New in Essentials: Magic Item Rarity

504 posts / 0 new
Last post
From the good folks of Critical Hits who are reporting live from Gen Con:

  • Starting with Essentials, magic items will be grouped into common, uncommon, and rares. Rare more powerful and cannot be created by ritual

  • Common items can be created and bought by characters, the others are given out only by DMs. More part of the campaign story.

  • Almost every magic item already given out will be classified uncommon, new items will be rares.

What do you guys and gals think about this?
I don't like that at all - my DM is already giving me magic items that aren't that useful or can't even be used by my class, and he doesn't always understand the underlying value of the different effects, so now he's going to have to choose what kind of magic item to give us (hint - not more powerful rare items). I thought the whole purpose (though this isn't really the case) was that within a level of magic item, all the magic items were about the same level.

What consumer are they actually going for with these changes, anyway?


I like it, personally i like systems that help out a bit with how to distribute resources like that.  Such as the parcel system.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

I like it, personally i like systems that help out a bit with how to distribute resources like that.  Such as the parcel system.




This doesn't sound like a parcel system. It sounds like they looked at all the magic items, realized that players are only using the 1 or 2 of each level that are worth anything, and need some way of forcing people back into using some of the magic items they've already written.
What consumer are they actually going for with these changes, anyway?





me thats who... well people like me.

  most of my group does fine, but one or two always HAVE to have the same items over and over agian... Jon has had 8 charactes 6 with Iron armbands of power 2 with the archer version... I don't put them in my game so he tries to buy them, I tell him he can't he takes rituel caster and makes them...

   now I can say "TRY SOMETHING FING NEW"

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

What consumer are they actually going for with these changes, anyway?





me thats who... well people like me.

  most of my group does fine, but one or two always HAVE to have the same items over and over agian... Jon has had 8 charactes 6 with Iron armbands of power 2 with the archer version... I don't put them in my game so he tries to buy them, I tell him he can't he takes rituel caster and makes them...

   now I can say "TRY SOMETHING FING NEW"




So - for people who DM games and don't like how their players are playing their character?

Really? That's where we're going to go with this? "I don't like how my players are choosing their options?" Maybe you should be making Jon's character for him. No one plays Tiefling Wardens. Should that class become common now so it forces more people into that role and Dwarf Wardens become rare because they're better at wardening?

Wouldn't it be better if they just put together magic items that each had actual utility instead of one clearly great level 5 armor, two or three situational armors, and a bunch of "other" level 5 armors that just gather dust in the corner?
I like it, personally i like systems that help out a bit with how to distribute resources like that.  Such as the parcel system.




This doesn't sound like a parcel system. It sounds like they looked at all the magic items, realized that players are only using the 1 or 2 of each level that are worth anything, and need some way of forcing people back into using some of the magic items they've already written.



Your right it's not the parcel system, but it seems like a guide for resource distribution as I said above.  Personally I like it.  With a system like this is could with confidence just let my players into the common level items without worrying about them getting too overpowered without me seeing it first.

(now this is not to say that it will work in this manner, but I hope im understanding this correctly.) 

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

Rereading these posts they seem to be conflicting. It says only common items can be created, it also says only the rare ones cannot be created with rituals, so what about the uncommon ones? Can they be created with rituals or not? I'll see if I can find out...

DMs should always have final say over which magic items / relics / artifacts exist within their campaign world.

If you don't want Jon using an item, it doesn't exist =) 

That being said, I like this proposed change because it helps categorize which items can be found lying about, and which items there may only be one or two of in the world. 

As anything, it's an option. 

If it helps cut back on the cookie cutter template characters, I am all for it.

To see my campaign world visit http://dnd.chrisnye.net My music -> www.myspace.com/Incarna My music videos -> www.youtube.com/Auticusx
  • Starting  with Essentials, magic items will be grouped into common, uncommon, and  rares. Rare more powerful and cannot be created by ritual

  • Common items can be created and bought by characters, the others are given out only by DMs. More part of the campaign story.

  • Almost every magic item already given out will be classified uncommon, new items will be rares.


ok wow count on essentials to screw up everything including magic items. these sound more like dark sun rules than straight up dnd rules. if these are accurate its another reason to see essentials as completely changing the game. this idea, these magic item revisions, really suck, as many players have to make their own items to get around douchebag dms as it is. what the team cant have a couple of the same amulets, thats another STUPID rule, thanks essentials

absolutely STUPID
Rereading these posts they seem to be conflicting. It says only common items can be created, it also says only the rare ones cannot be created with rituals, so what about the uncommon ones? Can they be created with rituals or not? I'll see if I can find out...

