Another possibility would be that you unlock a wishlist with the conclusion of a major quest. This becomes a strong reason to play out quest series.
Now, this is a very good idea. I'm not a fan of including minor or major quest XP without also including gold/items tied to that, but the limitations on the number of bundles makes that problematic.
Having open-ended options for quest rewards would thus solve two problems, e.g., the bundle could be "+2 deathcut armor, or if you received the major quest award, any armor of 10th level or below".
Telvin3d wrote:
A wishlist system like the one suggested is a good start, but I think it's extra paperwork for little gain. Let's say that the adventure reward says "One neck slot item from your wishlist of level 7 or 8". Functionally, what is the difference between that and just saying "One neck slot item of level 7 or 8"?
It does open up the possibility of having to make choices (e.g., do you list a 10th or 9th level armor on your wishlist, since that's the difference between all or nothing if the module reward is "+2 bloodcut armor or any armor of 9th level or below from your wishlist"). Of course, since you can know what the rewards are before revealing your wishlist and playing the module, the choice is mostly illusionary.
But, primarily, the reason to have the paperwork of the wishlist is that the DMG explicitly recommends them and WOTC's adventure paths are using them, so a wishlist-based system may be an easier sell to the actual decision-makers than a flat-out "armor of your choice of X level".
People should realize though that a LFR adventure is NOT the same a home campaign. You cannot use the database for marketing research into the usefulness of an item since of course a 6th level item is more useful then a 5th. In a home campaign the DM selects items of specific levels, according to a specific schedule and hands those out. A group of five 2nd level PCs finds one level 6 item before all the PCs become level 6. In LFR though, the PCs select items from a list and each PC can select the same item. So when you add a useful item it is the same as adding 6 similar items in a home campaign. For example, in a home campaign that 2nd level PC *might* find a +2 greataxe for the fighter, and a +1 lifedrinking bastardsword for the paladin. In LFR both are quite likely to pick the +2 weapon that that +2 greatax is in LFR.
To properly simulate a home campaign, a PC should be able to select 1 item per level and that item must be level +4, level +3, level +2, level+1 and gold (level or lower). If you select one of the levels, you cannot pick an item of that level modifier until you picked all the other item five level options. That is likely too complicated (especially if you consider how many difficulties have met the current treasure bundles) and very difficult to check. At the same, it would also push for min-maxing and all PCs with the same items, since ultimately getting a +2 on a weapon/implement and armor (especially with masterwork armor) is more useful than any other property (although it is certainly more boring).
The current treasure method is a compromise between the core rules, the ease of use and a sense of randomness (I don't know a DM who follows the exact wishlist of players, assuming players even have more then a two or three items they really want). It is not perfect, but I have not yet seen a good alternative.
The current treasure method is a compromise between the core rules, the ease of use and a sense of randomness (I don't know a DM who follows the exact wishlist of players, assuming players even have more then a two or three items they really want). It is not perfect, but I have not yet seen a good alternative.
Commonly suggested alternatives are (1) trying to avoid having the same item show up too many times through keeping a short list on the forum of "items that already appear 3+ times", (2) more frequent usage of bundles like "one item of your level or lower from ", (3) reducing the frequency of ritual (or alchemical) bundles, (4) increasing the amount of implement bundles to account for PHB2 and AP, and (5) increasing the number of bundles per adventure from 10 or 12.
None of these are big changes. Would you, then, consider these good alternatives?
Those are good suggestions and we do keep them in mind already. Just remember, that the adventures you are seeing now were finalized almost 3 months ago. We certainly have discussed more bundles, but nothing definitive on that part.
What I meant to say was, that I have not seen a good working different system. Those minor suggestions work within the current system.
Those are good suggestions and we do keep them in mind already.
Okay, thanks.
Just for the sake of brainstorming, here's a wildly different system that (probably) encourages using more different items. This probably has other problems of its own, but hey, brainstorming, right?
