Community

 
Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 48 of 52  •  Prev 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 ... 52 Next
Switch to Forum Live View New in Essentials: Magic Item Rarity
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2010 - 4:45AM #471
frothsof
Date Joined: Jun 4, 2010
Posts: 10,486

Aug 10, 2010 -- 10:18PM, Outlaw68 wrote:

Aug 10, 2010 -- 7:52PM, frothsof wrote:

parcel system is great. this quote just reads hilarious

"Do you like the idea of turning the players loose to buy any item in the  game (SOUNDS SOOOO RISQUE AND LOOSE AND RECKLESS), or would you rather restrict access based on an item’s complexity and impact on the campaign (OOOH IM TOO POMPOUS TO GIVE MAGIC ITEMS TO MY PLAYERS, I INVENTED "LANTERNWORLD", A WORLD WHERE THE STORES ONLY SELL LANTERNS)?"




Yes.. because preferring low magic campaigns automatically likes somebody pompous.. and the only non magical item that exists on equipment lists is lanterns. Undecided




well, if your world is just an elaborate excuse not to give players items they want then yes, pompous

Aug 11, 2010 -- 4:28AM, Duskweaver wrote:


I'm also happy on a more personal level, since this new system also looks like it will integrate perfectly with my homebrew setting (without me having to restrict the EMI ritual to artificers only, which was my original plan).




why do that though? what items make you do that? it would have to be an item of their level or lower and im not aware of any game breaking items. which comes first, the player restriction or the world?

im seeing a lot of homebrew worlds that all have one thing in common, dont give players items they want or keep them from even being able to make them. why? there is no evidence that they break the game. is it just to get that old school power trip dm feeling

dark sun has + items such as armor...theyre just reflavored into chicken bones and such as opposed to wyrmscale. the items are still there. theyre just made from different materials. not to mention a free encounter power. hardly restrictive, power wise you actually improve.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2010 - 5:08AM #472
Quintarius
Date Joined: May 22, 2006
Posts: 374
It's not always a power trip or something like that.
some players like to be challenged, for something to be a challenge in a balanced world, you need to set restrictions. And when these restriction fall into the world of "campaign fluff" it's just the better. A setting might(!) feel generic and bland if you just allow everything and all.
Sometimes it just doesn't work like trying to play in a "real" medieval setting opposed to a high fantasy-world but with flavorful protagonists.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2010 - 5:47AM #473
Psikerlord
Date Joined: Mar 25, 2007
Posts: 1,399
Plain and simple - random item generation reduces player minmaxing. If a PC can't get exactly which item they want, there is a cascading effect (to some degree, sometimes stronger, sometimes subtler) with subsequent choice of feats/powers/paragon paths etc which are synergistic with certain magic item properties. Now don't get me wrong, I play and I DM, and I am a powergamer (although I try not to minmax toooo much) - in the end it all comes down to keeping a rough balance at your own table - how your PC compares to other PCs in the party you play with.... But I like the idea of a mixed parcel and random item game. At least now we'll have a choice. You can still optimise a bit, but there's a healthy dose of uncertainty, too. Awesome.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2010 - 6:15AM #474
icedcrow
Date Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 2,377

Aug 11, 2010 -- 5:47AM, Psikerlord wrote:

Plain and simple - random item generation reduces player minmaxing. If a PC can't get exactly which item they want, there is a cascading effect (to some degree, sometimes stronger, sometimes subtler) with subsequent choice of feats/powers/paragon paths etc which are synergistic with certain magic item properties. Now don't get me wrong, I play and I DM, and I am a powergamer (although I try not to minmax toooo much) - in the end it all comes down to keeping a rough balance at your own table - how your PC compares to other PCs in the party you play with.... But I like the idea of a mixed parcel and random item game. At least now we'll have a choice. You can still optimise a bit, but there's a healthy dose of uncertainty, too. Awesome.




+1.  Red bold to highlight the part I especially like.  I'm a big fan of uncertainty in the game.  That fits my style very well, both as player and as DM.

