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

[keterys]

Definitely an option - wouldn't it make sense to address every item slot at that point, though? Ie, gloves, head, arms, waist, feet, rings?

Back when I had my Tier item uses per encounter theory, I threw some things together, like:

Shield of Protection
Property: Increase the penalty you inflict by marking to -4 when an enemy attacks an ally adjacent to you.
Power (Item): Standard Action. You and an adjacent ally gain resist 10 to all damage until the end of your next turn.

Gloves of Piercing
Property: Your attacks ignore any resistance of 5 or less.
Power (Item): Free Action. Use when you hit with an attack. This attack bypasses any resistance (but not immunity) of its targets.

Level 5 -
Bashing Shield
Property: When you bull rush, you gain a +2 item bonus to the attack roll, deal Strength damage, and push the target 2 squares.
Power (Item): Free Action. Use this power when you hit an enemy with a melee attack. Push the enemy 1d4 squares after applying the attack's effects.

Gauntlets of Ogre Power
Property: Your weight limits for encumbrance are doubled. Increase both the normal and long range for heavy thrown weapons by 2.
Power (Item): Free Action. Use this power when you hit with a melee attack. Add a +5 power bonus to the damage roll and push the target 1 square.

Level 7 -
Bracers of Defense
Property: As long as one of your hands is free, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC and Reflex.
Power (Item): Immediate Interrupt. You can use this power when you are hit by a melee or ranged attack. Reduce the damage dealt to you by the attack by 10.

Not sure they really compare that well to +2 to damage to all atacks, though. Nor all that sure I'd want to keep pumping them even further.

 

[brassbaboon]

Heh, for whoever it was that suggested a discussion of the power of an item is not on topic for a thread about banning items, I can only say "wtf?" Isn't that the whole point of putting something on a banned list? How is it off topic to say "hmmm. you want to ban this, based on its power, I don't get that?"

For those of you who think it is your "perogative" as a DM to ban things YOU find unfun, with no regard to what the PLAYERS find fun, I would suggest that you might be misinterpreting the FUNDAMENTAL responsibility of the DM role. Hint: It's not about YOU.

Sure, I understand there are lots of opinions on this subject. I think I understand most of them (outside of "I'm the DM, I get to decide what is fun for my players.") I just fundamentally don't agree with the "I ban them because they are boring" argument. If the item bored the PLAYER, they wouldn't pick them. I think that's a sort of self-evident statement.

I do find it interesting to hear the argument that magic items should be very limited in power because that makes the game more interesting and provides for better balance and more "options" for the players. From looking at the magic items Wizards created, I would have to say there is a powerful argument to be made that Wizards intentionally nerfed magic items for precisely that reason. But for some reason they slipped some reasonably powerful items into the mix. It should have been obvious to them and their play testers that doing so would make all their hard work in creating magic items with "interesting" but weak daily powers instantly obsolete, or else lead to DMs simply banning the new items. Again, I see this as a failure of the game design team, not the players or even the DMs.

I can even appreciate the argument that the game is more "interesting" if three melee strikers each have armbands with encounter or daily abilities that give a limited but situationally useful boost so that one might add a 1d6 to an attack, another might make their attack electric and a third might get to shift as part of an attack. You could argue that such items provide opportunities for players to have to think tactically.

That's all fine. My immediate argument back is that there is no reason the magic items can't do that AND be reasonably powerful.

When you are at level 9 fighting solo monsters with 400 hit points, a set of arm bracers which provide a single daily or even encounter +1d6 to damage aren't "interesting," they are "asinine." If I were the enemy I'd laugh in the striker's face. "Ooohhh 3.5 more damage on your attack. I'm so scared!"

This is why I think magic items are irredeemably screwed in 4e. They don't really "fit" into the whole 4e paradigm, which is built really around encounter and daily powers. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I have to come clean here and say I think the whole at-will, encounter and daily power mechanic is completely ridiculous and arbitrary, but that's what drives the game now).

The trap Wizards is in with magic items is that they have "balanced" the game so precariously on the at-will, encounter and daily powers, along with the extremely limited sorts of feats (feats have their own problems, but that's for another thread I suppose), that introducing magic items at all creates a monstrous game mechanic problem.

No matter what you do, if magic items have any real impact on the game whatsoever, that precarious balance you created is instantly unbalanced. I have no doubt that the game designers went to great pains to create mathematical models for all the classes and all their powers to balance them as well as they could. Not only against each other, but against the monsters you fight as well.

