# The new, shiny "Stuff I Have/Would Ban" thread!



## Obryn (Oct 5, 2009)

I know, I know, I'm a bad DM, but yes, I do ban certain things.  We had one of these threads quite some time ago, so I figured I'd start a new one...  There's been some errata (Battleragers, I'm looking at you...) and some new books, so I'm curious how things have changed.  Personally, I try to ban as little as possible and just deal with problems as they arise, but there are certain things I just want to cut off before they even potentially become a problem.

For my default setting game, I don't allow...

Items
* Bloodclaw Weapons
* Reckless Weapons
* Iron Armbands / Bracers of Archery
* Phrenic Crown

Feats
* Dragonmark feats (I'd allow them for the "correct" races if I were running Eberron, though.)
* Any non-default-setting gods and their Channel Divinity feats require pre-approval, but in practice this mostly amounts to...
* Righteous Rage of Tempus, yes, even post-errata
* _Kind of_ the Expertise feats, though since everyone gets the bonuses from them at 5/15/25 levels in my campaign, I'm not really taking anything away from my players.

Powers
* Wiz 5: Grasp of the Grave

Backgrounds
* Anything that gives benefits beyond the limitations in PHB2, so pretty much no backgrounds from FR, Scales of War, or a few other Dragon articles


How about you folks?

If you don't ban anything, I'd love to know that, too!  And while I'd rather not have this descend into an "Only bad DMs ban stuff" discussion, I'm not going to pretend I can do anything about it.  Just know that it's falling on deaf ears here. 

-O


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 5, 2009)

Hybrids. I flat-out banned them.

Expertise is automatic in my campaign; Weapon, Implement, or Focused as required.

Bloodclaw weapons will likely be out, but it hasn't come up yet. 

Scales of War backgrounds.

I think that most of the rest can be dealt with.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 5, 2009)

Ryujin said:


> Hybrids. I flat-out banned them.




Interesting.

I tried putting together a few hybrids and they mostly sucked as PCs. Was your ban power-gaming based or flavor based?


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 5, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I tried putting together a few hybrids and they mostly sucked as PCs. Was your ban power-gaming based or flavor based?




A little of both. A lot of the really heavy cheese that I've seen seems to revolve around hybriding and tossing that much in makes it pretty hard to ride herd.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 5, 2009)

Ryujin said:


> Hybrids. I flat-out banned them.



I'm on a "wait and see" for hybrids.  Nobody has had any interest in them yet.

I'm a little skeptical of hybrids, but it seems to me like they're generally weaker than a full class, except for certain very specific mega-power-gamed signature tricks that involve taking toys from tons of classes at once.

-O


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 5, 2009)

Wierd they hybrids are very rarely a way to get power... they make certain atwill boosters work better... and that is about it


----------



## Markn (Oct 5, 2009)

Nothing yet but I'm considering Lasting Frost and Bloodclaw.  My players haven't discovered reckless or bloodclaw yet so I haven't done so yet.  Staff of Ruin has been picked up by 3 different players which makes me think banning that would be a good idea.

As for Hybrids, I considered it but for the most part they seem weaker, so for now I will allow it.


----------



## Flipguarder (Oct 5, 2009)

interestingly enough... White lotus feats. I just don't like the idea of at-wills becoming more powerful than encounter powers. I made the call after my Swordmage told me his ridiculous plan for swordburst.


----------



## Ravellion (Oct 5, 2009)

Obryn said:


> * Iron Armbands / Bracers of Archery



So far, just those two are definitely banned. Some other items are uder probation, but I can't recall the names at the moment.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 5, 2009)

I haven't banned bloodclaw, but I would if someone actually bought one and abused it.

I don't use backgrounds, but I don't consider that banning something.  I view them as optional rules.  Am I wrong on that?

My players mostly don't screw with me so I rarely need to ban things.


----------



## Pseudonym (Oct 5, 2009)

Obryn said:


> * Iron Armbands / Bracers of Archery




These haven't come up in our game, but why do you feel +2 damage per tier to be ban worthy?


----------



## fuzzlewump (Oct 5, 2009)

Rather than ban Iron Armbands of power, I just made any bracers of level 6+ count as iron armbands of power, or bracers of archery, or both. That way, everyone still gets the +2 damage if they invest in bracers, but still get to choose interesting/different bracers. I did this because I have no problem with a plus to damage.

Staff of ruin is removed, and instead any headslot item of level 6+ is +2 item bonus to implement damage rolls. That one I just completely made up, so that casters had a way to get +2 damage like meleers and archers, but with the flavor of head slot = increased mind power.


----------



## Destil (Oct 5, 2009)

Obryn said:


> * Bloodclaw Weapons
> * Iron Armbands / Bracers of Archery
> * Expertise feats (I drop monster defense instead)
> * Anything that gives benefits beyond the limitations in PHB2, so pretty much no backgrounds from FR, Scales of War, or a few other Dragon articles



This is my short list, though it hasn't come up. The general rule is Power Source Books, PHB1&2 and ECS are in bu default (as well as non-FR specifics from FRCS, since I have a swordmage), but everything else is DM approval required.

I'm rather unhappy with double weapons in general as well, and if it comes down to it I'll rewrite half of 'em and most of their supporting rules to let them in. In fact superior weapons on a whole are a bit annoying and I'd rather clean the entire weapon list up, but it wouldn't affect the game at all and thus so far I haven't made any effort towards it.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 5, 2009)

Pseudonym said:


> These haven't come up in our game, but why do you feel +2 damage per tier to be ban worthy?



Because it's too obvious and boring.  When these are available, they overshadow everything else you would put in that slot.  For the price, they're unreasonably strong.

Note, though, that I haven't banned the bracers that give +2 damage to basic attacks only.

As for why I'm banning anything, there are pretty much two reasons...

(1) I get new players on occasion, and I'd rather cut the worst abuses off right from the get-go.  That way, it's clear ahead of time and I don't need to worry about taking it back later.

(2) I am a rules-monkey myself, and help my players make great PCs.  I want to stay away from suggesting these, so figure I'll just ban them ahead of time to remove the temptation from myself.

-O


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 6, 2009)

My general rule is that if it's not in the original 3 books, it's banned. Individual items, rules, feats and powers may be allowed on a character-by-character basis.

A lot of things I'll just automatically say yes to, but there's just so many things that radically swing the game's balance that making "yes" a blanket rule with exceptions is just not feasable. Hopefully this way people will feel happy when they are allowed to use something, not unhappy when they cannot.

Incidentally, if I ever get to the point where I feel the expertise feats are a necessary fix, I intend to quietly reduce monster defenses instead.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 6, 2009)

Pseudonym said:


> These haven't come up in our game, but why do you feel +2 damage per tier to be ban worthy?




For me it has to do with damage stacking.  I think the order of effectiveness should go: Powers-Feats-Items.  I think all items should provide ONLY temporary or circumstantial modifiers or small constant bonuses that are smaller than feat bonuses.  Any modifiers that apply constantly should be feats, any powers that do daily type damage should be power only.

Since Weapon Focus applies a +1/+2/+3 bonus with a particular weapon type, any item bonus should provide a smaller bonus than that or a more limited bonus than that.

Iron Armbands/Bracers of Archery provide a bigger bonus that works in MORE circumstances than a feat.

But more than that, it's also due to stacking.  As far as I can tell, the original design philosophy was that Level+Class Features+Enhancement bonuses should be the core of your characters damage and that any damage after that should be very small and not stackable.  They wanted your characters class to be most of your character.

Unfortunately, there are already too many untyped bonuses or bonuses of types that stack with everything else anyways.  I think the formula should work like this: (the with the bonuses separated by Tier like: Heroic/Paragon/Epic)

(1[w]/2[w]/3[w])+enhancement+(up to +2/+4/+6 from feats)+(up to +1/+2/+3 from items, or +2/+4/+6 if it involves a sacrifice of some sort)+(up to +4/+8/+12 from powers/class)

Unfortunately, this is basically true other than the item portion.  It is possible to get +24 from items instead of +3.  I posted this in another thread, but the key to fixing this is to make ALL items that give bonuses give item bonuses.  Then reduce Iron Armband/Bracers of Archery to +1/+2/+3 and then change Bloodclaw to 1 for 1 or 2 for 1 with two handed weapons, and Reckless to only give a bonus on damage equal to the enhancement bonus instead of double.  Also, change all of their bonuses to item bonuses.  You can either use a Bloodclaw weapon OR Iron Armband, but both won't stack with each other.

I think that puts their bonuses back in line with the rest of the game and in particular, the rest of items.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 6, 2009)

Well, as I posted recently in another thread:

I would rather tweak items than ban them, either by limiting the frequency of use (e.g. allowing the _bloodclaw_ property to be used 1/round or 1/encounter) or tinkering with the numerical bonuses (e.g. take 1 damage for +2/+3 damage with heroic-tier +1/+2 weapons, take 2 damage for +4/+6 damage with paragon-tier +3/+4 weapons, and take 3 damage for +6/+9 damage with epic-tier +5/+6 weapons). 

I would only ban game elements that I had a fundamental conceptual problem with (and so far, I can't think of anything that I would ban offhand). For everything else, it is simply a matter of adjusting the mechanical expression to something that I am comfortable with. As an aside and IMO, one of the key improvements introduced by 4e is making the 1/encounter frequency so pervasive in the game. This has made balancing the game much easier because the benefits that are not significant enough to be restricted to a 1/day usage but which are too good to be used at-will (or, even if there are multiple uses in a day, too good if they are used two or three times in a single encounter) can be made into 1/encounter abilities.


----------



## dvorak (Oct 6, 2009)

> *Grasping Weapon  *(AV2)
> *Weapon*: Polearm, Spear
> *Enhancement*: +2 attack rolls and damage rolls
> *Critical*: None
> ...






> *Badge of the Berserker* (AV2)
> *Item Slot*: Neck
> *Enhancement*: +1 Fortitude, Reflex, and Will
> 
> *Property*: When you charge, your movement made as part of the charge doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.




These two items would receive my vote; at the very least modified.  *Power (Daily)* for the Grasping weapon and/or remove spear aspect and then include *Power (Encounter)* for the Badge.

The ability to negate anything between a party member and the BBEG becomes anti-climatic.  Of course I don't DM so it is moot.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 6, 2009)

Banning things isn't being a bad DM - it's being responsible. Less is more.

Making Dms out to be "bad" because they ban things is just this irritating player entitlement that rears its ugly head where WotC want to wrestle away control over campaigns from DMs to arrive at a position maximized for profit:  "go ahead and buy all our books; if your DM doesn't like it, tell him or her we said it was okay!"  