At the end of each adventure, each player must select a bundle, and may not select "additional gold" or "less additional gold plus a consumable" instead. Bundles may only be sold if they're lower level than you are.
This averts the issue with players saving their item picks, and with them never getting loot they can use. After all, if they're carrying the item anyway, they might as well try to use it. It also means that players won't wait until they get a "good" head slot item, they'll just use whichever they've got for now. Also, it's closer to a home campaign in that in a home campaign surely you're always going to carry the items anyway.
The problems this apparently causes are that (1) players get way more items than they do now, but the rulebooks already set limitations on using them anyway, and (2) players have less money so are less capable of buying the exact things they want (but this is compensated by them having more items).
One thing I will say is that the current LFR item system is much friendlier/powerful to/for players than starting at a given level with core rules.
My PC at 7th or 11th is way stronger than when I use core rules to give myself an item of level, level+1, and level-1 for a playtest. Absolutely stronger. The -1/0/+1 system runs up against slot issues and tiers.. darn, the armor I want is only +1 if I use my low pick... and I really wanted the weapon as my high pick... and the third pick I wanted that shield but I want a neck defense... argh! And the gold you have is generally only good enough for a couple of weak items that are non-essential.
LFR is much stronger in that sense.
Originally, I thought for sure LFR would just let you auto-pick items at each level. That seems stronger, but even with auto-optimizing you end up weaker because of those item-level differences. I do like having bundles... I just want more of them so it isn't such an auto-statement to say "More gold please". I would like to drool over the possible bundles the way I once drooled over item certs or what might be on the ARs.
One thing I will say is that the current LFR item system is much friendlier/powerful to/for players than starting at a given level with core rules.
I'm not sure I'd say that. The rules for starting at a given level give you a conservative amount of magic items, presumedly deliberately so, but even so, the LFR treasure distribution system is not always friendlier or more powerful.
The core system assumes that, over the course of 10 levels, each PC will receive 8 magic items and 4 magic item equivalents (which could be purchased magic items, consumables or other items).
To take a look at what the level distribution of these items, let's assume that a group of 5 PCs adventures from level 1 to 10, and attempts to roughly evenly distribute treasure*. Assuming all gold is spent to purchase magic items, here's what their magic item level distribution might look like at the end of the heroic tier by the core rules:
A PC created brand new at 11th level would have items of levels 10, 10, 11, 12. I'd consider that inferior to what he'd have if he had adventured throughout all of those levels, though not by much: the 4e magic item system largely means that, after a certain point, most of your other items are just giving you options, not more power.
Now, whether the LFR system is much friendlier/powerful to/for players than either starting at high level or adventuring through the levels in the core system depends largely on the character.
If you're a very run-of-the-mill PC that uses weapons and doesn't really care about the particular property an item has as long as it's got the right plus, you will be better equipped than the core rules assume.
The more you deviate from that assumption, however, the worse equipped you will be, in some cases woefully so.
Which would you rather have?
Items of levels 10, 10, 11, 12 (that you get to freely pick out)
Items of levels 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 (that your DM picks out specifically for your PC) plus items of levels 4, 4, 9, 9 (that you get to freely pick out)
Items of levels 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 (that are selected to appeal to the widest array of players) plus items of levels 5, 6, 10 (that you get to freely pick out)
I would generally prefer Option 2 (adventuring through the levels) to Option 1 (starting at high level). If I'm a basic fighter using a longsword, Option 3 (LFR) wins hands-down; if I'm an implement user (particularly an uncommon implement) or have a non-standard build, though, I'd take either Option 1 or 2 over Option 3 any day.
To keep things simple, the method used was that each PC takes turns. One level, he gets the level +1 item, the next the level +2 item and so forth. The level after acquiring the level +4 item, he doesn't get an item, but instead gets all of the gold for that level, enough to buy two level +0 items.
Obviously, the PCs aren't going to spend all of their gold on magic items, but we assume that whatever they did spend it on gave them the equivalent benefit (or at least they thought it did) of buying a magic item. The gold could also be shared more evenly, but that would just balance out in the end.