So since a POWERFUL feat is one that grants a +1 to something (attack, damage, attribute, etc), then any magic items that provides even a +1 to something is instantly as powerful as a feat! OMG! So now what do you do? Well, you have to create magic items that aren't that powerful, so you create one-shot magic items which do daily effects. But OMG! Now you've given a character another daily power! That totally unbalances things! So you have to nerf even that. But what does that do? OMG! Now you've added another encounter power!...

No matter what your magic item does, it screws your game balance all up.

My guess is that this issue was a major bone of contention with the game designers, where people fell into camps, and those camps were probably the same camps you see in the players. There was the "make them powerful but rare and expensive camp" and the "make them as interesting as possible, but keep them limited" camp, and there was no doubt the "Crap, we screwed this up and there's nothing we can do about it now, so we should just make some that are fun" camp.

As I said, I think the whole mechanic is screwed up and the reason magic items look so bad is because they expose the fundamental underlying faults in the overall game design. The idea that a simple set of bracers that give a +2 to damage on an attack could lead to this sort of hand-wringing and arguing is just obvious proof of the fundamental fragility of the system.

ESPECIALLY when you realize that a major component of Wizard's marketing scheme is to constantly release new content with new magic items. It was INEVITABLE that the system would start unraveling. I would be willing to bet that there are huge battles inside Wizards where some of the game designers are saying "You're breaking the game just to sell more books!" While the marketing team is yelling back "You were supposed to create a system that was DESIGNED to allow us to sell more books full of magic items!"

I'll continue to play 4e because I more or less have to. But if you don't realize that a game which can't handle the introduction of a magic item that demonstrably doesn't even affect the outcome of a single encounter significantly is a game which is fundamentally unsound, well, I'm not sure what to say.

I would never have released this version. As soon as I saw it my immediate reaction was "those idiots have created an unmanageable, unscalable system that will break itself."

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

That's really here nor there honestly. The point is, just because you don't find something fun, doesn't mean it's a good idea to not allow your players to have it. There's no logic in that.

The logic is that it is the DM's job to create an enjoyable gaming experience for the party as a whole. If the DM thinks removing something makes the game more enjoyable for his party, he is fully within his right to remove it. The DMG2 makes this clear.

Of course, he shouldn't be making decisions that run counter to what the party as a whole feels is fun. That however doesn't change the logic that a DM should make changes that improve the fun of the game.

And the issue isn't whether the DM himself likes playing with a particular option, but whether he thinks said option is a good thing for his game. So, its not whether the DM thinks playing a fighter is boring, but whether having fighters in his game makes the game more boring for the majority of the players. If the DM finds the later, then the DM certainly can ban them.

 

[Obryn]

That's really here nor there honestly. The point is, just because you don't find something fun, doesn't mean it's a good idea to not allow your players to have it. There's no logic in that.

No, but I fail to see the logic in allowing everything in every WotC book, either. I also won't allow every third-party sourcebook, or automatically accept custom items that other DMs created for their own games. Being in a WotC book isn't a magic circle of perfection. I need to make the call as a DM as to what will or won't improve the game as a whole.

This isn't a question about logic - it's a question about flavor. And, frankly, if someone's character concept depends on Iron Armbands and won't work without them, it's a wacky concept, indeed. If a player's fun is severely impaired by not having access to this very short list of items, their definition of fun is likely too narrow for my table.

-O

 

[brassbaboon]

No, but I fail to see the logic in allowing everything in every WotC book, either. I also won't allow every third-party sourcebook, or automatically accept custom items that other DMs created for their own games. Being in a WotC book isn't a magic circle of perfection. I need to make the call as a DM as to what will or won't improve the game as a whole.

This isn't a question about logic - it's a question about flavor. And, frankly, if someone's character concept depends on Iron Armbands and won't work without them, it's a wacky concept, indeed. If a player's fun is severely impaired by not having access to this very short list of items, their definition of fun is likely too narrow for my table.

-O

Hmm... so what if the character's concept depends on executioner's axe? Or dual bastard swords? The whole point of those concept choices is that the character does more damage than with other weapons. How is that logically different than IAoP? "OK, I'm banning IAoP because they do more damage per attack, but I accept Executioner's Axe which does exactly the same thing." Huh?

Where does this logic stop? Only at IAoP? If so, then why? What is so offensive about IAoP that you ban them for doing the same thing as a brutal d12 axe?