So threads like this is very useful - chances are if enough DMs ban an item, it suggests it really IS broken.

That said, it would be really nice if you could add a reference so we could see at a glance where each thing comes from (without having to look it up in the compendium).

Items
* Bloodclaw Weapons (AV1)
I haven't read up on the discussions, but I'm guessing the issue here is temporary hp? Perhaps it could be allowed if you got x1 (x1.5 for two-handers) instead of x2 (x3)...

* Reckless Weapons (AV1)
This really ought to have given a to hit penalty as well. Lots of games have fallen into the trap of paying for more damage with weaker defense; and its abusable in all of them - you simply use this only when you stand a good chance of not being attacked. Then you get extra damage for free.

* Iron Armbands / Bracers of Archery (AV1)
Would you consider halving the benefit, to not make them a must have?

* Phrenic Crown (AV1)
Is this really broken in itself, or just in combination with the broken build of the Orbizard? (Which Wizards haven't fixed YET)

Feats
* Dragonmark feats (I'd allow them for the "correct" races if I were running Eberron, though.)
No opinion. Disallowing these outside of Eberron is completely uncontroversial in my opinion.

* Any non-default-setting gods and their Channel Divinity feats require pre-approval, but in practice this mostly amounts to...
* Righteous Rage of Tempus, yes, even post-errata
OK - I'll have to check out any threads on this one - I really thought the "update" fixed any egregious brokenness?

* _Kind of_ the Expertise feats, though since everyone gets the bonuses from them at 5/15/25 levels in my campaign, I'm not really taking anything away from my players.
Agreed. It's not the bonuses that are niggling, it's how WotC pretends those feat slots would be used for anything else, like these feats weren't utterly superior to everything else.

Powers
* Wiz 5: Grasp of the Grave (Dragon 372)
Hadn't noticed this one. Getting to auto-daze anybody at level 5 do sound powerful. Care to elaborate?

Backgrounds
* Anything that gives benefits beyond the limitations in PHB2, so pretty much no backgrounds from FR, Scales of War, or a few other Dragon articles
A given.


----------



## Baumi (Oct 6, 2009)

I only banned Double-Weapons except Staffs and Spiked Chains (need feats for them and are still weaker than the other ones). The new ones from Eberron seems also ok, but the original Double-Weapons made to many other weapons (-combinations) obsolete.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 6, 2009)

Baumi said:


> I only banned Double-Weapons except Staffs and Spiked Chains (need feats for them and are still weaker than the other ones). The new ones from Eberron seems also ok, but the original Double-Weapons made to many other weapons (-combinations) obsolete.



The real disadvantage to a double weapon is that an enchanted double weapon only grants an enhancement bonus to the off-hand end. Weapon properties and powers conferred by the enchantment only affect the primary end of the weapon. Read strictly, this could be interpreted to mean that when the user scores a critical hit with the off-hand end of a weapon, he doesn't even get bonus damage dice or any other effects that the weapon enchantment would bestow on a critical hit.


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 6, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Banning things isn't being a bad DM - it's being responsible. Less is more.
> 
> Making Dms out to be "bad" because they ban things is just this irritating player entitlement that rears its ugly head where WotC want to wrestle away control over campaigns from DMs to arrive at a position maximized for profit:  "go ahead and buy all our books; if your DM doesn't like it, tell him or her we said it was okay!"
> 
> So threads like this is very useful - chances are if enough DMs ban an item, it suggests it really IS broken.



Well, you know what they say about flies? Since a million flies can't be wrong, everyone should eat ...

I'll take every bet that the number of DMs who don't feel they need to ban anything is a lot larger than the number of DMs who feel they have to. And the number of those who truly _should_ ban anything is even smaller.

Banning things outright has a good chance of indicating a bad DM. The better way to do this is to only ban things that prove to be problematic for your game. Give things a try before you ban them, maybe they're aren't as bad as everyone says they are. Convince yourself rather than letting others do the thinking for you.

Unless have totally unreasonable players, chances are, a player will agree with your judgement if one of his items or powers turns out to be truly overpowered.

Besides, your dislike for anything that may help anyone to make a profit seems to have impaired your reasoning. Some of the most powerful options in 4E are right in the PHB. Just because something is from a later supplement doesn't make it more 'banworthy' than anything from an earlier supplement or one of 'Core' books.

This isn't to say that less _can_ be more. But I'd rather see a DM ban things because something doesn't fit her setting ('No gnomes in my Darksun game - there's been a genocide in a previous age!') than because she feels (wrongly) that something might unbalance her game.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 6, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> * Bloodclaw Weapons (AV1)
> I haven't read up on the discussions, but I'm guessing the issue here is temporary hp? Perhaps it could be allowed if you got x1 (x1.5 for two-handers) instead of x2 (x3)...



The problem is that the amount of damage you do to yourself is insignificant compared to the damage dealt to the enemy.  My fighter regularly attacks 8 times with a +3 Bloodclaw weapon in a combat.  He does 24 damage to himself.  This does 72 damage to the enemy.  Considering I do 1d10+12 damage with my attacks, this is the equivalent of hitting an extra 4 times for free.  For the most part, this equals 4 rounds of attacking in exchange for one healing surge.  A tradeoff that is more than worth it.

In some battles when I use Rain of Blows twice in the same combat, I've used it up to 15 times in one encounter.  45 damage to me is still one healing surge plus cleric healing after the combat.  In exchange for enough free damage to easily kill a monster of my level for free.

If I get some way to get temporary hitpoints(which I don't really have), then it is even better.

For the most part, 24 damage is about 10 damage less than I would take in the 4 rounds of an enemy attacking me.  So, basically the weapon can be read as:
Prevent the next 10 damage you would take in order to kill a bloodied enemy.



CapnZapp said:


> * Reckless Weapons (AV1)
> This really ought to have given a to hit penalty as well. Lots of games have fallen into the trap of paying for more damage with weaker defense; and its abusable in all of them - you simply use this only when you stand a good chance of not being attacked. Then you get extra damage for free.



Yeah, this is partially why it is so powerful.  Trading AC for damage is not really a valid tradeoff.  But also, the amount of bonus they give is too high.



CapnZapp said:


> * Iron Armbands / Bracers of Archery (AV1)
> Would you consider halving the benefit, to not make them a must have?



This is my solution as well.  I think people would still use them but they would actually consider other items instead if they were half the bonus.



CapnZapp said:


> * Phrenic Crown (AV1)
> Is this really broken in itself, or just in combination with the broken build of the Orbizard? (Which Wizards haven't fixed YET)



And this build is even a byproduct of combining yet another item together with the class feature.  It doesn't get broken until all 3 are brought together.



CapnZapp said:


> Powers
> * Wiz 5: Grasp of the Grave (Dragon 372)
> Hadn't noticed this one. Getting to auto-daze anybody at level 5 do sound powerful. Care to elaborate?



That's pretty much the issue with this power.  It doesn't require an attack roll or anything to pretty much paralyze a group of enemies for at least a round.  But it IS a daily and the enemies can just spend their action walking out.  I think this is one good power.  But I don't think it's broken.  It's just that a lot of the other Wizard dailes at level 5 are so bad that it sticks out.



CapnZapp said:


> Backgrounds
> * Anything that gives benefits beyond the limitations in PHB2, so pretty much no backgrounds from FR, Scales of War, or a few other Dragon articles
> A given.



Yeah, I'm beginning to see it this way as well.  Backgrounds give too much benefit.  A +2 to a skill is appropriate.  10 hitpoints is not.  It's double the effect of a feat at level 1.


A number of the items above suffer from the same problem as all other static damage modifiers:  The more attacks you get the better they are AND the static damage modifiers can add up to more than your actual attacks.

Damage is more valuable the LESS damage you do.  This is because it increases your effectiveness as a percentage.  If you do 1d4 damage then a +1 damage increases your effectiveness by almost 50%.  Damage is actually pretty low in 4e.  Which means that small modifiers have a large effect.  Which means you have to carefully control the total number of static bonuses available.  Ideally the static modifiers will never be more than 50% of the total average damage you are doing.  So if you do 1d12 damage, getting static modifiers bigger than +6 is a problem.  By the time you are paragon tier, you are normally doing 2d10 on a regular basis, so +13 is about right.  By epic tier you are doing 3d10 on a regular basis and +19 is appropriate, and about 4d10 by the end of epic tier, so closer to +26 by the end.

By 30th level, that's about the bonus you get from Stat Mod(8)+Enhancement Bonus(6)+12 from other places.  Bloodclaw breaks this by adding +18 by itself at 30th level.  Which stacks with the +6 from Iron Armbands and the +3 from Weapon Focus, and a couple other small bonuses you can get from feats.

On the other hand, if you make Reckless give you only +Enhancement bonus in damage(instead of double enhancement), Bloodclaw give 1 for 1 regardless of the weapon you use, and make Iron Armbands half their bonus....then you run into a situation where Weapon Focus+Bloodclaw+Iron Armbands total 12.  Which is about right.


----------



## Atzilla (Oct 6, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> My fighter regularly attacks 8 times with a +3 Bloodclaw weapon in a combat.  He does 24 damage to himself.  This does 72 damage to the enemy.



Your fighter has 100% hit chance? Nice, but I think the bloodclaw wouldn't be the worst problem of this built...

My Barbarian hits his enemies about 60% of the time - so with bloodclaw always on he takes an average 1.7 damage to deal out 3 extra damage. Considering how much hp some monsters have - this doesn't sound overpowered to me.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 6, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Powers
> * Wiz 5: Grasp of the Grave (Dragon 372)
> Hadn't noticed this one. Getting to auto-daze anybody at level 5 do sound powerful. Care to elaborate?




Part of the issue with this is that the power works the same, for all intents and purposes, if a foe is hit or missed. So, auto-daze and auto-damage. To me, this is just bad design.

Additionally, the power affects enemies only. So Defender allies (or the Wizard himself) can lock foes down in it (using other abilities) such that the foes are Dazed and taking damage for the majority of the rest of the encounter. And, there are few ways to stop this. Stunning the Wizard will not stop it since it is not a Sustain, etc.

Plus, the PCs can shelter inside the area (or the Wizard can create a barrier with it) and force the NPCs to come in, or get pounded with ranged attacks (assuming the foes do not have ranged attacks of their own which most monsters at least do not), or run away.