From NewbieDM:
  • Magic items, new stuff.... They will be grouped into common, uncommon, and rare items.

  • Pc's wouldn't create rare items via enchant item, for example.

  • Seems interesting, gives power back to the dm for magic items.

  • Most magic items now in game will be retroactively marked as uncommon. They are now in the hands of dm.

Still a bit vague regarding uncommons...

more ridiculous crap from gencon


"Rules Compendium isn't an alternative to the core books. Core books will be reprinted "when the time is right."

so ive got to buy the rules compendium ALONG with another rulebook? why not just MAKE A COMPLETE RULES COMPENDIUM

"asked about epic-tier support for a DMG. Not enough people playing epic yet, prob. 2012."

duh they just played epic at the dang convention


"PDF and e-book question- still working on it, not ready to say yet but will have news soon."

keep dreaming


"New races in heroes of shadow"

whoopedy doo, more essentials products

"Races will be retrofitted to have ability score choice in Essentials, like the PHB3 ones."


*throws up, i guess were just a few steps away from GNOME BARBARIANS*

"Assassin will not be in Heroes of Shadow, but there will be new versions of Assassin and Revenant in Heroes of Fallen Lands."

great more crap


Rereading these posts they seem to be conflicting. It says only common items can be created, it also says only the rare ones cannot be created with rituals, so what about the uncommon ones? Can they be created with rituals or not? I'll see if I can find out...


I noticed that as well.  My suspicion is that uncommon items can be enchanted by players, since they said that existing items will mostly be classified as uncommon.  If all previously existing items could be made by ritual, then I doubt they would reclassify them into a group that cannot be made by ritual.

What consumer are they actually going for with these changes, anyway?





me thats who... well people like me.

  most of my group does fine, but one or two always HAVE to have the same items over and over agian... Jon has had 8 charactes 6 with Iron armbands of power 2 with the archer version... I don't put them in my game so he tries to buy them, I tell him he can't he takes rituel caster and makes them...

   now I can say "TRY SOMETHING FING NEW"



In other words you can say, "HAVE LESS FING FUN."  He's using the Iron Armbands because he likes them, and you want to say, "No, you have to use something that you don't like instead.  It's more fun that way!"  Is that about right?

It's also possible that he's using the Iron Armbands because there are only a handful of Arms slot items that aren't garbage.  My Fighter uses Iron Armbands of Power.  If they were forbidden (and I didn't drop from the game because I hate pointless restrictions), I'd use Counterstrike Guards.  If those were forbidden too, I would... probably not equip anything for my arms.  There isn't really much else that's worth the enchantment cost.

That rant aside, I do like the concept of different levels of rarity.  I do think there should be some space for items that exist but to which players don't have access.  Artifacts fill this capacity to some extent, but there should be something between vanilla magic items and artifacts.  However, the term "rare" shouldn't just refer to availability to players.  I think they should be created sparingly, and they should be the exception, not the rule.
more ridiculous crap from gencon

Could you please keep on topic and a bit more civil?
wow gm for powergamers, youre the exact kind of dm i was talking about, let the guy have his magic items after all hes listening to your lame campaign and youre gonna take the magic items he wants away, id quit your sorry game. what just cause he buys them everytime you want to take them away? get over yourself
Could you please keep on topic and a bit more civil?




as far as im concerned the topic is essentials screwing up the game, changing magic item structure, races, and everything else. im sorry if im not giddy about all this gutting of a game i love
What do you guys and gals think about this?

I think its fine, provided it stays in Essential products.

I don't like the direction of DDE (for lack of a better word); I don't like the apparent impetus behind the game.  Its my intention to overlook the line as much as possible, and continue playing 4e just as I always have.  

Not to say that magic item rarity classification wouldn't work in either game.  I'm sure it would, the games will apparently play well side-by-side.  I just hope that 'crossovers' between DDE and 4e are kept to a minimum. 

