keterys
First Post
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...
The real question is why are you even trying? There's definitely been some interesting discussion, but it seems almost inevitable that it ends up eventually being threadcrapping.
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.)
It is by design for the weapon to be okay doing that, yes. A +2 AC arm item would also be fundamentally flawed, though you're completely wrong about it being identical in game balance to +2 to hit.
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?
Some of those are also flawed, as mentioned upthread, but yes. Exactly. It doesn't matter if there are reasonable comparisons on weapons. Weapons are designed to be better.
You can argue with that, of course. But that's not the point of this thread.
It so happens that I don't like that design choice either, but changing things so primary and secondary slots are equally powerful is way into the houserule forum's territory.