|
5 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2008 - 10:01AM
#61
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2004
|
Other than the system being the current one, what positive things does it have over this proposed change? Are 12th level characters with three 15th+ level items really desired?
-James
Let me turn the question around on you. Is it actually, in practicality, likely or even feasible? I have played 7 modules so far (have you played any?). I know what the approximate spread of rewards is. Even assuming my 1st level character could take 3 items at first level, there were three modules I could have played that would have given me three level 5 items that I wanted for ANY of the character builds I played with. I brought a fighter, wizard, warlock, rogue and warlord. I payed attention to what the rewards were in each module, even if they didn't fit the character I brought. No three modules offered a combination of level 5 items (or even level 4 and level 5 items) that would have been great picks for any of my builds.
In fact, I'll use concrete numbers. Every module I played seemed to offer a level 2, level 3, level 4 and level 5 to low tier (level 1 and 2). So take your theoretical level 12 character and assume he will see a level 13, 14, 15, and 16 offered on every module he plays (roughly 3 before he levels). How many level 16 items exist that vs. how many fit your build. If you are a fighter and the level 16 item is a magic wand +4, you certainly aren't picking it. If the level 15 is +3 enhancement for leather armor, you aren't picking that either. Thus, you end up with a 12 or 13 or nothing.
The other question is: Does it really matter if a level 12 character has three level 16 items? For weapons and neck slots, this means the character is one point higher than they might otherwise be. For armor, this is a bit more of a buff (only because 16 happens to be a break point), but the level 12 modules assumedly take into account the possibility of someone having this armor. Armor weirdness aside, it puts that player 5% ahead of other people in 2 of 3 categories. That isn't a particularly huge advantage. It certainly isn't game breaking. And the advantage disappears in a level or so.
In reality, I don't see the situation happening often and in theory, it has minimal impact on the game. If somebody really enjoys playing with only the "best stuff", let them. It doesn't ruin the game for anyone else if they "game" this system. Personally, I'd probably not want to play with them, but that is because a person that interested in "gaming" the system is probably very unfun to play with.
-SYB
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2008 - 2:44PM
#62
|
|
|
Let me turn the question around on you. Is it actually, in practicality, likely or even feasible?
-SYB
Currently we are limited to items from the PHB, so there's not a wide spread of items that will be useful. This will change as more and more items are added from sources such as the Adventurer's Vault. Give it 2-3 years, and there probably will be a lot of items someone could stock up on - especially if they pick mods based on access.
But the question remains. Why is the current system better? Just because it was first?
I don't think the system is horrible, just that the proposed alternative is better.
Allen.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2008 - 2:52PM
#63
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2004
|
Currently we are limited to items from the PHB, so there's not a wide spread of items that will be useful. This will change as more and more items are added from sources such as the Adventurer's Vault. Give it 2-3 years, and there probably will be a lot of items someone could stock up on - especially if they pick mods based on access.
But the question remains. Why is the current system better? Just because it was first?
I don't think the system is horrible, just that the proposed alternative is better.
Allen.
Actually, part of the reason I think the current system is better is because it does ALLOW you to stock up on picks. If I get unlucky and play a few levels worth of mods that don't have any item I want, then under the proposed system, I will lose slots. I shouldn't lose slots just because I didn't scout my modules.
Concrete example. I am playing a warlock. I get unlucky and find no items at level 1. At level 2, the only item I find is a level 6 item. At level 3, the only item I find is a level 7 item. And, sadly, by chance, I never ever see a level 5 or lower item again at level 4 and beyond. Now I have lost a slot permanently, simply because of bad luck and choosing not to scout.
If I were playing under the current system and I had found a level 6 item during one of my level 3 adventures (after I found and kept the level 7), I could also have taken that. I would have 3 items (like I am entitled to) and the difference in value of those items would be minimal (certainly not enough to unbalance the adventures).
-SYB
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2008 - 3:19PM
#64
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2002
|
You do realize that if you manage to save just two more item slots from now until you hit 11th, you've done the strategy I laid out to break the gold curve?
Do you feel underpowered?
No. I don't. However, so far I'm still playing in the Tier 1-4 mods. If this is all I have come Paragon Tier, I wouldn't be surprised to be underpowered. If I make it there at all. 
No, the system as intended is that you act roughly as a normal party does in a home game - you collect a magic item every level and that's what parity is.
Actually, the DMG proposed system for distributing magic items is 4 items every 5 levels.
I think the current system has rough edges and they are going to cause snags. There's no reason to let a 12th level character have 3 16th level items for example.
Likewise there's every reason to want each 12th level character to come into a module with at least 3 items around there level.
Well, just for hypothetical's sake, let's look at what a 12th level fighter could get in 16th level items:
+4 Magic Armor, +4 Magic Weapon, both are 16th level items (the only armor and weapons at 16th).