It's not that it's just a little better than other 5th level Dailies, it's a lot better.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 6, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> I'll take every bet that the number of DMs who don't feel they need to ban anything is a lot larger than the number of DMs who feel they have to. And the number of those who truly _should_ ban anything is even smaller.




Sounds like an opinion. We need a poll.



Jhaelen said:


> Banning things outright has a good chance of indicating a bad DM. The better way to do this is to only ban things that prove to be problematic for your game. Give things a try before you ban them, maybe they're aren't as bad as everyone says they are. Convince yourself rather than letting others do the thinking for you.
> 
> Unless have totally unreasonable players, chances are, a player will agree with your judgement if one of his items or powers turns out to be truly overpowered.




It doesn't have to be totally unreasonable players. Some players are heavy duty powergamers and/or minmaxers. If they come up with a concept and that concept relies on a specific power or item and it does turn out to be unbalanced, then the entire PC combo falls apart. It's not unreasonable that a player would feel disagreeable if their cool idea was stripped away from him after playing the PC for several months.

It's actually preferable for the DM to combine a) banning game elements ahead of time that appear to be overpowered or even against the campaign favor, and b) banning elements later on that disrupt the game.

Not doing a) and only doing b) allows for months of unfairness to the other players when PC Striker #1 is doing 50 points of damage and PC Striker #2 is only doing 25 points of damage.



Jhaelen said:


> But I'd rather see a DM ban things because something doesn't fit her setting ('No gnomes in my Darksun game - there's been a genocide in a previous age!') than because she feels (wrongly) that something might unbalance her game.




I think the sign of a good DM is when he's capable of doing both.

If possible, avoid problems before they come up in the game system.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 6, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> <stuff>



You can go ahead and think I'm a bad DM - you've never played with me, so I'll take your opinion for what it's worth.

I don't believe that everything in the game is made well.  Fortunately, there are only a few things that I think are problematic.  I'm snipping off the outliers - the most egregious things.  Generally, these are the items that every single character would have.  (Seriously, how many Barbarians, given a choice, _don't_ take a Bloodclaw weapon?  How many of any melee character, given a choice, would rather have a Bracer other than the Iron Armbands?)

While I can always not include these things during play, I have new characters come in semi-regularly, and this is a pre-emptive fix to make sure new characters don't have hugely better equipment than the existing characters.  And yes, I trust my players, but I also trust they'll take the best stuff for their new characters.

As to why I'd do it ahead of time - I don't want there to be a problem in my game that I later need to fix.  If something is broken for 4 sessions, those 4 sessions could have been improved by not having the broken thing to begin with.  It's a risk I'm willing to take.

-O


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 6, 2009)

*A different kind of fix idea*
People tend to fix ... wizards must have expertise feats.... by giving it to everyone.... what if blood claw weapons were handled similarly?
?In other words if the ability to spend hit points to make a stronger attack was given to everyone? It could be skinned as heavily exerting ones self, or even potentially resulting in muscle strains or using luck agressively... or similar...

Well just a thought... multi-attack damage being overly boosted by it is probably the problem rather than it being better than other options.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 6, 2009)

Atzilla said:


> Your fighter has 100% hit chance? Nice, but I think the bloodclaw wouldn't be the worst problem of this built...
> 
> My Barbarian hits his enemies about 60% of the time - so with bloodclaw always on he takes an average 1.7 damage to deal out 3 extra damage. Considering how much hp some monsters have - this doesn't sound overpowered to me.




Obviously I negated hit chance for that particular example.  But even assuming that with hit chances it means that you average 1 damage to you for every 2 you do to an enemy, that still means that in 10 rounds of combat, you've taken 30 damage to do 60 to the enemy.  Assuming my level 12 character, that's my healing surge value.

If you had an item that said "Spend a healing surge to do 60 damage to an enemy" that you wouldn't take it?  And that it wouldn't be kind of overpowered.  Especially considering if everyone had one, we could just spend 2 healing surges each and defeat the entire encounter.

Besides, when I use my bloodclaw weapon, I attempt to stack all the modifiers in my favor when I do so.  Most often, I get the Cleric to Righteous Brand while I have combat advantage.  Then I have +25 to hit.  I hit on 3s against level 12 Soldiers with that bonus to hit.  2s against everything else.

It's that damage stacks quickly.  A level 12 Brute has 150 hitpoints.  If there are 3 people in the party with +3 Bloodclaw weapons, each of which can attack twice during the same round(on average due to Rain of Blows, Ranger attacks, some Barbarian powers, Action points, etc) and they all hit(let's assume best case scenario, easily possible if the creature is dazed or everyone has flanking), the Bloodclaw bonus damage alone does 54 damage.  This almost definitely kills that creature in one round of attacks after adding in all the actual damage from the attacks.

Compare that to a group that decided to take non-bloodclaw weapons of the equivalent level and there is virtually no way for that group to kill that Brute in one round.


----------



## keterys (Oct 6, 2009)

If Bloodclaw is balanced, removing it from the game is no big deal, people will just use something else.

If Bloodclaw isn't balanced, then no harm removing it.

Removing things like the bracers is tougher since nothing else fills its role, but it mostly reduces damage across the board _while allowing another choice to be valid_. Suddenly some people might consider using a magic shield, for instance. 

Grasp of the Grave is just a horrible spell, and the game is well rid of it. In some groups it's not abusively horrible, but in others... We actually discussed it last night at a game where the players were talking about how broken it was, and I noted that it would probably be dealable if the daze ended when you left the zone. Still totally brutal with fighters and being knocked prone, though, they pointed out. Maybe if it affected PCs too...

But there are actually _lots_ of valid reasons to remove things from the game, as long as it's not a kneejerk response. Those reasons can vary from 'I like being able to give out magic items for a couple item slots without people ignoring them' to 'I don't want most combats settled during the first round AP-massive damage nova' and anywhere in between. All sorts of valid gameplay reasons.

Course, some of us also play and run LFR, in which your table might 2-round curbstomp almost every fight _or_ risk a possible TPK, depending on how well they know their magic items.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 6, 2009)

keterys said:


> If Bloodclaw is balanced, removing it from the game is no big deal, people will just use something else.
> 
> If Bloodclaw isn't balanced, then no harm removing it.



Yup.  And given the number of "M4SS1V3 DPR" builds which include it, I think encouraging other choices is fine.   My goal is to make it so there's not _one_ best choice.  I understand that something will always be the best - so my end point is kind of arbitrary - but cutting off the extreme tail of the curve at least leaves a wider variety of competing items near the top.



> Grasp of the Grave is just a horrible spell, and the game is well rid of it. In some groups it's not abusively horrible, but in others... We actually discussed it last night at a game where the players were talking about how broken it was, and I noted that it would probably be dealable if the daze ended when you left the zone. Still totally brutal with fighters and being knocked prone, though, they pointed out. Maybe if it affected PCs too...



Yeah, I came up with few potential fixes before basically deciding it was easier to ban it - there are plenty of other choices at that level.  Affecting allies would help it a lot, but maybe not enough.  Regardless, every fight I've seen it in has turned into a slaughter - and that was _without_ a fighter.

-O


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 6, 2009)

keterys said:


> If Bloodclaw is balanced, removing it from the game is no big deal, people will just use something else.



Well maybe... whether its a big deal or not its' possible people like the trade off choice provided by bloodclaw (I kind of do).



keterys said:


> If Bloodclaw isn't balanced, then no harm removing it.




Well one might like its effect just not its extremity or you might like its flavor.

 Also I am more inclined to change things than ban them, identifying clearly what might bother me about the game element lets me deal with it better.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 6, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Obviously I negated hit chance for that particular example.  But even assuming that with hit chances it means that you average 1 damage to you for every 2 you do to an enemy, that still means that in 10 rounds of combat, you've taken 30 damage to do 60 to the enemy.  Assuming my level 12 character, that's my healing surge value.
> 
> If you had an item that said "Spend a healing surge to do 60 damage to an enemy" that you wouldn't take it?  And that it wouldn't be kind of overpowered.  Especially considering if everyone had one, we could just spend 2 healing surges each and defeat the entire encounter.




To be totally fair, such an item would be the same as a Healing Surge plus some resource to use that surge (i.e. the PC still takes the damage, hence, will often have to be healed an additional time in combat). And, the item would gradually give the damage over the course of 10 rounds. Plus, such an item would only do 40 damage instead of 60 if used with a shield, etc.


How much damage does your 12th level PC do without it? 20 dpr per round (including misses)? Now, it's 26 per round.

So, the 260 hit point monster takes 10 rounds to defeat instead of 13.

But, how much damage would the Barbarian take back from the monster in 3 rounds? He takes 30 with the item (his choice of course). The monster in 3 rounds could easily do nearly that much.

So, the problem with Bloodclaw is action economy.

The Barbarian (or some other PC) would have taken that damage anyway. The damage is merely a footnote.

The problem is how quickly multiple of these more potent items stack and drop an encounter from 10 rounds down to 6 rounds, hence, using even fewer resources per encounter overall.


----------



## Destil (Oct 6, 2009)

One my issues with bloodclaw is that it's undercosted. It's one of if not the top damage boosting weapon enchant, but it's at the minimum cost for some reason (item level +1). I might be willing to allow it in a game if it didn't eat temp HP *and* it was at item level +4...

As far as double weapons, I really dislike the Eberron ones, because they suck. But they designed themselves into a hole with the two weapon ranger. The issue is:

Two Weapon Ranger can use two normal one handers for free. So for a double weapon to be good for them (at the cost of a feat) both halves need to be better than a one-hand weapon (equivalent to a superior one-hander).

Everyone else can take one feat to get the double weapon, but if they're equivalent to a superior one-hander in each hand that's actually worth two feats (Wepaon Prof and Two-Blade Warrior).

On the other hand, if they're not equivalent to two superior weapons the ranger doesn't get anything from using them.

My solution would be:
Two Blade Warrior becomes a standard heroic tier ranger feat, Requires Str and Dex 13. Two-Weapon rangers get their choice of this OR Weapon Prof (any double weapon) at 1st, instead of gaining it as a class feature.

All double weapons are equivalent to wielding two one handed martial weapons.

Double Sword: +3/+3 d8/d8 heavy blade
Double Scimitar: +2/+2 d8/d8 heavy blade, high crit
Urgosh: +2/+2 d10/d10 axe/spear
et cetera.

Drop defensive as written. Sad but true: sword and board fighters end up even with or behind two-weapon fighters for AC, since there's no way for them to increase their AC from a shield (that stacks with Armor Spec) though feats. *And* they have check penalties and deal less damage. Defensive is a reasonable property, but it should require you to use the weapon in your main hand and show up on something like a d8 +2 one-handed military weapon or a d8 +3 superior one-hand weapon.


