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?
No... I mean there are lots of reasons why a party may not be cohesive and forward-thinking enough to play in a way that that supports buying the ring...
like... my character is selfish and will not cooperate to the extent needed for this kind of play...
like... as a player, I am unwilling to sacrifice now (spending money now on the ring instead of something more immediately useful) to get more later...
like... "Oh, man, we only play a few hours once a week. It takes FOREVER to level up. I don't want to spend that money on that ring when I can buy something useful for my character that will help in combat NOW..."
like ... the party treasure division rules have us splitting treasure equally, so at each level we get only enough cash to be at 40% the value of an item at our level. The earliest any one PC could afford the ring is around 28th level assuming cash does get spent on other items as they are affordable.
And so on... the legitimate in-game or metagame reasons are nearly endless. Not everyone plays with the same level of "optimizing" play that you have apparently experienced. I think it may actually be far less common that you think, though maybe that does not matter so much anyway. It's only one factor among many as to why this ring does not need errata.
JamesMaissen wrote:
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
It doesn't. I was just saying that given the ring exists, you asked what balances out the fact the you get extra items?
I answered.
I admit it was a little bit tongue-in-cheek because I've already answered in exhaustive detail, how the ring, in actual fact, has little, if any, impact upon game balance. Yes, it is great fun to get extra items, especially in this way where it feels like the group is really getting away with something but, in fact, what they get is not really very significant in terms of an actual group power increase. For the most part, it's all an illusion. The party feels like they are going to get all this amazing amount of extra loot (in terms of 1/2-price magic items) when, in fact, over the course of seven levels each PC only gets two extra items and they are only at the PC's current level when received for result of about
I do understand your legitimate concerns over the ring, but given that the actual effect in-game is very minor, no errata is needed.
I also do readily admit that maybe creating 1/2-price items was not the intention, but:
1. We don't know that (it would be nice to know) and 2. The problem, if indeed there is one, is, by game design, auto-correcting anyway and 3. The actual in-game effect is minor enough that it does not matter. This goes into the category of leave it be and enjoy it!
No... I mean there are lots of reasons why a party may not be cohesive and forward-thinking enough to play in a way that that supports buying the ring...
And so on... the legitimate in-game or metagame reasons are nearly endless. Not everyone plays with the same level of "optimizing" play that you have apparently experienced. I think it may actually be far less common that you think, though maybe that does not matter so much anyway. It's only one factor among many as to why this ring does not need errata.
Okay.. let's try this..
Player A has PC A (easy to remember) and has gotten to the point that he is going to purchase a level 26 item. He does so.
Player B has PC B and has gotten to the same exact point. He instead buys this ring, a ritual scroll of enchant magic item and then makes the level 26 item. He saves money by doing so.
He doesn't coordinate with anyone, can be as selfish as he wants to be. He doesn't delay his purchase for a level, he gets it at the same time as the item he would have gotten he just pays less (thus in fact could get it sooner rather than later). He doesn't pool his resources.
He just takes the coupon that's at the cashier's counter and pays less for his level 26 item! How is this not a perfectly apt analogy?
I don't understand how this isn't a no-brainer and automatic. Please explain this to me, as your examples are just wrong. It's like you're not reading this fully. Include the word 'huzzah' in your reply, perhaps, so I know that you are at least reading this? Baring that, do you disagree with what I'm saying? Because I explain how these examples aren't correct yet you still use them as 'proof'! I don't understand.
To the others.. the ring offers nothing, and creates these silly situations that shouldn't exist in a good system. If you want more items then get your DM to give you more.. simple. Having a must have item (which for whatever reason you don't want to accept it that way) is just bad. The in-game effect of the ring is not just that the PC gets a handful of extra items, but that the system is marred by it.
Picture the following:
Step 1: Buy 2 scrolls of enchant magic item, 1 scroll of disenchant magic item (even though you might have the ritual caster feat). Step 2: Use 1 Scroll of enchant. Craft the ring. Step 3: Use 1 Scroll of enchant. Craft a level 26+ item. Step 4: Use 1 Scroll of disenchant. Reduce ring to residium (for fun).
Rather than simply crafting the level 26+ item! That the above steps are cheaper is insane! (A little less insane is to skip step 4, while a little more is to simply give/throw away the ring)
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
Player A has PC A (easy to remember) and has gotten to the point that he is going to purchase a level 26 item. He does so.
Player B has PC B and has gotten to the same exact point. He instead buys this ring, a ritual scroll of enchant magic item and then makes the level 26 item. He saves money by doing so.