/\ Art
/\ Art
Could you please keep on topic and a bit more civil?

as far as im concerned the topic is essentials screwing up the game, changing magic item structure, races, and everything else. im sorry if im not giddy about all this gutting of a game i love

I can see you are very angry about this, still I would ask you politely to discuss such off topic concerns elsewhere (the gods know there are enough general eseentials threads where you can vent to your liking). The topic here is the change to magic items.

Pesonally I'm not sure yet what I think. I might like it as an optional rule, but sofar I'm not sure yet. Especially given the lack of clarity regarding uncommon items.

  • Starting  with Essentials, magic items will be grouped into common, uncommon, and  rares. Rare more powerful and cannot be created by ritual

  • Common items can be created and bought by characters, the others are given out only by DMs. More part of the campaign story.

  • Almost every magic item already given out will be classified uncommon, new items will be rares.


ok wow count on essentials to screw up everything including magic items. these sound more like dark sun rules than straight up dnd rules. if these are accurate its another reason to see essentials as completely changing the game. this idea, these magic item revisions, really suck, as many players have to make their own items to get around douchebag dms as it is. what the team cant have a couple of the same amulets, thats another STUPID rule, thanks essentials

absolutely STUPID





Don't play with **** DMs.

 Any Edition

well the prob with that is the magic item rules make ****dms out of every dm. you cant have the same magic item as another member of the party? Undecided thats not the dm anymore, thats essentials


honestly, theyve changed the power structure, theyre changing the races, theyre changing magic item, i mean how much more are they gonna change
More categorization?  I don't see the harm.  I thought all magic items were "If the DM allows it" already, so... is this really even a change at all for me?

The terms are going to irk some people, because they sound like, say, collectible game pieces.

Beyond that, again, I don't see the harm.  But I don't have any real interest in this either.  I've already moved on to the "Inherent bonuses, and then Boons or Items that I (and the player) find interesting and/or appropriate"-system.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
I should prolly try to explain my negative reaction a bit further:  The original post began with three words that made me cringe:  "Starting with Essentials . . ." and my mind jumped to the conclusion:  . . . this will start in Essentials and carry over into 4e.  

Sorry about that ;).  I don't believe that's what the OP was trying to say.  Its so easy to jump to conclusions when I'm already on edge (as it were) about how DDE might change 4e.
/\ Art
Wow so if a DM doesn't give a player everything he wants, then he is a **** DM?

Nice.

If I gave my players everything they wanted they'd be touting swords of decapitation, staves of the magi, Vecna's eye and hand, and all kinds of artifcacts.  Because it's fun

I reccomend anybody who has this idea that players should get whatever they want DM their own game and let the players get everything that they want.  That way they can have fun. 

The wheel spins both ways my friend about what is or is not a **** player/DM.

If you find Essentials to be STUPID, INFERIOR, LAME, pick whatever derrogatory word you wish, then by all means see yourself to another game and set of forums with something that you like.  Otherwise I fear for your health, all that anger and you are prone to a heart attack or stroke at a very young and early age.

To see my campaign world visit http://dnd.chrisnye.net My music -> www.myspace.com/Incarna My music videos -> www.youtube.com/Auticusx
as far as im concerned the topic is essentials screwing up the game, changing magic item structure, races, and everything else. im sorry if im not giddy about all this gutting of a game i love



You seem to be having a very strong reaction to all of this news. How do these changes -- any of them -- represent "gutting" the game?



I, for one, welcome the change to the old races. That's a great development.
seems to me they are trying to clarify what has (or should be) the case.  For every "stingy DM" argument, there is an "entitled player" argument.  To me, it seems they want to temper it a bit.  Since the arguments wouldn't occur if the groups would accept that not ALL items can be made anytime, anywhere, and some will be by DM fiat, they apparently felt a need.
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"
Probably not a rule I'm going to make use of.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I second what PBM says about "entitled players."  I've seen more entitled players than stingy DMs; in my experience, many DMs are entirely too generous with the magic item handouts.

Why on earth is it so offensive if a DM doesn't permit a player to have a particular item?  That's the way I had always understood the game to be--you don't have a guaranteed right to possess a specific magic item.  If the player doesn't like it, he is free to find another DM's game to join.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

  I've already moved on to the "Inherent bonuses



sadly inherent bonuses seem better to me than the new rules

Wow so if a DM doesn't give a player everything he wants, then he is a **** DM?

Nice.