----------



## Eric Finley (Oct 6, 2009)

Personally I really love the _flavour_ of Bloodclaw and Reckless, which makes it a pity that they're so out of line.  Given the typical disparity of monster HP and PC HP, I think its ratio is quite appropriate; all it needs is to be handled with "the obvious" interpretation (e.g. you have to be using the Bloodclaw itself to make the attack, you pay once per attack roll, etc - things that got missed in RAW but are quite intuitive nonetheless).

As an interesting comparison point, the newer Blood-Drinker line of items is quite comparable in effect to Bloodclaw, but with the sequencing different.  Take 5 damage on a miss in order to add +2d6 to the next attack (if it hits).  IMO weaker, because you can't avoid the miss effect even if you don't need it, and the ratio is poorer... but it's not actually that much poorer than Bloodclaw when all's said and done, and unlike Bloodclaw it's not limited to melee attacks.

Other than those, the OP's list is pretty much mine as well, plus double weapons (again, other than Staff Fighting and the Spiked Chain line of feats).  Some Paragon Paths and specific combos (e.g. Blood Mage) would get a private talking-about and arrangements made with the player before they could choose them.  But with the (IMO correct) read on damage bonuses as "apply only to damage done as a direct and immediate result of an attack roll", many things - possibly including Blood Mage - become much less problematic.


----------



## robsenworldaccount (Oct 6, 2009)

*The Fog is rolling in!*

To make a long story short:  This game is all about fun.  That fun is achieved by group harmony.  For ex, if player A does 2x the damage of player b, and they are both strikers, player b is going to feel inadequate.  

To restrict some things to keep harmony is absolute a viable strategy that should not necessarily reflect poorly on a Dm.  

Oh, and if you want something overpowered.  Try a mount.  Specifically, a Giant Riding lizard from Adventurers vault.  A single feat and the cost of a 6th level magic item will net you a giant riding lizard.  

Oh ya, and anytime the rider makes a melee attack; the lizard gets to make one at +10 to hit that deals 2d6+5 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it 
whoever made it must love R.A Salvatores drow im guessing, cause it smokes any legit mount.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Oct 6, 2009)

Except for campaign specific stuff (Dragonmark feats, races etc) I tend to not ban anything.  I even have a Bloodclaw weapon in the party now and really can't see the problem with them *shrug*.  Anyways I never have a problem as a player with DMs banning stuff - as long as I know about it ahead of time.  Given the power down most items get in 4E the urge to ban them seems much less nowadays.


----------



## Anand (Oct 6, 2009)

dvorak said:


> The ability to negate anything between a party member and the BBEG becomes anti-climatic.  Of course I don't DM so it is moot.




I agree, but you're only doing what an Artful Dodger Rogue could do easily.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 6, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> To be totally fair, such an item would be the same as a Healing Surge plus some resource to use that surge (i.e. the PC still takes the damage, hence, will often have to be healed an additional time in combat). And, the item would gradually give the damage over the course of 10 rounds. Plus, such an item would only do 40 damage instead of 60 if used with a shield, etc.



True, but so far my experience with my fighter who has had his Bloodclaw weapon for about 4 levels now is that I can Bloodclaw every round of the combat without every worrying about going down enough hitpoints that I need healing during the battle.  I normally wait until the end.  I believe there has been one combat where I started taking enough damage that I stopped using Bloodclaw.

And most people with shields don't take Bloodclaw weapons.  It isn't overpowered when it is 2 for 1.  Only when it is 3 for 1.



KarinsDad said:


> How much damage does your 12th level PC do without it? 20 dpr per round (including misses)? Now, it's 26 per round.



No, he does an average of 9 damage a round(1d10+10=15.5*0.6=9.3, 12.6 on rounds I use a 2[w] atttack) including misses.  It adds 5.4 more.  That's a good amount of damage.  But it's only part of the problem.  My Iron Armbands also add 1.2 damage per round.  The total of the two means that 41.5% of my damage comes from those two items on rounds I use a 1[w] attack(For a 71% increase in damage).

If I use Rain of Blows, I get 3 attacks at 1d10+5.  Average 10.5*0.6=6.3.  Three times is 18.9.  Meanwhile the Iron Armbands+Bloodclaw combo adds 19.8 damage.  This gives a 105% increase in damage by having these items.



KarinsDad said:


> So, the 260 hit point monster takes 10 rounds to defeat instead of 13.



Assuming I lose 41.5% of my damage, it means that a monster takes 14 rounds to defeat instead of 10.  4 rounds of a monster hitting you is a fairly big deal.

For me, alone to kill a 260 hitpoint creature using the numbers above, it would take approximately 28 rounds(16 rounds with the Bloodclaw and Iron Armbands, saving me 12 rounds).  Let's assume a group of 5 people who do equal damage.  It takes about 5.6 rounds to beat it.  Or 3.2 rounds if all of those can add Bloodclaw and Iron Armbands.  Or less than 2 rounds if they all use action points.

Keep in mind that if you split those 260 hitpoints amongst 3 creatures, it is likely that one or two of them are for sure dead in the first round meaning they never get to act.



KarinsDad said:


> But, how much damage would the Barbarian take back from the monster in 3 rounds? He takes 30 with the item (his choice of course). The monster in 3 rounds could easily do nearly that much.



In 4 rounds(as I figured out above), the Brute I used as an example does 32 damage in the 4 extra rounds it has.  54 damage if it is bloodied for those 4 rounds.  Either way, you save at least a bit of damage.  And the monster could have encounter powers or recharge powers that do more damage the longer it survives, so killing it faster is always better.

Plus, there's always swing damage.  IF the monster hits with all 4 of its attacks while its bloodied it does 90 damage on an average roll and easily over 100 on a good roll.  Easily enough to take someone down.  You want to avoid that by giving it as few actions as possible.



KarinsDad said:


> So, the problem with Bloodclaw is action economy.
> 
> The Barbarian (or some other PC) would have taken that damage anyway. The damage is merely a footnote.
> 
> The problem is how quickly multiple of these more potent items stack and drop an encounter from 10 rounds down to 6 rounds, hence, using even fewer resources per encounter overall.



I agree.  This is the main problem.  Too much damage stacking together causes the number of rounds the battle lasts to become very small.  In a very small battle, the PCs need to use less of their resources and the monsters have less chance to use their recharge powers and their interesting attacks.  It's also less satisfying to defeat monsters so quickly.

But that's not the entire problem.  The other side of it is that the difference between someone who takes these items and those who don't can be close to double damage.  It sucks to sit down at a table as a newbie and not know about Iron Armbands or Bloodclaw and show up with a character who does half the damage of everyone else at the table.  This is especially true when people start combining some other combos that you don't know as well.  Add in Dual Implement Spellcaster, Two Weapon Fighting, and Lasting Frost cheese and the damage difference between two level 12 characters can be even bigger than that.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Oct 6, 2009)

keterys said:


> If Bloodclaw is balanced, removing it from the game is no big deal, people will just use something else.
> 
> If Bloodclaw isn't balanced, then no harm removing it.
> 
> ...




Yeah, there are certainly some things that might as well be banned or at least nerfed and I think the OP obviously hit on the main ones. As you say its mostly a matter of what choices are viable. Items which are so far above the general level as BC/Reckless/IAoP/BoA are exactly those items. There's no need for a player to even think about wanting any other enchantment in those categories. Its not even that they may degrade game play, its just that a game full of BC fullblade wielding barbarians is BORING. Why even have any other weapon enchantments with those two in the game? Same for arm slots. 

I'd say Staff of Ruin falls at least very close to being in the same category. The case with implements is a bit more complex since most casters will want to have other ones at least for specific purposes and using an SoR effectively may well require several feats, so it isn't quite so clear-cut. On top of that at least some casters seem to need a decent way to stack on a bit of extra static damage. I'm not sure though that would be true if the other 4 items were out.

Grasp of The Grave IMHO is a bit of a different case. Its not that the spell is so devastatingly effective or even in theory better than anything else at level 5. In fact I think its hard to argue its REALLY better than Stinking Cloud hands down. The problem with it is its MINDLESS. There are no downsides to using it at all. It lasts all encounter, doesn't effect allies, and the effects it does have are pretty much universally effective except maybe if the enemy is primarily artillery. Its a stupid people spell that just rewards uncreative play excessively. Its perceived overpoweredness is really mostly based on that. You can just as thoroughly destroy an encounter with other level 5 dailies, but you might actually have to get a bit creative sometimes to do it. GotG on the other hand just always works.

Personally though, I hesitate to fling the word "ban" around too heavily. I just maintain strict control of what items are going to show up in the game by not placing ones I don't want around and making it impossible for PCs with Enchant Item to just whip out any old thing simply because it happens to be written up in AV or some other book or its in CB. 

As for the whole orbizard lockdown thing, banning items ain't going to fix that people. Phrenic Crown is kind of a nice item to use in that build but hardly necessary. You'd have to ban ALL save penalty items just to put guaranteed lockdown out of reach before level 28. The problem is guaranteed lockdown isn't the ONLY issue. Even reducing a solo's saves by 10 points at level 28 is drastically increasing the character's power and it will still be the premiere option since it means an average 4 round lockdown, which might as well be forever. Its a BIT less problematic getting practically guaranteed lockdown vs regular/elite monsters at higher levels, but its still kind of problematic since knocking out one of the DM's soldiers in a single hit is pretty close to being an encounter-breaker in most cases.

Frankly I think the entire CONCEPT of the orbizard is bad. It simply shouldn't exist or the mechanics need to be entirely different.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 6, 2009)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I'd say Staff of Ruin falls at least very close to being in the same category. The case with implements is a bit more complex since most casters will want to have other ones at least for specific purposes and using an SoR effectively may well require several feats, so it isn't quite so clear-cut. On top of that at least some casters seem to need a decent way to stack on a bit of extra static damage. I'm not sure though that would be true if the other 4 items were out.



It's close, yeah, but you understand my thinking.  Implement users are still kind of hosed compared to weapon users, and I mind less.

-O


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 6, 2009)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Frankly I think the entire CONCEPT of the orbizard is bad. It simply shouldn't exist or the mechanics need to be entirely different.




The concept is ok.

The implementation is awful because in a D20 system, this is a stat level debuff not on chances to hit or get hit (which is conditional in the first place), but on condition saves (which is a set number, sometimes modified by role of monster).

