuff just makes the game more complex and confusing and MAKES NO SENSE. Why in the name of all that is holy would one magic item's use suddenly make another magic item unusable? That's just plain nuts.
The problem lays not in daily item powers but with items that gives constant benefits becouse of they property. When you make a Daily item power that add +5 dmg to single damage roll and then you put an item that grants constant +2 bonus to dmg to every attack, what option is better?

IAoP shouldn't existest at all as property. It should be encounter power adding +2 to dmg and then it will be in pair with other items that add damage to your powers. +1 from feat to every attack; +2 to dmg once every encounter; +5 to dmg once per day. Isn't it better balanced?
 
Last edited:

FireLance

Legend
Bloodclaw is only "broken" when you allow double weapons to be treated as two handed weapons. This takes the x3 damage intended for TWO HANDED use and applies it to double weapon use, allowing rangers to get it TWICE in one round. That's just wrong. I wouldn't allow it. Double weapon use does not mean two handed weapon use. I would rule that you can't simultaneously gain the advantage of an off-hand weapon and the advantage of two handed attacks. If you have a spiked chain and you use it two handed, you aren't dual-wielding anymore. If you are dual-wielding, then you aren't using both hands in one attack. Duh.
It's also arguable that since you don't benefit from the properties of a magic double weapon when you attack with off hand end, you shouldn't be able to use the powers of a magic double weapon when you attack with the off hand end, either. With this interpretation, you're back to a Bloodclaw double weapon being not much better than a two-handed one.
 

FireLance

Legend
Let's do a little ranger math. Most encounters are designed for appropriately built strikers to hit 60% of the time. That means the IAoP are adding 2.4 damage per round, max, unless you use an action point, or some minor attack power or something, when it can get as high as 6 damage per round, but that would be no more than once per encounter and use a bunch of encounter powers at least.

Let's say you are fighting an elite solo with 400 hit points. Let's say three melee attackers have the IAoP, but that the other two aren't rangers, so are only getting 1.2 extra damage per round, meaning a total of 4.8 damage per round.

Let's say the encounter would last 7 rounds without the IAoP. That would mean an average damage of just more than 57 per round. With the IAoP in seven rounds you would add 33.6 total damage, which, since it isn't a full rounds worth of damage, means that the fight would take EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF ROUNDS. And that's with THREE of them on different party members. At best it will reduce the odd fight by a round.
While I do appreciate your argument, and it is something that I have suspected, i.e. iron armbands of power make the users feel good when they roll damage but have little impact overall on the outcome of a fight, there are too many assumptions above for this to be a useful analysis.
 

keterys

First Post
You guys aren't understanding me. I'm the one saying that the IAoP and similar items AREN'T broken.

I agree. It's not broken.

PERFECTLY LEVEL APPROPRIATE ITEM
Ahh, but you're wrong. It's absolutely not a level appropriate item. That is factually proven in this thread. You've even said so yourself.

But, again, there is a totally reasonable option to make it level appropriate by changing the 98% or whatever other items you need to in order to bring things up to par.

It's just a lot of work.

And not really appropriate for a thread about _banning_.

Though I still think just giving the benefit out for free and removing it is more effective. Still leaves you an item slot people can do something with. Still leaves you with the damage output you feel entitled to. And hey, you're _more_ effective because you got the bonus and another item.

The only thing I don't like is it furthers the gap between multi attacks and single attacks, but that's more a pet peeve than anything else. Storm of Blades away and all that.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
The only thing I don't like is it furthers the gap between multi attacks and single attacks, but that's more a pet peeve than anything else. Storm of Blades away and all that.

well it seems easier if you are giving something out more generally.. to tweak it.

for instance when Bloodclaw becomes Heroic over exertion / Heroic Sacrefice / Heroic Pushing you can choose to define it as payment per damage roll that is boosted.
 
Last edited:

Dr_Ruminahui

First Post
I would think dwarven armour is better - its a free action and a free surge. Sure its just once a day, but how many times a day does a given player need to use the cloak of the walking wounded?

Additionally, the armour also boosts endurance checks, though admittedly that's a "secoundary" ability.

So, for me the cloak doesn't push any buttons - its good and one of the better cloaks (I also like cloak of the mountebank), but I don't think its overshadowingly good. Your milleage obviously varies from mine, though .
 

Obryn

Hero
You guys aren't understanding me. I'm the one saying that the IAoP and similar items AREN'T broken.
No, I understand it perfectly well. Of course it's not unbalancing. It's boring. Far, far more boring than the other arm slot items, crappy benefits or no.

But, the point is THEY AREN'T BROKEN. So those of you banning them are banning a PERFECTLY LEVEL APPROPRIATE ITEM, not because it damages game play, but because you don't like them. And you don't like them because you think they get picked too often by players.

That strikes me as an odd reason to ban an item.
You mentioned above that your 3.5 game didn't have magic item shops, but your 4e game does. In both cases, those are campaign decisions - driven not by the limitations or offerings of the game, but by the DM's choice of what elements to include in their game. It's not an edition thing - it's a campaign thing, and you could have magic item shops in every edition from 1e to 4e - just like you could say there aren't any.

This is really no different. It's a choice made for campaign flavor.

I think the Iron Armbands are ridiculously boring. That's my prerogative as the DM. Even the armbands that only give bonuses to damage bloodied enemies are more interesting, since there are circumstances where you would rather have another item. You say they're not brokenly overpowered? I agree. But that really, really misses the point.

-O
 

abyssaldeath

First Post
I think the Iron Armbands are ridiculously boring. That's my prerogative as the DM.
-O

This is the argument that I don't understand. Why do you think that as the DM you get to decide what is fun for the players. Some people enjoy a constant bonus to damage way more then a daily power magic item. Why is it that because you think it's boring that overrides what your players might think about it, especially when you agree it's not overpowered?
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top