If I gave my players everything they wanted they'd be touting swords of decapitation, staves of the magi, Vecna's eye and hand, and all kinds of artifcacts.  Because it's fun

I reccomend anybody who has this idea that players should get whatever they want DM their own game and let the players get everything that they want.  That way they can have fun. 




great point but its not what i said or suggested. do you just not let them make their own items? every world you create you cant enchant a magic item bc you dont what some dude to get what he wants? sounds a little anal...let your hair down

. How do these changes -- any of them -- represent "gutting" the game?

I, for one, welcome the change to the old races. That's a great development.



im glad youre excited about them changing the races in 4e. here is what i mean by 'gutting'

changing races
changing magic items
building classes that are named for pre-existing classes that have few if any benefit to pre-essentials classes

maybe its not 'gutting'. its actually more subtle. its "not a new edition", its "compatible", its "the new baseline going forward"....only "its not" Yell

hey you know what i have no personal problem with any of you or your opinions, but i love 4e and dont want it to get changed like this. i dont mind errata, i can see the sense in most of it, i still think mm being an auto hit is completely lame, but most of it makes sense even when it affected my character. its just from my perspective essentials is a lot of significant changes, and i dont like them. to the point where i voice it, lame as it may seem

I should prolly try to explain my negative reaction a bit further:  The original post began with three words that made me cringe:  "Starting with Essentials . . ." and my mind jumped to the conclusion:  . . . this will start in Essentials and carry over into 4e.  

Sorry about that ;).  I don't believe that's what the OP was trying to say.  Its so easy to jump to conclusions when I'm already on edge (as it were) about how DDE might change 4e.

Interestingly those 3 words come up quite often when they are discussing essentials. Their exact meaning is as of yet pretty unclear and IMHO it is precisely this unclearity that is at the basis of many of the discussions here. I think the fact that they mention adding rarity qualifiers to existing material is quite interesting in that regard.

@Ignis: I don't believe so (unclear, and no reason).  They have said it repeatedly - this is a "new direction going forward".  The phrase "Starting with essentials"  reinforces that fact.

edited: grammar.
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"
Interestingly those 3 words come up quite often when they are discussing essentials. Their exact meaning is as of yet pretty unclear and IMHO it is precisely this unclearity that is at the basis of many of the discussions here. I think the fact that they mention adding rarity qualifiers to existing material is quite interesting in that regard.



You're not helping ;). 

In all seriousness, I gotta agree they're not very clear when they say stuff like Essentials will inform designs going forward (to paraphrase).   Clarity would certainly help and the lack of it has me wondering why.
/\ Art
@Ignis: I don't believe so (unclear, and no reason).  They have said it repeatedly - this is a "new direction going forward".  The phrase "Starting with essentials"  reinforces that fact.

edited: grammar.

Let me rephrase for clarity: it is not so much that I debate the meaning of those words, but their impact. The October updates will be critical in that regard. For example, will it update the create magic item ritual to prevent you from making uncommon items?

Wow so if a DM doesn't give a player everything he wants, then he is a **** DM?

Nice.

If I gave my players everything they wanted they'd be touting swords of decapitation, staves of the magi, Vecna's eye and hand, and all kinds of artifcacts.  Because it's fun

I reccomend anybody who has this idea that players should get whatever they want DM their own game and let the players get everything that they want.  That way they can have fun. 

The wheel spins both ways my friend about what is or is not a **** player/DM.

If you find Essentials to be STUPID, INFERIOR, LAME, pick whatever derrogatory word you wish, then by all means see yourself to another game and set of forums with something that you like.  Otherwise I fear for your health, all that anger and you are prone to a heart attack or stroke at a very young and early age.



Since we're building straw man arguments, I'm going to assume your argument is "THis fighter always wants to use weapons for attacks. I'm going to demand he use lollipops instead. Won't that be fun?"

I think the argument is "there is already a parcel system that handles giving out magic items of what power level to characters". If your players are demanding level 15 items at level 5, you should not give them a that magic item. However, until September at least, every magic item at level x is supposed to be as good as every other item at level x for that slot. That's clearly not the case, but is caused much more by the fact that no one ever looks at how a particular element is really going to get used before the product (AV or Dragon Article) goes out the door.

No player should expect the DM to know what their character's items need to be. The best of my games have been where the DM asks us what item we find of a particular level, that way we're not stuck with an Amulet of Health for my Dwarven shaman or being given a symbol of hope and having to remind our DM "hey, Shaman's don't use those, but thanks for the value/5 in gp, I guess."