 

[Garthanos]

But if you don't realize that a game which can't handle the introduction of a magic item that demonstrably doesn't even affect the outcome of a single encounter significantly is a game which is fundamentally unsound, well, I'm not sure what to say.

I so rarely use magic items exactly as written in my game (in any edition) that I find using wow people complain about the balance and over usefulness of this or that item as an excuse to edition bash ridiculous in extreme. When people complain about minor things ... umm that usually means their are far fewer big things to complain about, it doesnt mean the game is fragile.

And obsidian firebrand sword in my game causes ongoing damage as a secondary attack without increasing to hit ... but it does increase the chances of a critical, it also requires arcana skill to ignite it.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Its because the IAoP invalidate all other arm slot options. Which the executioner's axe doesn't do - even if a player only uses an EA, that still leaves a broad range of enchantments that can be put on said axe.

Though, I can't see how you can have read the last few pages of this thread and missed that the issue that folks have with the IAoP isn't that they add damage, but that they make all of the other arm slot items non-choices.

 

[Obryn]

For those of you who think it is your "perogative" as a DM to ban things YOU find unfun, with no regard to what the PLAYERS find fun, I would suggest that you might be misinterpreting the FUNDAMENTAL responsibility of the DM role. Hint: It's not about YOU.

Actually, it is, partly, about me. I love DMing. I enjoy bringing stuff to the table every week and creating an enjoyable play experience for my players. But my fun is important, too.

I don't like to ban character concepts, so I don't. You'll never see me ban a race or a class. If something doesn't exist, I'll work with my players to make it exist. If my homebrew world doesn't usually have devas, but someone wants to play a deva, I'll make it work so they can play a deva. I have limits, though, and I resent the implication that limiting some minor items which are either impossibly broken (Grasp of the Grave) or extremely dull (Iron Armbands) is a sign that I don't give a crap about my players' fun and I'm somehow neglecting my fundamental DMing responsibilties.

I'm not going to argue that players' fun is critical. It's what I strive for. But just as I can't have an over-narrow version of fun, neither should my players. My fun ends where Grasp of the Grave, RRoT, and Iron Armbands begin. If my players can't meet me past that, then they are the ones who don't understand what "collaborative play experience" means.

I'll continue to play 4e because I more or less have to. But if you don't realize that a game which can't handle the introduction of a magic item that demonstrably doesn't even affect the outcome of a single encounter significantly is a game which is fundamentally unsound, well, I'm not sure what to say.

And how does banning an item destroy that fundamental balance? Nothing you're writing above gives any positive reason to include it.

In fact, by your argument, you're saying, "Well, it clearly makes no difference in fights!" I don't think your conclusion follows at all from your premises, unless you also include the premise that everything WotC writes is special and perfect, and adds to the game experience by its simple existence.

-O

 

[keterys]

If the item bored the PLAYER, they wouldn't pick them. I think that's a sort of self-evident statement.

And an incorrect one.

I do find it interesting to hear the argument that magic items should be very limited in power because that makes the game more interesting and provides for better balance and more "options" for the players. From looking at the magic items Wizards created, I would have to say there is a powerful argument to be made that Wizards intentionally nerfed magic items for precisely that reason. But for some reason they slipped some reasonably powerful items into the mix. It should have been obvious to them and their play testers that doing so would make all their hard work in creating magic items with "interesting" but weak daily powers instantly obsolete, or else lead to DMs simply banning the new items. Again, I see this as a failure of the game design team, not the players or even the DMs.

Yep. It's actually a lot more complex than you might think - for example, things have many spots to get screwed up and there's limited staff, so a lot of things like items in Adventurer's Vault come from freelancers, get inadequate testing, aren't read by key people, etc. Every single product has a slight amount of slippage, whether it's Rain of Blows, Blade Cascade, Battleragers, Righteous Rage of Tempus, or what.

I can even appreciate the argument that the game is more "interesting" if three melee strikers each have armbands with encounter or daily abilities that give a limited but situationally useful boost so that one might add a 1d6 to an attack, another might make their attack electric and a third might get to shift as part of an attack. You could argue that such items provide opportunities for players to have to think tactically.

Well, even ignoring what they end up, the _first_ interesting part is that you're able to give out different arm treasure at all. As it currently stands, from level 6 through 15 you may as well not give out any arms items at all, until you get up to that next tier of armband. The more item slots that happens for, the less interesting treasure the DM can give out. Now, there's certainly plenty of cool weapons and armors to give out... but again, it's not like this one item _breaks_ the game, it just _harms_ the game.