Total debuffs should rarely go above 3 in those cases.

It's one thing to get a +40% chance to do damage. It's totally another to get a +40% chance to lock down a foe. That's basically worse than 3E save or die.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 6, 2009)

Obryn said:


> It's close, yeah, but you understand my thinking.  Implement users are still kind of hosed compared to weapon users, and I mind less.
> 
> -O




I realized that fairly early on, which is why I went for weapon-as-implement. I'm still lagging in damage but that's because I'm playing a Feylock and double multi-classed into Bard, more than anything else. Those multi-class feats could have been Weapon Focus and/or Eladrin Soldier, or any of the feats that give conditional hit and damage bonuses.


----------



## keterys (Oct 6, 2009)

Yeah, a sorcerer dual wielding his weapon focus-ed subtle dagger and off-hand staff of ruin would beg to differ (or insert some other more potent combination)


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Oct 6, 2009)

I ban Avengers, Druids, and Hide Armour.


----------



## renau1g (Oct 6, 2009)

Our DM bans the Lasting Frost/Winter touch, rod of ruin, but so far not much else (oh wait RRoT). We aren't a real power-gamery group and I try to point out anything overpowered that is brought up here or on the CO boards.


----------



## HP Dreadnought (Oct 7, 2009)

My 12th level fighter is using a bloodclaw weapon, single handed and its working fine.  As others have mentioned, its the two-handed version that causes the problem.  I'd say they just need to errata it not to provide the bonus for two-handed use.

Or. . .

Just change it to a x1/x2 bonus.  I'd still be happy to use it one-handed.  I can replenish my HP a lot more easily than the monsters can, so I will take a 1-1 trade.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 7, 2009)

Anand said:


> I agree, but you're only doing what an Artful Dodger Rogue could do easily.




... and then die.

Rogues are pretty squishy. It's not a problem if a rogue makes it to the enemy's back line, because he'll be torn apart, and will have problems getting serious damage into a target because he'll either lack CA, or have to waste powers gaining it.

Now put a defender there instead.


----------



## keterys (Oct 7, 2009)

It's especially nice when you're a paladin using Ardent Strike to charge.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 7, 2009)

keterys said:


> It's especially nice when you're a paladin using Ardent Strike to charge.




well they are the "I sacrifice in order to gain" ;-) archetype


----------



## Neuroglyph (Oct 7, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Wierd they hybrids are very rarely a way to get power... they make certain atwill boosters work better... and that is about it




Agreed.  Hybrids are not more powerful, but they can be a bit more versatile.

I think hybrids are just a cheap and easy way to "create" a new class that matches a particular Character concept that doesn't exist yet in the game.  Like taking a Fighter/Warlock Hybrid and making him a sortof 4e interpretation of a Hexblade from 3.5.  It's more about concept than power.


----------



## Iron Sky (Oct 7, 2009)

I originally was planning on banning things from my campaign but then decided against banning anything.  I figure if my players get really excited about some uber-build, great!  Then I get to DM "powergame" and throw more and more difficult encounters at them at them and design more and more powerful custom monsters to match whatever they are doing.


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 7, 2009)

Obryn said:


> You can go ahead and think I'm a bad DM - you've never played with me, so I'll take your opinion for what it's worth.



Huh? But I never said that!
You may have noted I was actually replying to Capp'n'Zapp and used the opportunity to warn against bossy DMs who prematurely feel it's necessary to ban everything that looks like it may be an interesting option for players. If you feel that describes you, be my guest!


Obryn said:


> I don't believe that everything in the game is made well.



I don't believe that either. I do believe a DM should have a good reason for banning something. "People on the internet think it's overpowered" doesn't count as a good reason in my book.

And as you've admitted yourself: Banning the most powerful option only means that the second-best option is now the most powerful. You may end up banning everything interesting until all that is left is bland.


Obryn said:


> And yes, I trust my players, but I also trust they'll take the best stuff for their new characters.



And here's the difference to my players:
They won't take the best stuff for their new characters if they think it's made of cheese. I don't have to interfere at all.


Obryn said:


> If something is broken for 4 sessions, those 4 sessions could have been improved by not having the broken thing to begin with.  It's a risk I'm willing to take.



And here's the crux: What if the players actually had lots of fun in those 4 sessions? Being overpowered actually often is fun - at least for a while. I say: Let the players revel in their power if everyone enjoys it! 

It only becomes a problem if players of less optimized characters feel they're completely overshadowed. But that's the risk I'm willing to take.

As a final note: One-trick pony builds that require a very specific combination of feats, powers and items to do their thing create characters that are quite vulnerable to anything that prevents them from using their trick.

Players will always lose the arms race against the DM if the DM sets his mind to it.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 7, 2009)

Saeviomagy said:


> ... and then die.
> 
> Rogues are pretty squishy. It's not a problem if a rogue makes it to the enemy's back line, because he'll be torn apart, and will have problems getting serious damage into a target because he'll either lack CA, or have to waste powers gaining it.
> 
> Now put a defender there instead.




To be more specific, the Invigorating Goliath Fighter with the Bloodclaw Mordencrad.


----------



## Pickles JG (Oct 7, 2009)

Pseudonym said:


> These haven't come up in our game, but why do you feel +2 damage per tier to be ban worthy?




What Obryn said plus they increase the power discrepancies between Weapon users & Implement users & between Rangers & other strikers.

My list is the same as the others. Obryn's stuff, maybe Staff of Ruin, probably hybrids which I predict will be 95% gimps & 5% horribly overpowered. 
Duel implement wielder seems like a fudge to catch up implement wielders so would go too. Sadly I play mostly in LFR so rangers kind of dominate. (& the paragon Bracers of Archery drop in the first paragon tier adventure grr). As a hgome DM I dictate like mad - but noone is remotely powergamey so its moot.


----------



## eamon (Oct 7, 2009)

I really hate long lists of house rules, and the same goes for lists of banned items.

I see the motivation, and some of these items/feats/powers/whatnot are annoyingly unbalanced.

But, it's a reality that wizards has the tendency to "fix" minor imbalances not by errata but by new options.  I wouldn't be the least surprised to see Iron Armbands or similar for implement powers as a form of "fix" - or, more likely, simply "cooler" implement powers+feats.  This style of errata by wizards means that you really need to stay on top of the new stuff if you want ensure that your list is up-to-date.

But isn't that kind of a waste of time if 99% of these items either don't even occur in your game at all, or occur on non-problematic characters?  YAGNI - you ain't gonna need it: don't bother house-errataing items, 'cause it's probably wasted time.  Do it when you need to, I say...  and only fix the really crazy stuff (and Iron Armbands really don't qualify here).

Edit: (to clarify; I'm kind of ambivalent between the proactive and the reactive approach, but to play devil's advocate to this thread...)


----------



## keterys (Oct 7, 2009)

Depending on the game it may be very easy to ban items, without even keeping a list. Just don't give them out.

Course, if you've got people Enchant Item-ing anything out of any book they want or constantly trying to buy magic items, that works less well. But a lot of games don't have that.


----------



## eamon (Oct 7, 2009)

keterys said:


> Depending on the game it may be very easy to ban items, without even keeping a list. Just don't give them out.




You still need to know which items to "not give out" - and if you're working with wishlists, "just don't give it out" is a pretty nasty solution...



> Course, if you've got people Enchant Item-ing anything out of any book they want or constantly trying to buy magic items, that works less well. But a lot of games don't have that.




Buying magic items is pretty common, isn't it?  I mean, what else do you do with all that treasure you loot?

In any case, a lot of builds really want a few specific items, so if the player's ever get a say (be it via wishlist or magic-item shopping), you'll need to tell em you've banned the item - and for some items, that can impact the viability of various character options pretty heavily.  For example, in heroic tier, a fighter might choose to wield a spear and a shield and take polearm momentum.  Doing so requires taking 15 Dex and 15 Wisdom (and usage of a low-accuracy, low-damage weapon), but the plain old fighter at will doesn't push far enough to trigger the feat - he'll need one of several items to make it work.  If you don't intend to let him find or buy those items, he needs to know before he starts playing.


----------



## keterys (Oct 7, 2009)

eamon said:


> You still need to know which items to "not give out" - and if you're working with wishlists, "just don't give it out" is a pretty nasty solution...




Given that you get 3-5 choices on a wish list for every level, it likely works out fine. Or you just ask the person for more choices - you can potentially need to do that anyways if, for example, you know the entire group gets a new magic weapon at the end of a big adventure-quest arc, and the only thing someone puts down are new weapons (or armor, or neck, or whatever)



> Buying magic items is pretty common, isn't it?  I mean, what else do you do with all that treasure you loot?












> In any case, a lot of builds really want a few specific items, so if the player's ever get a say (be it via wishlist or magic-item shopping), you'll need to tell em you've banned the item - and for some items, that can impact the viability of various character options pretty heavily.  For example, in heroic tier, a fighter might choose to wield a spear and a shield and take polearm momentum.  Doing so requires taking 15 Dex and 15 Wisdom (and usage of a low-accuracy, low-damage weapon), but the plain old fighter at will doesn't push far enough to trigger the feat - he'll need one of several items to make it work.  If you don't intend to let him find or buy those items, he needs to know before he starts playing.




Yep, I'd hope that the DM is willing to give one of the several items needed for that build, especially since they're not broken. But any DM who has a party that doesn't Enchant Item and wants to deny Bloodclaw and Reckless, or the Badge of Berserker, or Grasping Javelin, or _whatever_ can pretty easily do so.


----------



## eamon (Oct 7, 2009)

Ah, yes, the loot sink!



keterys said:


> Yep, I'd hope that the DM is willing to give one of the several items needed for that build, especially since they're not broken. But any DM who has a party that doesn't Enchant Item and wants to deny Bloodclaw and Reckless, or the Badge of Berserker, or Grasping Javelin, or _whatever_ can pretty easily do so.




Yeah - and if it turns out that missing an item is a bigger deal than you thought, you can always let em retrain towards a build that's not so focused on the item you'd rather not give out.


----------



## keterys (Oct 7, 2009)

Yep, or give out a variant that is acceptable


----------



## chitzk0i (Oct 7, 2009)

ArmoredSaint said:


> I ban Avengers, Druids, and Hide Armour.




... and hide armor, of all things?  Any particular reasons?


----------



## Obryn (Oct 7, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> And as you've admitted yourself: Banning the most powerful option only means that the second-best option is now the most powerful. You may end up banning everything interesting until all that is left is bland.