Now we're going to a system where you can make your own items that arent worth the gold, and wait until a DM deigns to give you something that your character can use.
wow gm for powergamers, youre the exact kind of dm i was talking about, let the guy have his magic items after all hes listening to your lame campaign and youre gonna take the magic items he wants away, id quit your sorry game. what just cause he buys them everytime you want to take them away? get over yourself



wow...just wow...

   so lets get this straight... he has played 8 characters in 4e 5 in my games, 3 in others... he has played fighters, rangers, and rouges, he has always had the + damage bracers... in fact 4 of his characters even share the same name...

     this has not only gotten on my nerves but my fellow players... infact he has to take the rituel caster feat to get them becuse no one else will make them for him anymore eaither...

    see we all try to play diffrent characters. We have had this problem before though... (3 war priest/uber melee masters in a row from one player in 3.5) and we deal with it by asking him to stop, and letting him keep going only so far.

     Now there is a in game reason why he can not always know about the apsalute best DPR build items, and just get them.

  by the way his swordmage disenchanted counterstrike bracers (that another PC had on there wish list but he grabed and never told them) to make his +2 bracer into +4 bracers...



    so to recap you would quite my game for nothing becuse I never took anything away... but WotC has now set it up so he doesn't have the ability to for every character...



by the way in 6 campaignes (those 8 characters becuse two permed) only 2 other PCs ever had eaither bracer set... and atleast in 2 case MY PC found other cool bracers to where...

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

 so lets get this straight... he has played 8 characters in 4e 5 in my games, 3 in others... he has played fighters, rangers, and rouges, he has always had the + damage bracers... in fact 4 of his characters even share the same name...


So?

Iron Armbands of Power are the best arms slot item for those three classes and I might argue it's the best level 6 magic item for anyone who uses weapons. What would you prefer he use?
More categorization?  I don't see the harm.  I thought all magic items were "If the DM allows it" already, so... is this really even a change at all for me?

The terms are going to irk some people, because they sound like, say, collectible game pieces.

Beyond that, again, I don't see the harm.  But I don't have any real interest in this either.  I've already moved on to the "Inherent bonuses, and then Boons or Items that I (and the player) find interesting and/or appropriate"-system.


More Categorization is fine. Giving DM's a guide as to what are rare and powerful items, perhaps influence a limit to the number of such items in your game, not a bad idea either. Does there really need to be 4 sets of Dice of Auspicious Fortune in a party? No and its within the rights of a DM to limit items anyways as greatfrito mentioned. That said its really up to the DM and Players to find whatever works best for them. If one of my players only wants to go the way of frostcheese? Awesome! Let them, there are way for a DM to mitigate it. If 3 players want IAoP, great, give it to them. Who cares what they're ranked at. To be honest none of this junk/not junk has to affect our home games, I've resigned myself to that. Its really just RPGA folks that have to worry about strict adherence to these rules. (Didn't they say they weren't going to come up will silly rules for the small stuff for this edition?)

The coding system though is waaaaaay too much WoW, Diablo, Torchlight, etc. I mean really? Common, Uncommon, and Rare? Oh and we still have Artifacts and Vendor Trash. Well i guess it will at least make CharOp Item guides easy

Don't let WotC ruin the fun at your table with their 4e "redesign". Take the stuff you like new stats for old races, new feats, new items, new powers, etc. and leave behind the junk training wheel classes, weird item rules, free action nerfing etc.
ok wow count on essentials to screw up everything including magic items. these sound more like dark sun rules than straight up dnd rules. if these are accurate its another reason to see essentials as completely changing the game.


We do not know enough about them to say anything yet. Also tyhe odds are that they are probabilly set up so that uncommons work the same as magic items do now. You can make them but the DM can veto.

this idea, these magic item revisions, really suck, as many players have to make their own items to get around douchebag dms as it is.