He doesn't coordinate with anyone, can be as selfish as he wants to be. He doesn't delay his purchase for a level, he gets it at the same time as the item he would have gotten he just pays less (thus in fact could get it sooner rather than later). He doesn't pool his resources. ...-James
Okay, lets assume that both PC A and PC B wait until they have enough money to purchase the 26th level item out of their 1/5 share of the treasure and, being reasonable, let's assume they have not saved across mutiple levels to do so (they buy other items when affordable).
A 26th level items comes in a a cost of 1,125,000. This means the earliest the PC will have the money is at 30th level!!! (That's the first time 1/5 of the treasure haul comes out to be at least 1,125,000.)
Sheesh. Every time I work the numbers in any halfway reasonable fashion it comes out that this ring is simply not a significant issue from a game balance perspective.
I know it intuitively seems like it really should be a big problem, but it simply is not because of the time that is comes into play (among other reasons) and the extraordinarily high level of party cooperation required to make it at all useful for item creation of party level items.
JamesMaissen wrote:
Step 1: Buy 2 scrolls of enchant magic item, 1 scroll of disenchant magic item (even though you might have the ritual caster feat). Step 2: Use 1 Scroll of enchant. Craft the ring. Step 3: Use 1 Scroll of enchant. Craft a level 26+ item. Step 4: Use 1 Scroll of disenchant. Reduce ring to residium (for fun).
Rather than simply crafting the level 26+ item! That the above steps are cheaper is insane! (A little less insane is to skip step 4, while a little more is to simply give/throw away the ring)
Okay, that is odd, but let's the math works, shall we?
Of course this can only be done at level 26+ (you cannot create an item of higher level than you)
Total cost, using the ring = 1,087,500, or slightly cheaper
Refund on disenchanting ring = 105,000
To do this you need, up front, roughly 97% of the cost of the 26th level item anyway and it ends up costing about 88% of the original cost if you disenchant (or sell) the ring.
Again, not a very big deal at all. One individual will not have this much cash until 30th level.
I have not yet seen any scenario that makes the effect of this ring upon magic item purchases be significant enough to be of concern to game balance or a DM.
My examples are not wrong, as you claim (without real justification, BTW).. You seem to be arguing at an intuitive level and not looking at the actual effects in-game starting with actual DMG suggested reward values and following through to see the actual effects.
So, is this item a no-brainer? Well, that's conditional. If (and that's a big if) the party acts together in a truly optimal meta-gaming way to get the most possible treasure over the long term, then yes, it's a no-brainer.
If not (as is at least as likely), then this is far from a no-brainer. One individual will not have enough cash to make this worthwhile until 30th level. It really takes a high level of player cooperation to get any real magic item increase benefit, and even then it comes out to be a no very significant rise in the party's capabilities.
I could be swayed if you can show me how, using actual irrefutable numbers as I have done, this is really any kind of a serious issue. So far, every analysis ends up showing it to be a pretty insignificant impact on actual game play as far as extra magic items is concerned.
In truth, I am surprised at the numbers myself. I intuitively thought maybe this item would be more of a problem. But, as it turns out, it is not.
Sheesh. Every time I work the numbers in any halfway reasonable fashion it comes out that this ring is simply not a significant issue from a game balance perspective.
I'm not saying that it's going to suddenly cause the world to implode from dogs and cats living together.
I am saying that this ring is bad from a game system point. It goes against game design goals, as well as allowing for silly scenarios.
If it was its original purpose then according to you it's doing a bad job at it (besides being bad design to elect to do it that way), while if it wasn't intended then this glitch is overshadowing the ring's designed use. Isn't it interesting that we don't factor into these discussions any other use of the ring?
Artoomis wrote:
Again, not a very big deal at all. One individual will not have this much cash until 30th level.
So what you're saying is that without some party cohesion, going by standard wealth, not saving and an even distribution of treasure that eventually you will look to purchase a level 26 item. Right?
So you are saying that this will occur? To me that supports my side of this argument. Whether this occurs at 26th level or at 30th doesn't matter as much to me.
Now standard distribution means that 1 person is not getting a treasure bundle each level, right? And you are dividing the non-bundle treasure equally? If I were that person I might tend to be upset with that. Especially if I were that person multiple levels in a row. I'm assuming that we both assume that this last doesn't occur, so why doesn't the treasure split assume a degree of fairness as well? If we are talking 'selfish' people then wouldn't they demand that themselves? I mean we're talking about one PC getting an item over his level AND two items 5 levels below, while the other PC only gets the two items 5 levels below?