I don't really feel the need to expand on this list right now.  That slippery slope isn't inevitable, and it's not an automatic process - banning a few things now won't make me ban 20 tomorrow, and 100 the day after that.  Like I said before, I see this as cutting off the extreme tail so there's a wider variety of competing "bests."  There's no need to keep chopping, and if banning five items means the other thousands are bland ... I think we have bigger problems!



> And here's the crux: What if the players actually had lots of fun in those 4 sessions? Being overpowered actually often is fun - at least for a while. I say: Let the players revel in their power if everyone enjoys it!



Unless not-being-overpowered lacks fun, I can't see the problem.  There's more than one kind of fun.  We already pick some kinds of fun over others in the course of regular gaming, so this is an extension of that same decision.



> Players will always lose the arms race against the DM if the DM sets his mind to it.



I don't really _want _that arms race.

-O


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 7, 2009)

chitzk0i said:


> ... and hide armor, of all things?  Any particular reasons?



Digesting the word hide made me think about armors.

In the real world "leather" can mean anything from cloth -like barely strengthed ... through the bikers leather ... to something like saddle leather or waxed and hardened and boiled cuirrboli. 
The latter is inflexible and you have to design it like you are using plates of thick wood and the initial is designed more like clothes...

Layering(perhaps of many untreated hides?) and treatment make for very distinct things all made of the same stuff.... too much layering and its more like the heavy stuff and harder to wear... similarly with too much treatment.

I think calling hide ... "hide" made little sense it implies less treatment than the word leather... but.

For me armor types names are a game mechanic and "hide" includes some bone armor some wood armor and some boiled leather... and yeah some bulky heavily layered hides (particularly in cold climates).

I dont get why somebody would ban hide either.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 7, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Digesting the word hide made me think about armors.
> 
> In the real world "leather" can mean anything from cloth -like barely strengthed ... through the bikers leather ... to something like saddle leather or waxed and hardened and boiled cuirrboli.
> The latter is inflexible and you have to design it like you are using plates of thick wood and the initial is designed more like clothes...
> ...




To go back into the older version it would likely fold in such things as leather scale, ring mail, etc.. It could also represent fantastical leathers such as giant lizard hide, dragon hide.... Slightly superior to regular boiled and hardened leather, but also heavier and more restrictive.

It does seem an odd thing to omit, unless for reasons of campaign world flavour.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Oct 8, 2009)

To further digress on the topic of hide armour, I also have it include things like 3.x chain shirts and layered linen armour of the hoplites.

That said, I think the poster saying he banned Avenger, Druids and hide armour was being sarcastic.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 8, 2009)

Dr_Ruminahui said:


> To further digress on the topic of hide armour, I also have it include things like 3.x chain shirts and layered linen armour of the hoplites.
> 
> That said, I think the poster saying he banned Avenger, Druids and hide armour was being sarcastic.




certainly possibly my plain text intonation meter is shabby


----------



## kaomera (Oct 8, 2009)

I think banning Hide armor might make sense if the purpose was to make heavy armors relatively better. This might arise, particularly, if a Rogue (frex) had taken the feat to upgrade armors and thereby eclipsed the Fighter's AC. I can totally see that situation rubbing some DMs the wrong way.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 8, 2009)

eamon said:


> This style of errata by wizards means that you really need to stay on top of the new stuff if you want ensure that your list is up-to-date.



Yeah, that style really bothers me.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 8, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> And as you've admitted yourself: Banning the most powerful option only means that the second-best option is now the most powerful. You may end up banning everything interesting until all that is left is bland.



This is wrong. False logic.

Something brokenly powerful isn't "interesting". Banning something brokenly powerful does not mean the second-best option is brokenly powerful.

You _may_ end up with your scenario, but only in theory. I believe it is far more probable (unless you for some reason don't trust your own designer's eye) you will stop at banning only the brokenly powerful stuff only, which leaves room for the interestingly powerful to actually see some use.


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 8, 2009)

Pseudonym said:


> These haven't come up in our game, but why do you feel +2 damage per tier to be ban worthy?




For me, it's another case of ranger love. There are all these bracers and ammo for bow-users. When will my sorcerer get magic ammo to use? When will my sorc get an item that gives him a flat +2 damage to all attacks?


----------



## Obryn (Oct 8, 2009)

lukelightning said:


> For me, it's another case of ranger love. There are all these bracers and ammo for bow-users. When will my sorcerer get magic ammo to use? When will my sorc get an item that gives him a flat +2 damage to all attacks?



He can, but it will cost him feats.  Arcane Implement Proficiency: Staff, for example. 

-O


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 8, 2009)

My biggest problem with banning material is that there's a lot of material that's completely fair when used in most situations, but only broken when used in certain others.  For example, the lasting frost / wintertouched feat pair.  Our wizard has those feats.  But he focuses on both fire and ice attacks, and took a paragon path that relates to traps.  He gets good mileage out of them, but not unfair mileage.

I wouldn't want to ban those feats because he's using them in their intended manner, and he's not overusing them.  But if we instead had a rogue who was arguing that by the letter of the rule these feats, when used in conjunction with a frost weapon, give him nearly continuous combat advantage and +5 damage, then I'd want to ban them.

So that's my conundrum, and why little to nothing is banned in my group.  I may have a problem down the line if I have to retroactively ban something, but right now things are alright.


----------



## relmskye (Oct 8, 2009)

I ban nothing!
If any kind of problem or imbalance arises, I can and will deal with it then. And I reserve the right to tell my players to stop taking the piss, of course, should it come up.

Worth noting, of course, is that I do not allow my players fine control over their acquisition of magic items (I warn people away from the Magic Item sections in the books, even, so they don't get their hearts set on anything specific). Even if I did though, if someone picks the Iron Armbands of Power, they'll usually do so because they want them; if a player enjoys doing as much damage as possible, who am I to say they're wrong for it or to deny them that pleasure when it causes me no real inconvenience? If other players feel outclassed or pressured into taking them, I'm certainly not above handing them something else powerful (and likely significantly more special and/or interesting). If the party at large does too much damage, I will adjust the bad guys to make up for it.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 8, 2009)

relmskye said:


> If other players feel outclassed or pressured into taking them, I'm certainly not above handing them something else powerful (and likely significantly more special and/or interesting).




That latter part I find quite significant... I am inclined to absorb things... having fewer more special items ... more interesting I still have to pay attention to things like why Bloodclaw enchantments are ummm overly useful so that I dont build something too special with them... they are already blimey special.

Bloodclaw is called, "Weapon of Heros" in my skinning... everyday folks cant even use it (no hitpoints).


----------



## Eldorian (Oct 8, 2009)

Obryn said:


> He can, but it will cost him feats.  Arcane Implement Proficiency: Staff, for example.
> 
> -O




Sorcerers use staves and daggers.

Also, using a subtle dagger and staff of ruin seems silly, as is using any item property that relates to attacks without wielding that weapon with the attack.

One of the other.

My sorcerer/rogue hybrid (level 15) has the following:

+4 dagger.  +3 subtle dagger.  Weapon focus.  Two weapon fighting.  Dual Implement Spellcaster.  

He has a crazy bonus damage and I don't really consider any of his items or feats to be out of line, save perhaps the subtle dagger.

I agree with banning basically every item that gives a static bonus to anything other than the main 3 items.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 8, 2009)

Eldorian said:


> Sorcerers use staves and daggers.



....hah.  Right you are.  I'm always so focused on daggers...

-O


----------



## SteveC (Oct 8, 2009)

I just wanted to comment that it's interesting that with all the material WotC releases each month, we still seem to be coming back to the same basic items for having real problems. That's not bad in my book: it seems like 4E has done a better job of keeping things balanced than we sometimes give it credit for.

Now onto the issue: I haven't seen the problem where I need to ban any items yet. In my current game I banned Battleragers, but that was pre-revision. I'd have to take a look at the revisions should someone ask about it.

I haven't banned bloodclaw/braciers despite a couple members of my group going for them, specifically because I did some work on how many HP my monsters have, and the damage the group can do. I wanted to deter any comments about grind in combat, and these are some ways to remove that problem.

I'm currently running War of the Burning Sky, and my group (all strikers!) have been challenged in literally every battle, so it hasn't been a problem for me. Monsters in 4E have a lot of HP, and cutting back on the group's ability to do damage might spoil some of the fun we're having.

That's just my group, mind you...your's might be significantly different.

--Steve


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 8, 2009)

Ok, let me rephrase that: When will my sorcerer get an armband or other item that will give him a +2 damage bonus to all attacks that stacks with his implement?


----------



## keterys (Oct 8, 2009)

It's called a Staff of Ruin, works well when dual implemented, as already mentioned up-thread.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 8, 2009)

lukelightning said:


> When will my sorc get an item that gives him a flat +2 damage to all attacks?




slightly off the what's banned topic....just give him one.  Sounds like a cool magic item for him to find from the really powerfull sorcerers of ages ago.


----------



## Turtlejay (Oct 9, 2009)

SkidAce said:


> slightly off the what's banned topic....just give him one. Sounds like a cool magic item for him to find from the really powerfull sorcerers of ages ago.




Yes!!  Great idea.  Homebrewing is generally off the menu for me, but when it comes to magic items I think approaches like this work well.  Why not do it, if you really think it will fit your character.  Kind of bland, but to each his own...

And on topic, just because something *can* be broken, doesn't mean it will.  This was touched on upthread with the bit about lasting frost/wintertouched.  Most of the banned rules are not overpowered unless used in specific ways.  I'd agree mostly with the things like Iron Armbands of Power being banned, but only after having a player abuse it.  A two weapon ranger gets perhaps too much mileage out of it, a Sword and Board fighter gets just the right amount.

Hybrids are silly to put on this list, there are hundreds of possibilities for hybrids (including multiclassing/hybrids) and a handful are cheese.  The rest are just character options.  I favor a case by case basis with things like this.  Someone who wants to build a unique, fun character should not be penalized because you are afraid of a certain build.

Lastly, I have not seen anyone mention the two things that *should* be banned 100% of the time:
 - Salves of power
 - Half Elves taking Twin Strike as their racial power.

A good 50% of the garbage floating around out there using the stuff that you banned actually exploits these two things in uninteresting and powergamey ways.  They are practically flavorless and certainly potential gamebusters.

Jay


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 9, 2009)

SkidAce said:


> slightly off the what's banned topic....just give him one.  Sounds like a cool magic item for him to find from the really powerfull sorcerers of ages ago.