To see my campaign world visit http://dnd.chrisnye.net
My music -> www.myspace.com/Incarna
My music videos -> www.youtube.com/Auticusx
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2010 - 7:00AM #475
Duskweaver
Date Joined: Jun 9, 2008
Posts: 3,633

Aug 11, 2010 -- 4:45AM, frothsof wrote:

why do that though? what items make you do that? it would have to be an item of their level or lower and im not aware of any game breaking items. which comes first, the player restriction or the world?



It's nothing to do with balance. I thought I'd made that abundantly clear, given that I said I'd continue to use the old system for other settings.

im seeing a lot of homebrew worlds that all have one thing in common, dont give players items they want or keep them from even being able to make them. why? there is no evidence that they break the game. is it just to get that old school power trip dm feeling



Nope. Do you always assume the worst motives for people's actions?

No, the reason for restricting magic items is that magic items are rare and precious in my setting. And the reason they are rare and precious is entirely fluff. The big bad Ishtari Empire hunts down magic items and turns any they find into residuum, in order to have enough to fuel a world-changing ritual. They also persecute arcane spellcasters, so there are large areas of the world where anybody with the knowledge to create new magic items is either in hiding (and unwilling to share their secrets) or just plain dead. Artificers are a class-mechanical way to represent the few remaining spellcasters in the world who actually know how to enchant stuff.

I've no wish to actually dictate what items my players can have, though. But, on the other hand, none of them care that much about having specific magic items. If one of them wanted a specific item for their PC, I'd find a plausible in-game way to give them it. Even if every player wanted their character to have a set of Iron Armbands of Power, I'd be fine with that. I might make them go on a quest to acquire the items, but that's (to both me and my players) a case of making things more fun and interesting. My players would let me know pretty darn quickly if they thought I was just abusing my power as a DM to screw with them. But I hate power-tripping DMs and make a point of avoiding that sort of thing.

My players (and I) enjoy both high-magic worlds where they can go pick up any items they like from the local Olde Magicke Item Shoppe and low-magic worlds where even a simple +1 magic longsword is a rare and valuable item that people would kill or die for and which 99% of people will never see in their lifetime.

Having two alternate magic item/treasure systems allows us to run either sort of world without having to houserule things too much.

dark sun has + items such as armor...theyre just reflavored into chicken bones and such as opposed to wyrmscale. the items are still there. theyre just made from different materials. not to mention a free encounter power. hardly restrictive, power wise you actually improve.



But it's not about restricting powers. It's about different campaign settings feeling different.

To put it another way, it sounds like you want to restrict what sorts of worlds I and my players can play D&D in. If we want to play a campaign with no magic items at all, what business is it of yours to tell us we shouldn't do that, or imply that I'm a bad DM for even considering it?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2010 - 7:12AM #476
hametsuj
Date Joined: Jul 14, 2008
Posts: 1,384

Aug 11, 2010 -- 4:45AM, frothsof wrote:


why do that though? what items make you do that? it would have to be an item of their level or lower and im not aware of any game breaking items. which comes first, the player restriction or the world?

im seeing a lot of homebrew worlds that all have one thing in common, dont give players items they want or keep them from even being able to make them. why? there is no evidence that they break the game. is it just to get that old school power trip dm feeling

dark sun has + items such as armor...theyre just reflavored into chicken bones and such as opposed to wyrmscale. the items are still there. theyre just made from different materials. not to mention a free encounter power. hardly restrictive, power wise you actually improve.




Why spend so much time here trying to disprove any opinion that likes one or more aspects of Essentials?  Did you buy stock in a competitor or something?  You seem to have an answer for everyone that posts anything.  Is your DM not giving you an item you want?  Is that what this is about?  I've seen you post dozens of times about why the item concepts proposed in Essentials is bad, but why do you care personally?  How does it effect you directly?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2010 - 7:54AM #477
The_Jester
  • Stampeding Hybrid
Date Joined: Nov 1, 2003
Posts: 3,506

Aug 10, 2010 -- 4:39PM, Cpt_Micha wrote:

1. A starter set which radically alters the parent rule system as well. While STILL not playing like the parent system.



But every review from GenCon I've seen says it does play like the parent system. And from what we've seen, half the classes should play very, very similarly to existing classes. It's altering the rules, yes, but the Updates and other changes are likely divorced from the Parcel changes. There's a difference between rule changes and rule additions that add aren't just tacked-on.