I think it's more reasonable to assume a distribution that allows each PC to get one item their level or above and ONE item 5 levels below each level. That doesn't seem to involve party 'planning' any more than assuming that no PC is going to be getting multiple bundles in a level..
Irregardless it just pushes back the point where a PC will purchase a level 26 item, which is the break point on when this gets stupid on its own.
Artoomis wrote:
I have not yet seen any scenario that makes the effect of this ring upon magic item purchases be significant enough to be of concern to game balance or a DM.
For me it's not about game balance as much as its about game design. I'm sure that it can become about game balance with some team work, depending upon your threshold with the respect to additional items. At what point on extra, free items does it become a concern to you? Ever?
But to me that's a side issue, and I really don't care if it hits that level or it doesn't. I think it's very easy for it to do so, but that's with a different basis of treasure allocation I guess and perhaps a different threshold of item balance.
I mean you're assuming that the only items crafted/purchased are going to be items that are around 5 levels below the party's level. That assumption/ experience is going to skew impact of course.
Artoomis wrote:
So, is this item a no-brainer? Well, that's conditional. If (and that's a big if) the party acts together in a truly optimal meta-gaming way to get the most possible treasure over the long term, then yes, it's a no-brainer.
If not (as is at least as likely), then this is far from a no-brainer. One individual will not have enough cash to make this worthwhile until 30th level.
So we agree that it reaches a point where it becomes a no-brainer, even with party members taking such an uneven split such as what you propose. You said this occurs at level 30, so it just seems conditional on reaching high level to me.. no metagaming, no optimization involved. In fact it's assuming a very weird treasure distribution than I would say is even implied.
Artoomis wrote:
I could be swayed if you can show me how, using actual irrefutable numbers as I have done, this is really any kind of a serious issue. So far, every analysis ends up showing it to be a pretty insignificant impact on actual game play as far as extra magic items is concerned.
We're going at cross purposes here. You are looking for a point at which the game world will explode. I'm looking at it from a game design stand point.
But let me pose to you these two possibilities:
1. the item never really breaks even its cost 2. the item more than breaks even
Which of these makes the item worthwhile? Can #2 happen immediately without sacrifice or delay? You're claiming both that it cannot but that it can at level 30. Which is it?
We're going at cross purposes here. You are looking for a point at which the game world will explode. I'm looking at it from a game design stand point.
But let me pose to you these two possibilities:
1. the item never really breaks even its cost 2. the item more than breaks even
Which of these makes the item worthwhile? Can #2 happen immediately without sacrifice or delay? You're claiming both that it cannot but that it can at level 30. Which is it?
-James
Are you really looking at it from a 'game design' standpoint? Truly?
Lets look at the corollaries between the levels. 6-10 16-20 26-30
Looking at the treasure parcels we see a couple of differences. 6-10 and 16-20 both have the ability to increase magic item power past their levels, 10 items in fact(item levels 11-14 & 21-24 which also happen to be +1 magic level higher +3 & +5 respectively) At 26-30 we have something different since the game stops at level 30 we get a difference it item parcels those same 10 items are reduced to stopping at level 30 items(that being the highest in game) This means that levels 26-30 the group with typical treasure parcels never get any 'stronger' compared to when the PCs were 6-10 and 16-20.
Perhaps WotC knowing this would happen placed other means to gain 'strength' in the epic levels, through either an Epic Destiny or other magic items(Ritualist Ring) to help compensate for the lack of 'strength' increase.
Did you not find it interesting that the ring also makes an extra 10 items(on average) for the group?
Are you really looking at it from a 'game design' standpoint? Truly?
Perhaps WotC knowing this would happen placed other means to gain 'strength' in the epic levels, through either an Epic Destiny or other magic items(Ritualist Ring) to help compensate for the lack of 'strength' increase.
Yes I am looking at it from a game design standpoint.
And I've brought up the possibility that you outline.. it's under 'sloppy design', 'shoddy patch', or 'kludge fix'.. I'm not quite sure all the words I've used to describe it.
If this is the purpose of the ring, then it is bad game design, as this is something that the system should handle rather than a specific item.
Just go back in the thread and you'll likely see me saying it every other post if not more frequently,
James PS: Note I'm not commenting on whether or not I think that you are correct, just saying that if you are it's sloppy design on their part. If you're not then it also has problems.. either way it's bad.
i wonder...are moveing these threads away of them telling us that this wont be errated??? It seams very unreasnable...I mean what are the odds that they would have that level of communication...
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?