A Dragonshard Augment for a weapon that's used as an implement could fit the bill.


----------



## Regicide (Oct 9, 2009)

The main thing I like about 4E is the focus on balance so that I, as a GM, don't have to deal with it and can get on with the game instead of slapping players hands for trying to do the natural thing of making their character better with options and synergy instead of waiting for XP.  I also don't have to subject players to pages of exceptions and oddities house rules they need to go over any time they do anything, although thanks to the volumes of errata, that has been made unavoidable already.  That said, Dragon material is right out, not everyone feels like paying an MMO subscription fee for it, and it's not worth it anyway, being the least balanced material they're putting out.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 9, 2009)

Regicide said:


> That said, Dragon material is right out, not everyone feels like paying an MMO subscription fee for it, and it's not worth it anyway, being the least balanced material they're putting out.




I get the impression that most of the things people complain about being overpowering least balanced "must haves" are stuff that has indeed been printed people still talking about twin strike or magic items out of AV etc.

I find the subscription cost ok for a month every once in a while (you know I downloaded every back issue when subscribed for a month and that is a ton of gaming material). And character builder doesn't stop working.... just because you are no longer subscribed.


----------



## Istar (Oct 11, 2009)

dvorak said:


> These two items would receive my vote; at the very least modified. *Power (Daily)* for the Grasping weapon and/or remove spear aspect and then include *Power (Encounter)* for the Badge.
> 
> The ability to negate anything between a party member and the BBEG becomes anti-climatic. Of course I don't DM so it is moot.




Whats over powered with the Badge ?


----------



## Istar (Oct 11, 2009)

Turtlejay said:


> Yes!! Great idea. Homebrewing is generally off the menu for me, but when it comes to magic items I think approaches like this work well. Why not do it, if you really think it will fit your character. Kind of bland, but to each his own...
> 
> And on topic, just because something *can* be broken, doesn't mean it will. This was touched on upthread with the bit about lasting frost/wintertouched. Most of the banned rules are not overpowered unless used in specific ways. I'd agree mostly with the things like Iron Armbands of Power being banned, but only after having a player abuse it. A two weapon ranger gets perhaps too much mileage out of it, a Sword and Board fighter gets just the right amount.
> 
> ...




Is a Half Elf Daggermaster Rogue with Twin Strike and 15 Wis to MC Avenger exploitation ????

Using Bloodiron and Crit Feats

At level 21 can oath up to 3 targets per Encounter, and use Strength (Brutal Scoundrel Dual Stat)  Mellee dagger attack - 4 D20 Rolls - to get 48% chance to Crit.

Or flavour being a vengeful half elf who like to handle 2 sharp daggers well.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 11, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Banning things isn't being a bad DM - it's being responsible. Less is more.
> 
> Making Dms out to be "bad" because they ban things is just this irritating player entitlement that rears its ugly head where WotC want to wrestle away control over campaigns from DMs to arrive at a position maximized for profit:  "go ahead and buy all our books; if your DM doesn't like it, tell him or her we said it was okay!"
> 
> So threads like this is very useful - chances are if enough DMs ban an item, it suggests it really IS broken.



This is just none-sense. WotC does no such thing. Do they want to sell books, yes, indeed. Duh. But aside from that, they tell us often enough that we do not need to use or allow everything in our campaigns. They say we can - which is a big difference. Anyway, if you do not believe me, you should try reading their books. DMG2 amongst others specifically tells the DM that he doesn't need to use all their books.



CapnZapp said:


> Yeah, that style really bothers me.



Which style would that be? Releasing errata for the broken stuff they mistakenly make? You crack me up dude.


----------



## renau1g (Oct 11, 2009)

Yeah I forgot Salves of Power.... not cool.


----------



## Zinovia (Oct 11, 2009)

*A DM's Soliloquy*

To ban, or not to ban: that is the question:
Whether 'tis fairer in the game to suffer 
The salves and bloodclaws of outrageous items,
Or to say no against the cheese of combos,
And by opposing end them? To ban: to stop;
No more; the winter-touched and lasting frost
The fey charge and the stacking damage mods
CharOp is prone to, 'tis a resolution
Devoutly to be wish'd. To stop, to ban;
To ban: to deny a choice: ay, there's the rub;
For in that ban of feats what options lost?
When we have written off the players' choice, 
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes us friends with lasting games;
Yet who would bear the breaking of balance,
One striker dealing twice the DPR,
The pangs of natural envy when dice are rolled, 
And damage stacked upon damage again,
Other players notice of the combos take,
Then he himself might iron armbands make
With enchant item? who would deny the right,
'Til every melee character looks the same,
Armed with bloodclaw, armbands, and Righteous Rage,
Each wizard Staff of Ruin bears offhand,
While undiscover'd countries they explore,
And makes us rather bear those goods we have
Than pick up others that may be subpar? 
Thus charop does make lemmings of us all;
And thus the wealth of diverse options,
Is whittled down to those which are the best.
Yet in adventures of great plot and action
'Tis not the items or the feats that are recalled;
Nay, it is the actions of the heroes 
And the stories told 'round the gaming table
That will long be remember'd.


----------



## keterys (Oct 11, 2009)

Bravo.


----------



## Iron Sky (Oct 11, 2009)

That's pretty epic Zinovia.

That said, we must have one of the rare groups where _everyone_ is a powergamer (including me, the DM), so we all dig it when someone drops a huge pile of damage or auto-kills the 20 minions in 1 round through 2 feats, a daily, and a magic item daily in some odd synergy or locks the solo down for three rounds straight while everyone destroys it.

In our case, is seems to make the game more intense rather than less, since I can throw brutal level +5 or 6 encounters at them and they find some way to survive it.  We rarely have a dull fight(especially since we had 5 characters die in the last 3 sessions).


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 11, 2009)

Iron Sky said:


> That said, we must have one of the rare groups where _everyone_ is a powergamer (including me, the DM), so we all dig it when someone drops a huge pile of damage or auto-kills the 20 minions in 1 round through 2 feats, a daily, and a magic item daily in some odd synergy or locks the solo down for three rounds straight while everyone destroys it.




The problem is that if you've got a group that are not all powergamers playing a game with the level of balance that 4e has ended up at. You're going to end up with one or more dissatisfied players. Which is a shame really: they started out doing pretty well, with most of the imbalanced created by dodgy readings of rules, and just seemed to throw more of that away with every increment since.


----------



## Iron Sky (Oct 12, 2009)

Saeviomagy said:


> The problem is that if you've got a group that are not all powergamers playing a game with the level of balance that 4e has ended up at. You're going to end up with one or more dissatisfied players. Which is a shame really: they started out doing pretty well, with most of the imbalanced created by dodgy readings of rules, and just seemed to throw more of that away with every increment since.




Which is what happened in our last 3.5 game.  We had one PC that could solo a Nightwalker and one that needed a 20 to even hit one.  One PC got killed in one round by a hydra, another killed it with 1 spell.

I think the difference for us has been that in 4e it has more tools that make it easier to semi-optimize your character (namely the Character Builder), so you don't have to dig through 10 splat books cherry-picking feats, front-loaded classes to multi into, and the like.  It's all in one place in conveniently sorted lists.


----------



## Zinovia (Oct 12, 2009)

Currently banned in my game are:  
• Expertise feats  - I give them Math Expertise for free, which is +1 to attack at 5/15/25
• Double weapons - not only are they a huge source of cheese (using the "light weapon" end for rogue attacks), but most of them are downright silly, even for a fantasy game.
• Monster races - almost always used for the sake of optimization rather than flavor, and the flavor itself can create issues when interacting with NPC's.  
• Half Orcs - just for this game world
• Paragon Defenses (or whatever that was called)- instead I am allowing 3 stat raises on the 4/8 levels.  
• White Lotus feats - kind of broken IMHO

Things I am considering banning include Iron Armbands of Power, and Bloodclaw weapons.  Maybe a couple others, like Radiant weapons.  The auto-damage weapons just are too good compared to any other choices, and hence they are boring because everyone will want them.  

Bloodclaw has another issue, which is that powers and items that damage oneself annoy the party's leader (a TacLord) to no end.  Our group is a tad short on healing, with the taclord and a fighter/mc cleric.  They do just fine, but people causing additional damage to themselves all the time would further deplete the already limited healing resources.  And believe me, given one of the players, it would be *all the time*.  "More damage?  Sign me up!  So the warlord has to heal me sooner, or we use up another potion.  It's more damage!  Rawr!"

I have been choosing all of the magic items myself, rather than using wish lists.  I only have a wish list from one of the five players, and I don't see that as changing.  The players aren't all that interested in poring over the books or Compendium and picking out goodies for themselves.  Limiting the choice of items is thus very easy for me.  

Recently the group picked up the _Enchant Magic Item_ ritual, so at some point they will be making their own items.  Due to a ruling in my initial house rules document, a recipe is needed to make any given item.  Some require rare ingredients (good adventure fodder), while others may simply be unobtainable.  Most recipes they can simply look up in the library, others may be treasure in and of themselves.  It gives me more control over what items they have.  

I want the characters to get and make cool magic items, but as I anticipated a year ago when we started this thing, some of them are unbalanced and we are better off without them.  I'd rather disallow questionable stuff in the first place than have to take something away from a character.

Oh, and thanks for the comments on my soliloquy - thanks especially to Will Shakespeare for the original


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 12, 2009)

Zinovia said:


> Bloodclaw has another issue, which is that powers and items that damage oneself annoy the party's leader (a TacLord) to no end.  Our group is a tad short on healing, with the taclord and a fighter/mc cleric.  They do just fine, but people causing additional damage to themselves all the time would further deplete the already limited healing resources.  And believe me, given one of the players, it would be *all the time*.  "More damage?  Sign me up!  So the warlord has to heal me sooner, or we use up another potion.  It's more damage!  Rawr!"




The theory is the battles finish faster since the heros normally have an advantage ... and that usually means the party actually takes less damage (and so needs less healing) this way than letting the monsters have more rounds to take a shot at you. ... the Rawr is appropo ;-) and it seems extreme enough in combination with multi-attacking that it is unbalanced.

I'm working on presenting this bloodclaw magick multiple different ways... so that it fits my game world better .... because well I do like battles going faster... but dont think self flagellation or "cutting"... although having a symbiote that feed on you and boosts you is kind of interesting...its a lot more Heroic to be Heroes pushing themselves in extreme maneuvers (resulting in taxing there fatigue and luck and wrenching muscles etc) ...


