|
3 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2009 - 1:24PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2009
|
I'd disagree with you about the moral of the story. The moral I take away is that Hasbro/Wotc do not care enough about product quality to adequately test or edit before publishing.
But here's the thing. They are perfectly capable of creating balanced, well-edited, and playtested work. They do it all the time for Magic: the Gathering.
Card rules are written in a consistent manner with consistent terminology. FAQs are released at the same time as new cards, detailing how the rules work on the cards that aren't clear on the first read ("Any permanent that's both an artifact and a creature is a legal target for Molten Frame."), and even mentioning less common rule interactions ("Nyxathid's two abilities are linked: The second one refers only to the player chosen by the first one. If another creature becomes a copy of Nyxathid (due to Mirrorweave, for example), the second ability won't do anything because a player was never chosen as a result of the first ability. This is true even if a different ability allowed a player to be chosen as that creature came into play.").
I think there's been one card in the last ten years that needed immediate errata because it was printed incorrectly (if I remember correctly, it was missing "until the end of turn").
Like D&D's powers, some Magic cards are better than others. But they're extensively playtested for balance in Constructed and Limited formats. R&D is generally good at predicting which decks will rise to the top in Constructed, rarely missing some combination that makes things "too good." (For example, they missed the use of Gigadrowse, which made Dragonstorm a better deck than they thought it would be.) Only one block this decade required bannings to correct an imbalanced format.
WOTC can do this. Why don't they do this for D&D?
I agree with every word you've said.
My guess at an answer -
1) Magic makes more money for WOTC than D&D (I don't know if this is true, if it is then it is a reason that D&D gets the short end of the design stick).
2) The attitude that the DM will make up for poor writing. (see above posts)
WOTC pioneered exception-based rules systems. They still have patents running on Magic:The Gathering. They consistently show that they _CAN_ produce balanced, well designed product. (BTW, what's the total card count for Magic? Something like 12K different cards? And every single possible interaction has a knowable-within-the-published-rules resolution. Even the very crazy stuff relying on copy effects, enters battlefield effects, and while-on-the-stack abilities.)
The only reason they are not doing so with D&D is that they choose not to.
"At Gencon 2010, WOTC will announce a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons." - crm(1/2010)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2009 - 1:41PM
#42
|
|
|
1) Magic makes more money for WOTC than D&D (I don't know if this is true,
It's true and the difference is indeed that huuuuuuuuuuu[...]uuuge
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2009 - 2:43PM
#43
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
The designers didn't think of multiple magic items, because they assume the DM will regulate how items are distributed in the game.
That is true of items higher than your level, but items lower level are assumed to be bought and/or crafted with ease. WotC assumes that anyone who wants 20 sets of dice at 21st level will just go ahead and do that. It won't even cost them a terribly appreciable amount of money (they get 50 dice worth of gold over the course of 21st level). I don't agree with a lot of things in this thread, but it's a very bad idea to assume a DM handing out treasure will magically fix the problems in the system.
Especially for someone part of a campaign where that explicitly doesn't hold true.
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2009 - 3:00PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Dec 16, 2005
|
The designers didn't think of multiple magic items, because they assume the DM will regulate how items are distributed in the game.
The designers do not design for LFR, so the designs occasionally fail in that context.
I am personally in favor for a LFR rule that prohibits more than one version of an item per PC (with an exception for potions of healing).
Gomez
If there were such a rule were adopted, (and I think that such an artificial rule should be considered very carefully before being adopted--I don't like multiple salves of power any more than anyone else, but sweeping prohibitions like this are subject to the law of unintended consequences and once potential players get the idea that playing RPGA games requires navigating a maze of arbitrary and nonsensical restrictions it takes a long time to dispel that impression), it should be:
A. limited to exact duplicates. Having a suit of +1 black iron scale armor shouldn't prevent me from later getting a suit of +2 black iron scale armor. Likewise, having a heroic tier helm of battle should not prevent me from obtaining a paragon tier helm of battle.
B. Provide an exception for weapons. A ranger shouldn't be prevented from getting a second +2 magic scimitar. Nor should a ranger who has two +2 vicious scimitars be prevented from getting a +2 vicious longbow.
C. It should also have an exception, not just for potions of healing but for reagents and other consumables. A wizard shouldn't have to buy a single flame rose after every adventure if he uses one each adventure. Reagents (since the revision) are structured so as to prevent high level characters from spamming at will powers with cheap reagents. An artificial rule that would prevent a character from using more than one reagent in an adventure is arbitrary and unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2009 - 3:44PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2002
|
Actually, I think there's a RAW argument that you can't use multiple magic items of the exact same type - magic item powers follow the rules of powers, so no getting the same power twice, and I'm not currently seeing the clear exception to that rule in the magic item section.