Aug 10, 2010 -- 4:39PM, Cpt_Micha wrote:

2.  You know those GP parcel?  Use that as Worthless Items no one can use. Because really it's the same thing anyway. Instead of straight GP just describe X item which no one can use which is worth Y amount of GP. It skips the middle man of selling garbage to get a good item while not screwing with the level curves.



This is a good idea. But sometimes I like having piles of cash. But it doesn't solve the issue of still having to give-out four magic items each level. And now instead of having to sit about planning each item of an appropriate level that I'm giving to my PCs, I also have to sit down and find items of the appropriate level that my PCs will not use and if I make a mistake they suddenly have extra gear…


Aug 10, 2010 -- 4:39PM, Cpt_Micha wrote:

The other items? do take time to replace and phase out. Its' not every fight the fighter is finding a new sword for example.  If they are then you aren't using the parcel system correctly by definition.   That's also why you -find- better parcels than you can buy with a starting character of a given level. Because they are going to be hanging on to their items for a good while. Or should be.



A good while being 5 levels. Level 1: weapons, L2: armor, L3: neck, L4: characters missed, L5: misc, L6: Weapons, repeat. It repeats twice each tier like clockwork. You could set your watch to when you should be getting your upgrade.

Aug 10, 2010 -- 4:39PM, Cpt_Micha wrote:

of course with random gear the fighter -could- end up with a new sword every fight. Or a level 1 can end up with a +6 weapon of doom. (Funny stories about random items in 3x I could tell you about how one pc wound up level 2 with a +8 overall sword and the other got..... an art object)



True, if you use random gear all the time. The great thing about adding an option to the game is you have a choice.


The players are delving into an ancient ruin for two levels. It's abandoned and old so you roll randomly for treasure using that system. Then, the next level, they're working for the king who has the resources to give them exactly what they want, filling in gaps in their equipment and using the standard parcel system.


 


Aug 10, 2010 -- 4:31PM, The_Jester wrote:

I'm dead set against WOTC creating the balance to support it. According to the track record, they can't do it. They failed in the DMG 3E. They failed in the MIC. They won't be successful this time around, either. The tables will end up biased and likely will encourage one set of builds over another.



Even if the new balance created to support it has no impact on the existing game?


And because they failed before is no reason for them not to try again. They failed to make some monsters interesting for three editions before 4e got them right. There's lots of mechanics that sucked in 3e that they nailed this time round.


They could fail, but not even trying because you might fail is fatherly advice right out of the Simpsons.


Aug 10, 2010 -- 4:31PM, The_Jester wrote:

Rarity does three things.1) It tells the players what to do. This is a problem when you have new players coming into the game, and you have to deprogram that there are no restrictions on equipment. This mainly is just another annoying sentence you have to add over the phone.



I'd rephrase that "it tells the players what they should do." In that it gives they're expected reaction. Saying that's bad is like saying roles are bad because they tell you how you should play your character.

Aug 10, 2010 -- 4:31PM, The_Jester wrote:

2) It tells DM's what to do. If I wanted something rare (as other people keep yelling at me about), and I have a new player come in, I have to tell them no. The player, well justified, will tell me that the Rules say he can. Now I have to either allow it, or house rule and have a fight about it.



Opposed to the current rules, which don't tell DMs how rare to make magic or how to run their games at all.


If I have a new player come in and I'm using the inherent bonus rules I have to tell them "no" they can't have their expected three items as outlines in the DMG. It's not that different.


Has this been a problem for you in the past? Do you think the potential for fights over house rules really means an addition shouldn't be added to the game? You could make that argument for any rules element.