Umm, saying a rule is bad because someone else is bad is not valid, and any intilligent observation will tell you that the rule is fine if it works fine with the defecient element removed.
Quite frankly, if it works fine for a decent DM with a decent group, then the rule is fine. It it causes conflicts with a bad DM then it is no the rule that needs to be changed. If it causes problems with bad players same thing.
what the team cant have a couple of the same amulets, thats another STUPID rule, thanks essentials

Where did it say that you could not get repeat items?????
Oh right, it did not. based on what we are seeing here, the only items htat getting repeats of should be difficult for are rare items, and even then the preview leaves a method for acquisition.
absolutely STUPID

and the standard insult for something that you do not persionally agree with, I am sorry but "I do not like it" is not grounds for any sensable person to lable something stupid, and no one serious should actually think they can judege something fully without having the full information, which we obviously do not have.

No player should expect the DM to know what their character's items need to be. The best of my games have been where the DM asks us what item we find of a particular level, that way we're not stuck with an Amulet of Health for my Dwarven shaman or being given a symbol of hope and having to remind our DM "hey, Shaman's don't use those, but thanks for the value/5 in gp, I guess."



um... so I agree that the wishlist is a godsend (and I use them every chance I get as a PC and a DM) but that is not nore should it be the end of the story.

   FOr instunce I had a treasure parsel worth X gold, so I put a holy symbol worth 5x that in the treasure, and they disenchant it... it really makes since when they fought the priest of vecna..

   I also don't put everything ont he wishlist in. I sometimes through in items I like for them too, especialy for theme reasons:

        same swordmage as above had his +4 bracers and was really itchign for his +6 ones around level 19... the PC did a favor for the queen of fire (a lesser deity in the world) and as a boon she gave them each a gift. I  guess he expected those bracer upgrades, but instead I gave him a weapon of summer (+1d6 fire damage on all attacks and a cool daily) he threw a fit that I would dare give him a sup optimal weapon...

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

Wow so if a DM doesn't give a player everything he wants, then he is a **** DM?

Nice.

If I gave my players everything they wanted they'd be touting swords of decapitation, staves of the magi, Vecna's eye and hand, and all kinds of artifcacts.  Because it's fun

I reccomend anybody who has this idea that players should get whatever they want DM their own game and let the players get everything that they want.  That way they can have fun. 

The wheel spins both ways my friend about what is or is not a **** player/DM.

If you find Essentials to be STUPID, INFERIOR, LAME, pick whatever derrogatory word you wish, then by all means see yourself to another game and set of forums with something that you like.  Otherwise I fear for your health, all that anger and you are prone to a heart attack or stroke at a very young and early age.



Since we're building straw man arguments, I'm going to assume your argument is "THis fighter always wants to use weapons for attacks. I'm going to demand he use lollipops instead. Won't that be fun?"

I think the argument is "there is already a parcel system that handles giving out magic items of what power level to characters". If your players are demanding level 15 items at level 5, you should not give them a that magic item. However, until September at least, every magic item at level x is supposed to be as good as every other item at level x for that slot. That's clearly not the case, but is caused much more by the fact that no one ever looks at how a particular element is really going to get used before the product (AV or Dragon Article) goes out the door.

No player should expect the DM to know what their character's items need to be. The best of my games have been where the DM asks us what item we find of a particular level, that way we're not stuck with an Amulet of Health for my Dwarven shaman or being given a symbol of hope and having to remind our DM "hey, Shaman's don't use those, but thanks for the value/5 in gp, I guess."

Now we're going to a system where you can make your own items that arent worth the gold, and wait until a DM deigns to give you something that your character can use.




thank GOD a voice of reason

i dm a game where the players are very green. they do not have any adventurers vault etc etc and i helped make their characters. when i give them a magic item, i try to give them something useful, as if i was playing the character. bc i cant sit there on cb and just deliberately give them useless or less useful magic items bc...bc thats what a lame dm would do. i want them to have fun, not help me feel better about myself


theres already checks and balances in the game...its not like theres a magic shop on every corner. whole worlds such as dark sun have wild variety and in my home game i have completely changed the ritual structure to fit the story. but these have all worked to further a story or setting, not to just eliminate player options

 so lets get this straight... he has played 8 characters in 4e 5 in my games, 3 in others... he has played fighters, rangers, and rouges, he has always had the + damage bracers... in fact 4 of his characters even share the same name...


So?

Iron Armbands of Power are the best arms slot item for those three classes and I might argue it's the best level 6 magic item for anyone who uses weapons. What would you prefer he use?



anything... just diffrent it is a big pet peeve of mine and about 3/4 of my players seeing the same thing over and over agian... IF this game you are a come and get it fighter with X feat and Y items... play somethign diffrent next campaing not a come and get it fighter with X feat and Y items

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

Wow so if a DM doesn't give a player everything he wants, then he is a **** DM?

