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

[Obryn]

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?

Dr_Ruminahui nailed it in his post, and I think you've completely missed my point. There's no problem with wanting to do more damage. I'd argue that superior weapons like the Executioner's Axe are a perfect example of an important player choice.

(1) It takes a feat to use, so there's a real character cost.
(2) There are other equally valid options at the same tier - fullblades and mordenkrads - which have their own features. (Or bastard swords vs. craghammers vs. dwarven waraxes, for that matter.)
(3) Whether an Executioner's Axe proficiency is better than other options depends on the specific character, their power selection, and so on.

Iron Armbands/Bracers of Archery fit none of these categories for any weapon-users. It's essentially free for any mid-heroic character, and there are no other equally valid options for the arm slot.

-O

 

[Garthanos]

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:

Ah.. 3 uses at Epic one 1 heroic eh... intriguing.

I think one step at a time on the slots ;-). I think armbands of power have a certain amount of D&D heritage going on as do shields having real umph (if your secondary weapon or implement has oomph so should the shield right)

 

[brassbaboon]

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.

LOL, then you obviously haven't been reading the last few pages either because I've directly addressed that multiple times.

I am sympathetic to the approach of making all armslot items give a damage bonus, like all neck slot items give a bonus to fort, reflex and will. That way all those options you want will all open up, and the items won't be insanely underpowered.

So why not do that instead of ban the only decent item?

Also, I still think that encounters take way too freaking long, so allowing items that potentially reduce the battle time is, to me, increasing the fun of the game.

 

[brassbaboon]

LOL, in my opinion to point out that people are banning items because of a fundamental flaw in the game design is a perfectly on topic response in a thread about banning items.

 

[Obryn]

So why not do that instead of ban the only decent item?

What would the game gain from that? Honestly?

All you're doing in that case is changing the baseline. "Now everyone does +x damage!" You're basically changing the entire balance of the game based on a single item.

I don't think the other arm slot items are crappy. They're an additional, small boost that you can choose from. While they might not rock the world, I don't see any argument as to why they should.

Take, for example, the items that give you +2 to damage on basic attacks. I haven't banned them. Why? Because it adds another meaningful choice to attacks. It basically gives you another at-will option, at a low cost. Now, if your fighter has Dual Strike and Footwork Lure, you might want to use a Basic Attack for the damage boost in circumstances where neither of those is helpful. Or, the similar bracers which only work against bloodied foes. Now, you have a meaningful choice when an enemy out of striking distance becomes bloodied. Is it worth going over there to get your bonus? It's another decision tree that can influence your tactical decisions as a player.

-O

 

[Garthanos]

I am sympathetic to the approach of making all armslot items give a damage bonus, like all neck slot items give a bonus to fort, reflex and will. That way all those options you want will all open up, and the items won't be insanely underpowered.

well purely a damage bonus as a boost sounds ... hmm
+1 damage per tier, some of them for melee attacks only and others for ranged attacks only....

 

[Obryn]

LOL, in my opinion to point out that people are banning items because of a fundamental flaw in the game design is a perfectly on topic response in a thread about banning items.

You're arguing that Iron Armbands are good items that expose a fundamental flaw within a bad system, and that the system is at fault. Keterys (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) and I are arguing that Iron Armbands are fundamentally flawed items which disrupt a good system, and that the Iron Armbands are at fault.

It's a different argument.

-O

 

[Garthanos]

LOL, in my opinion to point out that people are banning items because of a fundamental flaw in the game design is a perfectly on topic response in a thread about banning items.

I personally didn't say you were off topic just ridiculous making a big deal out of a minor one (planned yes fundamental nyeh). I didn't use every magic item in any edition... don't know anyone who did? I always liked fewer more powerful items with things that made them fit my fantasy world.

That WOTC items are usually pale in comparison means my players can go wow... look what I got it must be an artifact, I combine multiple WOTC items or borrow effects from them and get a general feel for how powerful they are... every once in a while something is more useful than its peers and I need to know about it... which is what these threads are useful for me.. not because I intend to ban something but because I use book items as a measure of value.

 

[brassbaboon]

You're arguing that Iron Armbands are good items that expose a fundamental flaw within a bad system, and that the system is at fault. Keterys (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) and I are arguing that Iron Armbands are fundamentally flawed items which disrupt a good system, and that the Iron Armbands are at fault.

It's a different argument.

-O

I see it as the same argument with different perspectives.

I doubt I'm going to get a board dedicated to the 4e game to agree with my analysis that 4e is deeply, fundamentally flawed and that this sort of problem was inevitable because of the poor design choices made at the very beginning of the effort... so let's go down your track instead.

An item that does +2 damage per attack is "fundamentally flawed?" Hmmm, does that mean a WEAPON that does +2 damage per attack is also fundamentally flawed? Or is it only flawed because it's an armslot item? Would an item that gave a +2 to AC also be fundamentally flawed (in pure mathematical game terms a +2 to AC is identical in game balance to a +2 to hit, and a +2 to hit is generally recognized as far more powerful than a +2 to damage.)

Seriously, are you saying the item is fundamentally flawed BECAUSE it's an arm slot item, and all the myriad other equally (or more) powerful items are not flawed because they are NOT armslot items?

 

[Bayuer]

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?

The problem is that you can use CoWW whenever you want to significantly boost your hp. When the fight become hard *ping* +1/2hp and monster can "bite you". It's it potential that is in my opinion to good in fight (and can be used every encounter).

Cloak of the Walking Wounded doesn't need banning.

I didn't said it should be banned. I converted it into daily power, and now it's resonable option for players (well mostly dwarves I think).