|
4 years ago ::
Apr 08, 2009 - 8:37AM
#941
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2003
|
You're going to pawn most of the items that the GM gives you anyway. Random picks tend to produce very inferior magic items. :P
Not if done right (it's not supposed to be random). The DM is supposed to give you stuff you an use. Pawning does not work very well at all due to the mechanism of only getting 1/5 value.
EDIT: Also, the thing about GM intervention is that most GMs have no real clue about game design or balance.
Well, if you are going to assume that players know how to "game the system" and DM's don't know what they are doing, then there are lots more things to worry about then just this ring.
BTW, the only time this ring even approaches being an issue is if the party is actually willing to pool all cash that is found/given during adventures and agree on how to spend it. If they are willing to work together to that high degree they deserve whatever extra they can get out that level of cooperation (which is really not all that much from this ring, as I've shown).
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 08, 2009 - 8:48AM
#942
|
|
|
Not if done right (it's not supposed to be random). The DM is supposed to give you stuff you an use. Pawning does not work very well at all due to the mechanism of only getting 1/5 value.
Well, if you are going to assume that players know how to "game the system" and DM's don't know what they are doing, then there are lots more things to worry about then just this ring.
Well, what I'm assuming is that both the GM and the players both suck at rules and game design. Which is quite often the case, at least in many of the groups I've seen. :P
BTW, the only time this ring even approaches being an issue is if the party is actually willing to pool all[b/] cash that is found/given during adventures and [b]agree on how to spend it. If they are willing to work together to that high degree they deserve whatever extra they can get out that level of cooperation (which is really not all that much from this ring, as I've shown).
Err, isn't that the point of a party? Unless you're going for a dysfunctional party that's coming apart at the seams (from having to keep all the conflict contained), that's generally how effective parties work.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 08, 2009 - 8:57AM
#943
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2003
|
Well, what I'm assuming is that both the GM and the players both suck at rules and game design. Which is quite often the case, at least in many of the groups I've seen. :P
If that's the case, then this ring is not an issue - there are far bigger issues to work. 
Err, isn't that the point of a party? Unless you're going for a dysfunctional party that's coming apart at the seams (from having to keep all the conflict contained), that's generally how effective parties work.
Most effective parties don't cooperate quite to that extent. It's pretty difficult to reach consensus on who gets to wait two more levels to get an item while the party rewards the other fours PCs with created goods. 
Bottom line: This item, as written, potentially (and only with fantastic party cooperation) increases the total number of epic items per character (at 30th level) from about 14 each to about 16 each, with those couple of extra items being of a lower level than those that are found while adventuring (per DMG treasure guidelines).
Tha actual effect does not really seem to be such a big deal after all, does it?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 08, 2009 - 9:35AM
#944
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2004
|
You're going to pawn most of the items that the GM gives you anyway. Random picks tend to produce very inferior magic items.
Not if done right (it's not supposed to be random). The DM is supposed to give you stuff you an use. Pawning does not work very well at all due to the mechanism of only getting 1/5 value.
So lets say there are two cases:
(1) The DM gives the players the items they want
(2) The DM gives the players items they don't want and the players pawn them
In which case will the ring be broken?
(1) The players got the items they wanted to have - why should they enchant more items at all ? And where should they get the insane amounts of GP (even with ring) from if they do not pawn stuff? -> They don't need the ring.
(2) The players pawn most of the stuff they find, therfore they can afford only to enchant lower level stuff or have to wait and save their money for items of their level. Unfortunately the game ends at level 30, so they might end up saving money but get no chance to spend it any more. -> The ring helps! The ring brings them into the same position like the group (1)
Now if (1) is supposed to be the correct way to go in D&D, then everything is shiny. This makes the ring a very good fix for a "broken" DM. 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 08, 2009 - 10:49AM
#945
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2005
|
The looking back at the math and logic given in this thread, the ring doesn't seem as broken as it originally appeared.
I'd still like someone from Wizards to confirm whether or not its effects are intentional or not.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 08, 2009 - 2:23PM
#946
|
|
|
If, indeed, this was meant as "stealth errata," (which is by no means certain) then I agree that it is the wrong way to do this.
That said, the net effect is so small to the end game of D&D (levels 25 - 30) that no errata is really needed for this item,
Well I disagree as it is a kludge, and systems should strive to fix such things rather than introduce more. It makes the game a shoddy product rather than fine tuning it. That is the purpose of editing, and failing that errata.
It either is a kludge fix for something that should be changed in the system, it is an item that has an unintended consequence of going against a game goal, or they've given up on one of their stated goals for the new edition to be different from the old.
In anyway this is a bad item. It takes *insanely* little to fix this and they are already coming out with periodic 'updates' (i.e. errata) so there's really no point not to do this in my book.
Lastly towards 'balance' can you tell me how many people, if playing optimally, would choose not to get this item as it stands? Currently it seems the only ones that wouldn't would be those that are not purchasing any items of level 26 or higher. That seems like it fits the definition of non-choice to me. Which means they have gone back on yet another design goal for 4th edition with this item.