Look at the flip side as well. Couldn't you house rule the game for more buying/selling of rare items, and hand them out more often? Doesn’t rarity make it easier to have a high-magic Monty Haul campaign without handing the PCs much higher level items that making hitting and combat too easy?

Aug 10, 2010 -- 4:31PM, The_Jester wrote:

3) It makes things ugly. No, seriously. It means adding a line of text, and placing 3 tables in a book where we only had one. It chews up slightly more space, and gives you less in return. It's just not worth it so that you can have a gimmick of treasure card packs.



I could say the same thing about adding powers to martial classes or including spell descriptions inside monster stat blocks.


 

Aug 10, 2010 -- 4:31PM, The_Jester wrote:

3a) It's been thought of. It's been planned. It's been in the plans since they started thinking about Gamma World. This isn't a bad thing, but I don't feel it's needed just so you can sell treasure card packs.



As for treasure card packs, they haven't mentioned that. It’s not in the products for 2011. And it's not like similar arguments weren't made about the formatting of powers when 4e was released. Just because the rarity sounds the same as the miniature line does not mean they have cards in the works. Common, uncommon, and rare had a meaning and place in D&D for twenty-five years before collectible minis appeared in the game. And, as I mentioned before, the 3e DMG had a very similar distinction between items.
Could they do treasure card packs? Probably. But they'd still need to add that content to the Character Builder, and it isn't set-up for redeemable codes. Unlike Blizzard who has the tech skills to have a CCG with codes and keep it secure (because their game is always online), WotC would have a struggle keeping the content unlocked or preventing codes from circulating or hacks from spreading.


Aug 11, 2010 -- 4:28AM, Duskweaver wrote:

I suspect that giving us an alternative to the parcel system really has very little to do with Essentials. I think the catalyst for this change is actually DarkSun.

In a world where everyone gets inherent bonuses, magic items are supposed to be rare and precious artefacts rather than groceries, and where there's really not much in the way of super-expensive stuff to spend your gold ceramic coins on, using the standard parcel system and the Enchant Magic Item ritual as-is would just be weird. I was actually expecting some viable alternative to be unveiled around the time of DarkSun's release.



I agree. Sad that it took an official release for them to realize the inflexible parcel system made low-magic games awkward.
You get enough gold each level for a couple magic items. But in a game with no magic you're throwing more gold at the PCs they can never spend even in fantasy-Vegas. Parcel variants with non-financial rewards and more consumables or boons – both permanent and short-term – would help that style of game.

Aug 11, 2010 -- 4:28AM, Duskweaver wrote:

If you want to keep the existing system and allow players to buy/craft any magic item that already exists, there's nothing stopping you from doing that. In fact, I'll be doing that in my current PoLand (i.e. not homebrew) campaign, since I've already established that magic item shops/markets/bazaars exist in sufficiently large and cosmopolitan cities in that world. I would also be personally inclined to use the existing system for Eberron and (probably) Forgotten Realmsgames as well.



They've said PCs will be able to make Common items and most existing items will be slipped into the Uncommon category (probably except the base +1,+2,+3 items). It's easy to imagine a lower magic game where PCs can only make Common items or a standard 4e game where PCs can make Uncommon items, or a high-magic Realms style game where the PCs can craft Rare items. 



Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

Spoiler: Show

My Webcomic



Updated Tuesday and Thursday


Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).

You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2010 - 8:50AM #478
VaultDweller
Date Joined: Aug 3, 2009
Posts: 1,379

Aug 10, 2010 -- 10:18PM, Outlaw68 wrote:

Aug 10, 2010 -- 7:52PM, frothsof wrote:

parcel system is great. this quote just reads hilarious

"Do you like the idea of turning the players loose to buy any item in the  game (SOUNDS SOOOO RISQUE AND LOOSE AND RECKLESS), or would you rather restrict access based on an item’s complexity and impact on the campaign (OOOH IM TOO POMPOUS TO GIVE MAGIC ITEMS TO MY PLAYERS, I INVENTED "LANTERNWORLD", A WORLD WHERE THE STORES ONLY SELL LANTERNS)?"




