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

[Bayuer]

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.

 

[brassbaboon]

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.

 

[Bayuer]

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?

 

[FireLance]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

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]

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]

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?