What does it have in the positive column to balance any of this out?
-James
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 08, 2009 - 2:43PM
#947
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2003
|
...What does it have in the positive column to balance any of this out?
-James
Fun.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 08, 2009 - 3:06PM
#948
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2003
|
Well I disagree as it is a kludge, and systems should strive to fix such things rather than introduce more. It makes the game a shoddy product rather than fine tuning it. That is the purpose of editing, and failing that errata.
Perhaps so. A valid point, in any case, though I am not sure I would go so far as to use the term "shoddy.".
It either is a kludge fix for something that should be changed in the system, it is an item that has an unintended consequence of going against a game goal, or they've given up on one of their stated goals for the new edition to be different from the old.
Not the latter, I'd say, possibly either of the former, but the game effect is minor and equal for the whole party, so it's not a very big deal as it does not make one character more powerful than another.
In anyway this is a bad item. It takes *insanely* little to fix this and they are already coming out with periodic 'updates' (i.e. errata) so there's really no point not to do this in my book.
Well, maybe it's working exactly as intended. In which case we are back to "It either is a kludge fix for something that should be changed in the system, it is an item that has an unintended consequence."
Lastly towards 'balance' can you tell me how many people, if playing optimally, would choose not to get this item as it stands? Currently it seems the only ones that wouldn't would be those that are not purchasing any items of level 26 or higher. That seems like it fits the definition of non-choice to me. Which means they have gone back on yet another design goal for 4th edition with this item.
I would probably get it (or, rather, encourage my party to pay for it), especially because my character is a Lorekeeper (for flavor reasons) and this looks to cut costs even further. Cool synergy there. But, it is far from a sure thing that a party will get this. Sure they will, if they play optimally for obtaining items, but not everyone plays that way.
What does it have in the positive column to balance any of this out?
-James
Well, as stated above, fun. It's lots of fun to get more items, and, as shown earlier, has very little effect on the game. It a huge perceived gain at little to no cost in terms of game balance.
I think the end state for this ring is:
It's a fait accompli. The item exists and it does not come even close to "breaking" the game or upsetting game balance except in a way that is self-correcting.
I expect to see no errata. WotC has got better things to worry about than fixing an item whose "abuse" (if we want to call it that) does not upset game balance in any significant way. It's not worth their time. They have better things to do, and I, for one, would like to see them focus energy elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 08, 2009 - 3:20PM
#949
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2008
|
So lets say there are two cases:
(1) The DM gives the players the items they want
(2) The DM gives the players items they don't want and the players pawn them
In which case will the ring be broken?
(1) The players got the items they wanted to have - why should they enchant more items at all ? And where should they get the insane amounts of GP (even with ring) from if they do not pawn stuff? -> They don't need the ring.
(2) The players pawn most of the stuff they find, therfore they can afford only to enchant lower level stuff or have to wait and save their money for items of their level. Unfortunately the game ends at level 30, so they might end up saving money but get no chance to spend it any more. -> The ring helps! The ring brings them into the same position like the group (1)
Now if (1) is supposed to be the correct way to go in D&D, then everything is shiny. This makes the ring a very good fix for a "broken" DM.
This.
The only third case is really where it is case 2, but the DM is intending for them to liquidate the items to create whatever they want (lazy, but allows players to do whatever they want), and to make up for the rediculous sell-rate/disenchant exchange, gives them 5x the normal loot, just useless loot so that they can even out to what they want/need. In this case, it is kinda broken, but that just seems stupid to me. I guess there is also another case now that I think about it: The DM just gives the players enough gold/gems/currency to make/buy whatever they should have been finding. Also broken in this case, and this is actually fairly common in groups I've been in because it IS easier. The DM just won't let you buy items higher than you're supposed to have, even if you have enough money.
EDIT: However, in both of these cases, they are forgoing any higher level items since they are crafting...
A note to all who think I am being aggressive or angry- 99% of the time, I do not intend to be. I apologize if you think I am attacking you, odds are very strong that I am not. The only exceptions are when people become extremely uncivil to me, and even then I usually ignore them. I think it is very obvious when I am really mad; if I just seem generally abrasive, it is a reflection of my thought process rather than a state of emotion. I have the greatest respect for those who can debate rationally, even if we come to different conclusions.  I am Blue/White Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 08, 2009 - 5:22PM
#950
|
|
|
But, it is far from a sure thing that a party will get this. Sure they will, if they play optimally for obtaining items, but not everyone plays that way.
You mean like going to a store, purchasing an item but not using the coupon for it even if the coupon is available from the cashier?
That's more like shooting yourself in the foot rather than not 'optimizing' isn't it?
As to 'its fun to get more items' then why not just have the DM give you more or make all items cheaper? Why does it need to come through a ring that one has to have?
-James
|
|
|