Yes.. because preferring low magic campaigns automatically likes somebody pompous.. and the only non magical item that exists on equipment lists is lanterns. Undecided



Deciding to make a "low magic" campaign is something independent of parcel guidelines and magic item creation rules.  If you were going low magic before, you had to come up with your own stance on the availability of magic items, and probably do some additional house-ruling or use inherent bonuses.  After they implement magic item rarity classifications... well, you still have to do exactly the same thing.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2010 - 9:06AM #479
hametsuj
Date Joined: Jul 14, 2008
Posts: 1,384

Aug 11, 2010 -- 8:50AM, VaultDweller wrote:


Deciding to make a "low magic" campaign is something independent of parcel guidelines and magic item creation rules.  If you were going low magic before, you had to come up with your own stance on the availability of magic items, and probably do some additional house-ruling or use inherent bonuses.  After they implement magic item rarity classifications... well, you still have to do exactly the same thing.




Unless Essentials includes more than just item rarity and random item tables.  I'll guess we'll just have to wait for the item preview to be sure...  The point here is to empower the DM.  To make his or her job easier.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2010 - 9:54AM #480
Outlaw68
Date Joined: Jul 5, 2007
Posts: 1,825

Aug 11, 2010 -- 4:45AM, frothsof wrote:

Aug 10, 2010 -- 10:18PM, Outlaw68 wrote:

Aug 10, 2010 -- 7:52PM, frothsof wrote:

parcel system is great. this quote just reads hilarious

"Do you like the idea of turning the players loose to buy any item in the  game (SOUNDS SOOOO RISQUE AND LOOSE AND RECKLESS), or would you rather restrict access based on an item’s complexity and impact on the campaign (OOOH IM TOO POMPOUS TO GIVE MAGIC ITEMS TO MY PLAYERS, I INVENTED "LANTERNWORLD", A WORLD WHERE THE STORES ONLY SELL LANTERNS)?"




Yes.. because preferring low magic campaigns automatically likes somebody pompous.. and the only non magical item that exists on equipment lists is lanterns. Undecided




well, if your world is just an elaborate excuse not to give players items they want then yes, pompous

Aug 11, 2010 -- 4:28AM, Duskweaver wrote:


I'm also happy on a more personal level, since this new system also looks like it will integrate perfectly with my homebrew setting (without me having to restrict the EMI ritual to artificers only, which was my original plan).




why do that though? what items make you do that? it would have to be an item of their level or lower and im not aware of any game breaking items. which comes first, the player restriction or the world?

im seeing a lot of homebrew worlds that all have one thing in common, dont give players items they want or keep them from even being able to make them. why? there is no evidence that they break the game. is it just to get that old school power trip dm feeling

dark sun has + items such as armor...theyre just reflavored into chicken bones and such as opposed to wyrmscale. the items are still there. theyre just made from different materials. not to mention a free encounter power. hardly restrictive, power wise you actually improve.




If you had actually read my earlier comments instead of frothing at the mouth ranting about entitlement etc, you would have read I balance the game with other methods. Such as using inherent bonuses, I also mentioned I am a massive fan of the boon system. I am not sure why I am responding to you, since you only respond to the portion of posts you actually want to while ignoring the rest that doesn't suit your typecast.
And as I said earlier (if you had bothered to read it) I run low magic campaigns, because I want magic in games to feel.. magical.. a wild concept isn't it? If everybody has magic, and it so common it might as well replace the term magic, with slightly special, because the magic is gone. I grew up reading low magic fantasy and enjoying it, and that is the style I play in. None of my PC's have never had a problem with it, and I do sprinkle Magic Items through out my campaigns, I just favour inherit bonuses more. Leave MAGICAL items to feel MAGICAL.

If you have any 4E conceptual issues or rules that you would like help with feel free to PM me.

Roleplaying since 88!

Guide To Dealing With Problematic Posters
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 48 of 52  •  Prev 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 ... 52 Next
Jump Menu:
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing