what do you do when a +3 bloodclaw weapon is more powerful than a +4 artifact

[FireLance]

RE: Solitaries.

Solitaries are bad because they skip the daily action/resource economy. They do not use any resources whatsoever.

Solitaires basically provide you with an encounter effect that triggers on a critical hit. If you have a problem with solitaires, you should also have a problem with magic items with encounter powers (such as elven boots) or magic items that trigger an effect on a critical hit (such as vicious weapons).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Solitaires basically provide you with an encounter effect that triggers on a critical hit. If you have a problem with solitaires, you should also have a problem with magic items with encounter powers (such as elven boots) or magic items that trigger an effect on a critical hit (such as vicious weapons).

Those items take up a slot. I'd have absolutely zero problem with Solitaires if they took up a slot. The slotless aspect of them is the problem.

 

[malraux]

Well, depending on how strictly you interpret "Use this power before making a melee attack on your turn", you could rule that the bloodclaw weapon doesn't work with close attacks. This way, you can only deal the extra damage more than once per round with an action point and/or a power that allow you to make multiple melee attacks with the same weapon (such as rain of blows).

Given that melee attack is defined game term, I don't see how you could argue that it should work with a close attack. And if you are making multiple melee attacks, for each one you are taking the damage to activate the weapon power.

GMfPg: I haven't seen an avenger in action, so it is possible that this is another worrying class/weapon/strategy combo that's a bit overpowered. But there's a huge difference between weapon X is overpowered and the combo of X and Y and Z is overpowered. I've also found that for 4e, a lot of stuff appears overpowered at first, but after a level or two, suddenly all new things seem overpowered. This makes me think that its my ability to estimate overpowered over the existence of overpowered stuff.

 

[FireLance]

Those items take up a slot. I'd have absolutely zero problem with Solitaires if they took up a slot. The slotless aspect of them is the problem.

Well, that's a slightly different point than the earlier one about messing with the daily action economy. Mechanically, I see the lack of need for a slot being balanced by the fact that you can only use one solitaire in an encounter. More solitaires give you more options when you score a critical hit, but you still don't get any extra benefit for subsequent critical hits in the same encounter.

The other potential problem with slotless items is that PCs who have filled up all their magic item slots will just get solitaries if they have spare cash. If it's a big issue for you, just institute the "no repeats" house rule I mentioned earlier.

 

[OchreJelly]

Well, that's a slightly different point than the earlier one about messing with the daily action economy. Mechanically, I see the lack of need for a slot being balanced by the fact that you can only use one solitaire in an encounter. More solitaires give you more options when you score a critical hit, but you still don't get any extra benefit for subsequent critical hits in the same encounter.

The other potential problem with slotless items is that PCs who have filled up all their magic item slots will just get solitaries if they have spare cash. If it's a big issue for you, just institute the "no repeats" house rule I mentioned earlier.

See I'm siding more with this opinion, and there is a daggermaster in my group!

Solitaires do have a hidden resource cost that I'll call "opportunity" as in the opportunity to use them only happens on a crit. Unless the PC is really built for it, it won't happen often. Likewise they are still usable only once per encounter.

As for the money, I have been trying to stick to treasure parcel guidelines pretty aggressively. The PCs are in mid-paragon level now. It never seems like they have enough cash and they are always making hard choices about the items they want to save for / buy. I think that's working by design.

 

[Piratecat]

Sorry, I think I missed it somewhere. What's an example of a solitaire?

EDIT: N/M. Thought it was a nickname for a type of item, not an item itself (in the Adventurer's Vault, for anyone else wondering.) Carry on.

 

[Goumindong]

Solitaires do have a hidden resource cost that I'll call "opportunity" as in the opportunity to use them only happens on a crit. Unless the PC is really built for it, it won't happen often. Likewise they are still usable only once per encounter.

Their opportunity cost is terribly low, its why they're so good. Its effectively something for nothing, when all the other options have very high opportunity costs.

 

[JoeGKushner]

The 'easy fix' is that the character can create the item but still must learn how to do it. I'm not saying making the item more expensive or change how the ritual itself works, but that there is a 'knowledge' base that the character must gain first.

In doing so, the ritual still works but now the players have to work at it a bit without it being so 'meta' based.

For me, just simply knowing the ritual doesn't impart the specifics of various magic items to the players.

Depending on the item, could be a trip to the library or a hunt for ancient details lost to the ancient elders.

JoeGKushner: That works when you don't have a PC with access to ritual magic, but thanks to Enchant Item, anyone can have anything they want at any time (post-level 4). Reigning in shops only goes so far - and it still doesn't work on the core problem, which is player expectation. Players should reasonably expect that any "core" items are balanced or at least playable. DMs should reasonably expect that they don't have to second-guess everything constantly. Sure, some variation and human error is to be expected, but I guess my problem is that I've come to the point where there are SO many errors it is beyond what I find to be "reasonable."

As for bloodclaw weapons: it's not really the main focus of my point, only an example; but for those who do not know, the pure blinding power that bloodclaw offers is truly amazing (or ridiculous, depending on your perspective). It might as well be called "add 20-35% damage for free". The HP loss is a joke; it's seriously a joke. There is no reason any melee character should not be using this weapon; it's that good. The only thing that comes close to giving it a run for its money is its sister, reckless. But honestly taking almost no damage each hit is still better than +10% enemy chance to hit you.

 

[evilbob]

Dolfan: Thanks for your honest response. I'd just like to point out that - like Firelance said - bloodclaw weapons only work on melee attacks, so you can't do burst damage with them; but your point is still valid, because of things like Hurricane of Blows, where you do hurt yourself each time.

It does sound like some of our groups are similar. And yes, in one of the games in which I am a player, the DM -has- limited Enchant Item fairly severely, although not even for things like bloodclaw, interestingly enough. Personally, I'm just getting tired of the idea that you have to change one MORE thing to get the game to work correctly. If it were just a little tweak here and there, that's fine: I'm cool with house rules, and I have my fair share. But after a while, I get tired of fixing their poor product. After a while, I feel like a beta tester.



malraux: I didn't really think your post was a personal attack (unlike some of the others here and there) but for you - and everyone else - who has tried to give a defense of bloodclaw or "prove" that it's not that good: I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. You just have to see this thing in action to realize it, I guess, but all the arguments that are based on assumptions and theory completely break down when you see it in play and realize that any melee character not using a bloodclaw weapon should switch. It's that good.



I'm not really sure how this thread got sidetracked onto solitaires, but yes: they are pretty powerful, as well. The reason is because they - along with several other game items, yes - give extremely powerful bonuses on the premise that a critical hit is something that only comes along 5%-10% of the time. If that were true, then they'd just be ok. The problem is that when you have an encounter power that attacks 8 times that you can recharge with a free action and use to attack 8 times again, all while critting on a 19-20 chance... Well, your odds go up. Then, add to this the number of powers that allow auto-crits and the whole avenger class and the tricks they can do - this throws these powers out of whack because suddenly something that was supposed to be "rare" happens "often." It's just a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing: the left hand balances a powerful item on a precious resource and then the right hand doles out the resource in huge lumps. Honestly, I am less worried about solitaires but then again I've not seen any in play so I don't really know how bad they are.

 

[malraux]

malraux: I didn't really think your post was a personal attack (unlike some of the others here and there) but for you - and everyone else - who has tried to give a defense of bloodclaw or "prove" that it's not that good: I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. You just have to see this thing in action to realize it, I guess, but all the arguments that are based on assumptions and theory completely break down when you see it in play and realize that any melee character not using a bloodclaw weapon should switch. It's that good.

Any two handed melee character with good attack, AC and HP, but low damage, should probably switch. The math does not support 1 handed usage. And the ongoing damage is such that you need to be insulated from other damage sources to have it work right. I'll again point to the rogue, a melee character, who clearly benefits from subtle weapons more than bloodclaw, thus showing at least one exception to your rule.