Nice.

If I gave my players everything they wanted they'd be touting swords of decapitation, staves of the magi, Vecna's eye and hand, and all kinds of artifcacts.  Because it's fun

I reccomend anybody who has this idea that players should get whatever they want DM their own game and let the players get everything that they want.  That way they can have fun. 

The wheel spins both ways my friend about what is or is not a **** player/DM.

If you find Essentials to be STUPID, INFERIOR, LAME, pick whatever derrogatory word you wish, then by all means see yourself to another game and set of forums with something that you like.  Otherwise I fear for your health, all that anger and you are prone to a heart attack or stroke at a very young and early age.



Since we're building straw man arguments, I'm going to assume your argument is "THis fighter always wants to use weapons for attacks. I'm going to demand he use lollipops instead. Won't that be fun?"

I think the argument is "there is already a parcel system that handles giving out magic items of what power level to characters". If your players are demanding level 15 items at level 5, you should not give them a that magic item. However, until September at least, every magic item at level x is supposed to be as good as every other item at level x for that slot. That's clearly not the case, but is caused much more by the fact that no one ever looks at how a particular element is really going to get used before the product (AV or Dragon Article) goes out the door.

No player should expect the DM to know what their character's items need to be. The best of my games have been where the DM asks us what item we find of a particular level, that way we're not stuck with an Amulet of Health for my Dwarven shaman or being given a symbol of hope and having to remind our DM "hey, Shaman's don't use those, but thanks for the value/5 in gp, I guess."

Now we're going to a system where you can make your own items that arent worth the gold, and wait until a DM deigns to give you something that your character can use.



I'm not seeing the "strawman argument".  That word gets thrown out there a lot though. 

The argument doesn't exist.  What I am saying is that if we give our players everything that they want, they are going to take what they can get.  That's not a strawman argument.  That's reality.  That's 22 years of playing the game straight with dozens of groups seeing that that is exactly what happens if you let the players dictate what items are given.  

 That's why there are chapters written in gaming articles, rulebooks, etc... about why it's important to NOT hand out everything the players want for campaign purposes, balance, those kinds of things.

Now I'm not saying that in 4th edition that 1st level characters are going to demand the eye of vecna and get it.  That was hyperbole.  I realize my wording lent itself to that conclusion but I have a paragon tier party so I think in those terms. 

I guess it comes down to two parties:

Party A) player entitlement.  The player gets what he wants.  He makes a list of items he wants, and the DM is expected to give it over.

Party B) DM entitlement.  The DM gives out what the DM wants to give out.  If he is a bad DM he will give out crap items that can't be used.  If he is a good DM he will try to give out items that are useful to his players, he will listen to requests from his players and do what he can to give out items that the players want, but don't unbalance his campaign.  Ultimately the players know they won't get everything that they want but will get some things within reason.

Seems to me the best way past that is to find a group that fits your style more.  If you feel you should have a hand in the items you get, make sure you don't get with a DM who won't do that.  Otherwise you will be quite unhappy.

The Essentials rules fit the direction that I am walking in.  So I like them more.  I don't want a debate on what is and is not a good player... a good DM... a ***** player... because quite frankly that is all opinion. 

To me a good player is one that contributes to the team in a helpful way, cooperates with the team to accomplish goals, and works with the DM to have a fun time.

To me a good DM is a DM that pays attention to detail, puts forth effort into his world building, and pays attention to what makes this particular dynamic of players have fun, and also knowing what is and is not fun for him so he does not get burnt out doing something he doesn't like.

To me a bad player is a player who demands things be done according to their whim, throws tantrums when they don't get their way, calls other people stupid if they dont' agree with them, calls other players' characters stupid if they aren't optimized to hell and back, rules lawyers loop holes to their advantages while getting red in the face and angry, and works in a way counter productive to the group.

You may find a good player to be an optimized player that has good fortune when rolling dice.

It's all subjective.

Calling Essentials STUPID is the same as calling the people who enjoy the direction that Essentials is going STUPID.  I really don't feel that my opinion on something is inferior because it doesn't follow what someone else feels should be done.
To see my campaign world visit http://dnd.chrisnye.net My music -> www.myspace.com/Incarna My music videos -> www.youtube.com/Auticusx