And, of course, any treasure distribution system is only going to be roughly even because of the staggered nature of the reward system. After 10 levels, for example, PC #3 is strictly better than PC #2 and PC #5 is strictly better than PC #4. After 7 levels, however, it was closer to the reverse: PC #1: 1, 1, 3, 5, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9 PC #2: 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 10 PC #3: 2, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 PC #4: 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 ,11 PC #5: 3, 4, 4 ,5, 6, 7, 8, 10
I don't know about that. It seems to me that there are a lot of level 6 items (and even some higher level items) that are not as good as good level 5 items like a power jewel. The universal crappiness of magic shields, for instance, is a significant contributing factor to most sword and shield martial characters just using a non-magic shield with iron armbands of power or a different arm slot item. While we are on that subject, I would guess that far more people selected the iron armbands of power (level 6) after playing Tyma 1-2 than selected the helm of battle (a level 9 item). (The only reason I selected the helm of battle with my highest level character is that I had saved up enough gold and bought iron armbands of power right before playing the mod--that'll teach me to not pay attention to spoilers).
The attitude that, of course a level 9 item is more useful than a level 6 item is begging the question. If R&D were paying attention to an item bundle database as market research, they would probably notice that some level 6 items are consistently selected over level 9 items--an indication that their relative pricing was probably a mistake. (And doubly so, considering that the bundle system inherently favors higher level items because they have exactly the same cost (an item bundle slot) as their lower level counterparts available from the same mod but sell for more money).
Yes there would be a fair amount of data that does not directly reflect the relative usefulness of items. (Selecting high level items to sell in order to buy the exact lower level items you want is not an uncommon practice). And yes, there are some factors specific to the bundle system to consider. However, that does not mean that it is useless for market research purposes.
Madfox11 wrote:
People should realize though that a LFR adventure is NOT the same a home campaign. You cannot use the database for marketing research into the usefulness of an item since of course a 6th level item is more useful then a 5th.
I want the 4E equivalent of 3.5E's Servant of the Fallen in Divine Power so that the worshipping dead gods is legal in LFR.
I want Mystran Channel Divinity feats in Divine Powr
It is difficult enough keeping a group of player's characters together much less at the same tier of module, and even more so for an Ad. Co. of illegally worshipping of a dead goddess paladins and their Knights of Mystic Fire auxiliaries. Please allow more than one character/player to belong to the same Ad. Co. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1082777
Ad. Co. teamwork feats.
An Ad. Co. Rewards Card that offers the following selection of story awards: I.e. A) Allow the character to swap an award of a Misc. level & type for another Misc. item of the same type, level & cost; B) Allow the character to swap a weapon for a weapon of the same "+", level & cost; C) Allow the character to swap an implement for an implement of the same "+", level & cost; D) Allow the character to swap an item for the gold to purchase a mount or vehicle/ship of equal level & cost; E) Allow the character to swap an item for equivalent gold to purchase buildings (towers, inns, temples, dungeons, et. al.) in their home region or their Ad. Co's region (see DMG for construction costs). The rewards should always serve the character's Ad. Co.'s theme (E.g. The Aglarondan Griffin Riders could recieve a griffin as a reward). The DM would have to sign, date, note the module, & the reward that was recieved. These rewards cards would always count against a character's stack.
You asked.
Thank you. -Bander
“Nothing on the face of this earth --and I do mean nothing- is half so dangerous as a children's story that happens to be real, and you and I are wandering blindfolded through a myth devised by a maniac.” -- Master Li Kao (Tang Dynasty)
Interesting you shoudl mention that. Martial Power 2 will have feats (I think they were called Tribal Feats) where if more than person in the group has the feat than it gives you a bonus based on the number of players with it. You could easily make it a requirement for an Ad Co to have one of those feats for admission.
They were in the MP2 playtest on the Dragon website a few months ago.
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?
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