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author) Handbooks
Show
Builds
Show
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2009 - 4:18PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2001
|
The designers did take into account the idea of buying multiple cheap items with daily powers. Thats why you are limited to using daily powers to 1/2/3 plus 1 per milestone.
Comparing Magic to D&D is a very flawed comparison. Magic is a competitive game with exacting rules. It has no need to simulate reality in any manner. It has no need to include a story element. It has no need to accomodate free thinking or any of the realism based variables that D&D does. It is these unpredictable, and near infinite combinations that is the very reason the game needs a DM. While I don't think saying the DM can solve the problem should always absolve the designers, you also can't absolve the DM's for every problem at the table by blaming poor game design.
Writing Director - Returned Abeir
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 03, 2009 - 2:01AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Nov 10, 2003
|
Nor do I, but try telling that to everyone who already owns three salves of power.
You'd be well within your rights by RAW to state that someone who has multiple salves of power can't actually use more than one of them. Page 226 of PHB gives more than enough RAW ammo to state such as DM. It depends on whether you interpret 'different magic item' to mean. You could interpret it to mean that once you've used one salve of power, you can't use another one, because it is the same magic item even if you have multiple copies.
A lot of people interpret this as meaning the specific item, but given that you generally can't use a power more than once per day when it is a daily(with explicit exceptions), I don't really think that holds. And magic items are supposed to follow the rules of powers in general except where mentioned.
It's one that needs an FAQ ruling, for sure.
The 'specific item' interpretation is the only one I've ever come across, although it's a long time since I examined the RAW closely.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 03, 2009 - 2:06AM
#48
|
|
|
It has been used by several people while discussing veteran's armor last year. I am not sure whether twisting RAW is a good sollution to anything broken. I usually just talk with the players, trying to learn why they are using the item. If they want to get through combat to get to the RP, and all players want so, then I usually don't care whether or not they use it. It is only problematic when they use it, and still expect a combat challenge, or when they want something different from the game then the rest of the players at the table. Although, even in that case talking often helps as well. Few players will go out of their way to purposely ruin the fun of others.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 03, 2009 - 3:33AM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
(yes I know way late replying out of sync, sue me)Again we hear the argument that a good DM can compensate for poor writing/design.
While it is true, it speaks poorly of the writer/designer that we make thousands of DM's repeatedly deal with shortcomings that one or two writers could have fixed.
In my opinion, the DM as an arbitrator, balancer, decider, etc. is a core mechanic and foundation of all D&D editions including 4th. I see D&D design as being balanced around the assumption that there will be a person checking the rules interaction of all "stuff"* and deciding how to handle it. Considering this design perspective, I would suggest that there is nothing wrong with for instance the Salve of Power.
If you have situation where the DM is unwilling (lack of desire, courage, insight) or unable (limited by the constraints of lets say.. LFR) to fulfill the role of that core mechanic you cannot expect there to not be problems now and then. Demanding, as seems popular, that all "stuff"* in D&D work flawlessly all the time regardless of the DM is like demanding a building stay upright while you replace the foundation with silly putty.
I think overall in LFR the campaign management is doing a fairly good job of filling in where the silly putty fails, but there are only so many people, and there is room for only so many struts propping things up. Still I would not be opposed to the management getting or claiming more room to actually be the campaign's DM and consequently MAKE SOME CALLS! (  )
As for home campaigns, well hey whatever works for the people involved... I happen to think that the fact the D&D leaves room for people to decide amongst themselves what to do with "stuff"* is well worth the price of having to do some thinking now and then.
*Items, classes, races, powers, feats paragon paths, epic destinies, etc. i.e. stuff
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 03, 2009 - 6:15AM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Aug 24, 2007
|
Actually, I think there's a RAW argument that you can't use multiple magic items of the exact same type - magic item powers follow the rules of powers, so no getting the same power twice, and I'm not currently seeing the clear exception to that rule in the magic item section.
Yes. PHB page 226 states that you can't use the same magic item daily power more than once per day, even after milestones; the artificer's class ability would be a specific exception to that.
A possible interpretation thereof is that, even if you possess two Flaming Swords, you still can only use the "set opponent on fire" ability once per day, and that even if you possess ten Salves of Power, you can still only use the "recover a class daily power" ability once per day.
Mind you, I am not saying that this is the only possible interpretation, and it does not seem to be the popular one (although, of course, whichever interpretation makes characters more powerful tends to be the most popular one). Nevertheless, absent a FAQ entry, ruling, or update on the matter, I believe an RPGA DM would be well within his rights to use this interpretation in his sessions. It doesn't completely remove the problem, but it alleviates it.
|
|
|