Third option could be: Paragon tier horned Helm (+2d6 on a charge), Dragondaunt Shield (Daily -10 to damage on area/close attacks against you and adjacent allies), Eladrin Boots (Daily teleport 5 squares), Shadowfell Gloves (useless to a Fighter), Amulet of Protection +4.
That is the comprehensive list of level 16 items in the DMG. Waiting one more level opens up more and better possibilities at +4 (i.e. items with dailies and other properties), but none of the items are significantly better than previous levels. +4 Magic armor is nice, but if you're a fighter, why not have +3 Dwarven armor (12th level, daily free action surge), or +3 Battleforged Armor (lvl 15 item, +2d10 on second wind). Both offer nice bennies as opposed to the extra +1 to AC. Same goes for the weapons. Does a 12 level PC with +4 armor, +4 weapon and +4 amulet of protection seem that overpowered? To put it in the proposed systems terms, if you are only allowed 1 16th level slot, even if you are 16th level, why wouldn't you be able to have +4 armor, weapon, and amulet? under the proposed system you couldn't, at least not until you gained more levels. (most people wont want vanilla armor at that level, but that's beside the point, you could make the same argument for 17th level items or 15th level, or etc...).
I really dont' see much that's radically different.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2008 - 3:55PM
#65
|
|
|
Actually, part of the reason I think the current system is better is because it does ALLOW you to stock up on picks. If I get unlucky and play a few levels worth of mods that don't have any item I want, then under the proposed system, I will lose slots. I shouldn't lose slots just because I didn't scout my modules.
-SYB
Thanks for the reply - that's the best justification I've heard yet. Not saying I agree yet. :P
From my (limited) experience I could have found something useful for pretty much every level for a variety of characters if I wasn't being overly picky. But that's just me. There are probably always going to be a subset of characters that don't "find" something useful for every level.
Then again there were people in LG that had characters with tens of thousands of GP they never spent.
Allen.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2008 - 4:15PM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
In theory, I agree that works, but I challenge that being useful in practice. First off, I don't believe there exist 15 items I WANT between levels 11 and level 20.
I'm glad you know what the designers are coming out with over the next 2 years...if Dragon magazine is any indication, it won't be a problem. Remember, bundles tend to offer things you can't normally get, so you'll end up buying the book.
But we can discuss theory all day, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I still challenge you (or anyone) to show that in actual play there is any MEANINGFUL way to "game" the system.
Right...wait two years.
And again, I've shown it is possible to game the system. Whether or not you think it is valuable isn't relevant. The question is simply this:
If we can prevent gaming of the system at almost no penalty, that is basically the current system except for that one change, is it not worth doing.
If I'm wrong, you lose nothing. You're not affected by this at all. If I'm right, then LFR is going to have a balance problem. I'm having trouble understanding why you think the possibility of my being right zero...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2008 - 8:09PM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2006
|
At this point, the rule is present and functioning. A minority have problem with it and even fewer seem to be able to show how it can be gamed to notable detrimental effect to the campaign.
It would probably be better off to not amend rules that are in the process of being learned and avoid the confusion. Even by the estimation of opponents of the distribution system, potential problems are at least a good 6 months off. I think tying each item to a specific level would me more restrictive and needlessly complicated. If there really does begin to be a problem, allowing some sort of item pick retraining would be an easily added and lightly resisted modifcation to make somewhere down the road.
In all honesty, I imagine it is very unlikely to change anytime soon as opinion on it split gaisnt it at best. It's probably a moot discussion until there becomes a larger problem than people who don't like making permanenet treasure choices in a timely fashion.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2008 - 8:15PM
#68
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2006
|
If I'm wrong, you lose nothing.
If you are wrong we have changed the policy needlessly and added unwanted confusion to the rules during the critical early stages of the campaign. Understanding of the rules and recent changes does not clarify immediately across the campaign's entire population.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2008 - 8:44PM
#69
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
If you are wrong we have changed the policy needlessly and added unwanted confusion to the rules during the critical early stages of the campaign. Understanding of the rules and recent changes does not clarify immediately across the campaign's entire population.
Seriously - the two systems are almost identical in actual play. The only difference is in what happens when you attempt to game the system. Anyone who is going to be confused by this isn't going to be trying to game the system effectively in the 1st place.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2008 - 8:52PM
#70
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
It would probably be better off to not amend rules that are in the process of being learned and avoid the confusion. Even by the estimation of opponents of the distribution system, potential problems are at least a good 6 months off.
No. The problems are happening right now. When the problems become hard to resolve is right now. When they noticeably affect the play at the table is a good year off.
And at that point, there will be nothing the campaign can easily do to resolve it.
|
|
|