That's all fine. My immediate argument back is that there is no reason the magic items can't do that AND be reasonably powerful.

Of course they can. They just didn't do that. On purpose. I imagine that if they'd gone that route we'd instead be arguing about a different item that gave +6 to damage, when we already had the perfectly decent baseline of a bracer giving +2 to damage and a 1/enc kickass bull rush, or whatever.

After all, it's just +6 to damage (or +4 relative), that's not exactly going to break the game!

In the spirit of full disclosure, I have to come clean here and say I think the whole at-will, encounter and daily power mechanic is completely ridiculous and arbitrary

Has it ever occurred to you that if you dislike many of the base principles of the game, dislike the entire principle of item balance, etc... that perhaps your views would be better served _not_ in a thread by those looking for what items don't fit within those base principles? Perhaps they'd be best served in the house rules campaigning for a lot more cool items? I know I've seen those threads before and they're often interesting.

Or perhaps in a different thread of which are the best and most optimal items that have been published, where armbands can be championed as a good example thereof?

So since a POWERFUL feat is one that grants a +1 to something (attack, damage, attribute, etc), then any magic items that provides even a +1 to something is instantly as powerful as a feat!

Indeed. And since you ten or so slots to fill and three tiers, that's not a bad benchmark to at least begin to compare things. After all, at 10 * 3 = 30 you're already twice as powerful as feats.

So now what do you do? Well, you have to create magic items that aren't that powerful, so you create one-shot magic items which do daily effects.

That is _one_ option - the other option is to have daily effects of decent power, encounter effects of lower power than that, and persistent effects (properties) of even lower value. For example, things like +1d6 damage to all opportunity attacks and charges. Or Gloves of Giantkind that let you throw things in a decent way and let you get a bonus to damage each encounter. Or Luckbender's that let you reroll damage once per encounter. There's a lot more options than one crappy power once a day.

Now you've given a character another daily power! That totally unbalances things!

That's a fallacy, of course... it's entirely possible to have reasonable daily powers that don't suck. For example a 1/day attack reroll and 1/day free healing surge.

No matter what your magic item does, it screws your game balance all up.

No, because balance is set by an intended standard. The problem with the armbands isn't that they break the game, it's that they're so much better than everything else. If everything else were as good, there'd be no problem at all.

As I said, I think the whole mechanic is screwed up and the reason magic items look so bad is because they expose the fundamental underlying faults in the overall game design. The idea that a simple set of bracers that give a +2 to damage on an attack could lead to this sort of hand-wringing and arguing is just obvious proof of the fundamental fragility of the system.

It's actually a lot more dealable than that. From a game design standpoint, it's really not that hard to make logical decisions on where you want things to be to get how much audience or have other effects, and keep things within rough guideposts. Of course, the more product you put out, the harder it is to police that material, and some things slip through. And then you can consider errata, but errata is something you generally reserve only for the furthest and most damaging outliers.

But if you don't realize that a game which can't handle the introduction of a magic item that demonstrably doesn't even affect the outcome of a single encounter significantly is a game which is fundamentally unsound, well, I'm not sure what to say.

You don't really like how magic items work in this system and you don't really like or fully understand how they balance, so an attempt to rectify things to work with the established system doesn't sit well with you. If the entire game changed to add items that did fit that center of balance, it would make you happier.

It's just not what this thread is about.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

That's really here nor there honestly. The point is, just because you don't find something fun, doesn't mean it's a good idea to not allow your players to have it. There's no logic in that.

If you know that every one of your players like items that grant unconditional bonuses, then you're right: a DM has little reason to ban unconditional bonuses just because he thinks they're boring. Heck, if he were an excellent DM he'd turn every single option in the game into some kind of unconditional bonus because that would be more fun for his players. (An implement equivalent of IABoP, all powers only grant attack bonuses and/or deal damage, stackable feats, etc.)

But if just one player thinks that unconditional bonuses are boring, that player has to choose between being more effective (using unconditional bonuses) or having more fun (using other stuff). In turn, the DM has a relevant decision to make: to cater to the player/s who like 'em, or to cater to the player/s who don't like 'em. Either way, the game is going to be less fun for someone.

Finally, considering that the DM is a player who wants to have fun too, yes a DM is justified in banning stuff just because he thinks it's boring. I know I don't want to GM a lot of game options/types just because I think they're boring; does that make me a selfish/petty/bad GM?