----------



## keterys (Oct 12, 2009)

I have a sticky note I use when I play my character with bloodclaw 'I am using bloodclaw unless I say otherwise', and I pretty much only say otherwise for minions or if I'm in trouble.

And I play the healer. I'm more than happy to encourage people to use it - after combat I throw out a banner of healing, top everyone off while healing the primary target... it works crazily with temp hp, with incidental healing, etc.


----------



## infocynic (Oct 12, 2009)

Surprised there's not more votes for versatile master. That made our list. And the avenger multiclass that gives you OoE until EoE. We also just flat-out banned the orb of imposition so we didn't have to worry about crazy things like the phrenic crown... you can still be a great wand, staff, or tome wizard.  We banned expertise and gave it out for free; we also banned the 'expertise-like' feats in AP (draconic spellcaster, I think was one).

For grasping weapon, we required that it be used after you hit with a MELEE attack. Grasping javelins were a little sketchy. 

I'm on the fence on white lotus... I've seen some of them in play and it's good but not (quite) insane. I'm more worried about sword burst + arcane reach + admixture:thunder + some feat to make thunder powers' radius go up by 1 = close burst 2 from 2 squares away that targets enemies only... at-will.


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 13, 2009)

Zinovia said:


> • Monster races - almost always used for the sake of optimization rather than flavor, and the flavor itself can create issues when interacting with NPC's.



Are you referring to the races described in the Monster Manuals? If so, there's no need to ban them, because they're aren't intended for pcs, anyway. The stats are for npcs only.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 13, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> Are you referring to the races described in the Monster Manuals? If so, there's no need to ban them, because they're aren't intended for pcs, anyway. The stats are for npcs only.




Except that there are a bunch of them listed in Character Builder as character race options.


----------



## Zinovia (Oct 13, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> Are you referring to the races described in the Monster Manuals? If so, there's no need to ban them, because they're aren't intended for pcs, anyway. The stats are for npcs only.




Those yes, as well as minotaurs, which I believe received a writeup in _Dragon_.  I don't want people playing kobolds, orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, lizardmen, etc. etc.  I don't see the MM character stat writeups on all of those as necessarily being solely for NPC's.  They seem to be options that the DM might choose to allow for PC races if desired. I've seen those races used a fair amount on the character optimization forums over at the WotC site, generally for stat bonus synergies.    

At the time we created characters, we had only the core 3 books to go on, along with the Forgotten Realms player's guide.  I told the players they couldn't make a character of any race that didn't have a writeup in the PH or FRPG with the exception of gnomes, if they really wanted to play one.  No one did.  

Oh, I don't allow warforged either.  They need to stay in Eberron where they fit in very well.  No sentient robots in my fantasy world please.  The restrictions were not done to limit player options so much as to preserve the flavor of that game world.  I think that there are a good variety of options for them to choose from still, especially with the addition of the PH2 races.


----------



## nicholasgeorg (Oct 13, 2009)

lukelightning said:


> Ok, let me rephrase that: When will my sorcerer get an armband or other item that will give him a +2 damage bonus to all attacks that stacks with his implement?




Never.  They attack will and reflex, which are almost always at least 2 less than AC.


----------



## Flipguarder (Oct 13, 2009)

nicholasgeorg said:


> Never.  They attack will and reflex, which are almost always at least 2 less than AC.




which is covered by proficiency bonuses on weapons. You are putting forth that sense non-weapon users attack NAD's that they should do less damage while having a similar chance to hit. That is preposterous.


----------



## Flipguarder (Oct 13, 2009)

Zinovia said:


> Those yes, as well as minotaurs, which I believe received a writeup in _Dragon_.  I don't want people playing kobolds, orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, lizardmen, etc. etc.  I don't see the MM character stat writeups on all of those as necessarily being solely for NPC's.  They seem to be options that the DM might choose to allow for PC races if desired. I've seen those races used a fair amount on the character optimization forums over at the WotC site, generally for stat bonus synergies.
> 
> At the time we created characters, we had only the core 3 books to go on, along with the Forgotten Realms player's guide.  I told the players they couldn't make a character of any race that didn't have a writeup in the PH or FRPG with the exception of gnomes, if they really wanted to play one.  No one did.
> 
> Oh, I don't allow warforged either.  They need to stay in Eberron where they fit in very well.  No sentient robots in my fantasy world please.  The restrictions were not done to limit player options so much as to preserve the flavor of that game world.  I think that there are a good variety of options for them to choose from still, especially with the addition of the PH2 races.




What about genasi?


----------



## nicholasgeorg (Oct 13, 2009)

You are totally right.  I should think before I post.    That being said I don't have a problem with the bracers/armbands.  If they want to give up all the other cool options for a static +2 to damage, that's fine.  And sorcerers can dual the whole dual implement thing to fill their damage dishing role.  Wizards as such shouldn't be focusing on turning out the damage as much as battlefield control anyway.

As far as bloodclaw weapons are concerned, I have two players who use them.  We've decided that because the 'damage cannot be prevented in any way' that the bloodclaw damage bypasses temp hp.  Furthermore, I've warned them that the weapons are at least a little evil in origin, and that they should be wary if fighting either demons or radiant-type enemies.  I haven't quite decided what will happen there, but I think that demons are immune to damage from bloodclaw weapons, and radiant-types would absorb the damage as healing and deal it back to the PC on their next turn.

But that's how I like to run games - let the players deal with consequences if they come up.


----------



## keterys (Oct 13, 2009)

infocynic said:


> Surprised there's not more votes for versatile master. That made our list.




I actually would have been happy enough if half-elves got an at-will as part of their race, so I don't mind it as a feat.

That said, I do mind certain at-wills being far too good, but I mind that separately.



> And the avenger multiclass that gives you OoE until EoE.



Yeah, that one is especially funny when looking at the old version side by side. I guess it's a _big_ deal to have a Wis of 15 instead of 13.



> We also just flat-out banned the orb of imposition so we didn't have to worry about crazy things like the phrenic crown... you can still be a great wand, staff, or tome wizard.



Could just replace it with something less egregious. Also could have all save penalties not stack, in general. That's just a good call.



> We banned expertise and gave it out for free; we also banned the 'expertise-like' feats in AP (draconic spellcaster, I think was one).



Yeah, that one is super bad.



> For grasping weapon, we required that it be used after you hit with a MELEE attack. Grasping javelins were a little sketchy.



I like having options for getting around flyers, so those don't bother me as much, but largely agreed.



> I'm on the fence on white lotus...



At the end of the day, I think I'm increasingly less in favor of anything that
makes at-wills better than encounters in or encourages spamming the same at-will. I'll easily admit that I'm okay with some classes getting stronger encounter powers though, which would help with that 

So, white lotus, a bajillion things that work off charges... just a little too far. I actually like many of the style feats for things like letting you crushing surge on a charge or shift between twin strikes, that kinda thing. Mild changes yes, not massive, I guess.

I'm not entirely sure what I feel about admixture thunder being thrown on everything to make bigger bursts. On one hand it seems stupid. On the other hand I like bigger bursts.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 13, 2009)

Zinovia said:


> Bloodclaw has another issue, which is that powers and items that damage oneself annoy the party's leader (a TacLord) to no end.  Our group is a tad short on healing, with the taclord and a fighter/mc cleric.  They do just fine, but people causing additional damage to themselves all the time would further deplete the already limited healing resources.  And believe me, given one of the players, it would be *all the time*.  "More damage?  Sign me up!  So the warlord has to heal me sooner, or we use up another potion.  It's more damage!  Rawr!"



My 12th level Fighter for LFR has a standing rule that I'm ALWAYS using Bloodclaw.  Since I forget to mention it if I don't say that.  So far, I've been averaging about 18-30 damage a combat due to Bloodclaw.  Basically, one healing surge.

Since in most LFR adventures, I use about 1-3 healing surges per encounter, 3 encounters per adventure and I have 9 healing surges, I'm not too worried about using up surges.  As long as I have a cleric around healing me instead of just spending them myself, the damage is inconsequential.

In an average encounter, I take maybe 30 damage, plus 30 for the Bloodclaw.  My healing surge is somewhere around 27.  I heal to full with two healing surges as long as I receive any healing at all.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 13, 2009)

keterys said:


> I'm not entirely sure what I feel about admixture thunder being thrown on everything to make bigger bursts. On one hand it seems stupid. On the other hand I like bigger bursts.




If you're talking about Gloves of Eldritch Admixture then they are fairly limited in scope permitting the addition of a number of dice, from a pool of 5 per day, as an encounter power. That's one extra thunder power per encounter, though potentially tossing in 5 extra dice can help to end an encounter pretty quickly.


----------



## keterys (Oct 13, 2009)

Actually talking about the many builds that utilize the feat Arcane Admixture to add thunder to scorching burst, sword burst, etc.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 13, 2009)

keterys said:


> Actually talking about the many builds that utilize the feat Arcane Admixture to add thunder to scorching burst, sword burst, etc.




Ah, gotcha. It's still a feat burnt on every attack power though, right?


----------



## keterys (Oct 13, 2009)

Oh, sure. It's more likely that it's a swordmage just doing something crazy like layering it on sword burst along with everything else though. I mean, it's totally possible to spend a good 8-10 feats on boosting an at-will.


----------



## Flipguarder (Oct 13, 2009)

White lotus feats + arcane admixture + thunder feats + sword burst = not ok in my campaigns.


----------



## Iron Sky (Oct 13, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> which is covered by proficiency bonuses on weapons. You are putting forth that sense non-weapon users attack NAD's that they should do less damage while having a similar chance to hit. That is preposterous.




The higher level you get, the bigger the discrepancy between monster's highest and lowest stat tends to get (like it does with players).

By the time you get to paragon, the average gap between AC and a monster's lowest NAD is probably more like 4.

Just off the top of my head, my PCs fought griffons in my game last Sat.  Griffons are level 8, AC is 19, Will is 14, Ref 15(IIRC).


----------



## Flipguarder (Oct 14, 2009)

Balancing increasing monster defense disparity with optional damage bonus items for builds that target higher defenses seems contrived at best. Completely misinterpreted at worst.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 14, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> Zinovia- fantastic awesome guy of October/09




Heh now I like that one!
 I don't even keep a conscious awesome guy list...


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 14, 2009)

Zinovia said:


> Oh, I don't allow warforged either.  They need to stay in Eberron where they fit in very well.  No sentient robots in my fantasy world please.  The restrictions were not done to limit player options so much as to preserve the flavor of that game world.  I think that there are a good variety of options for them to choose from still, especially with the addition of the PH2 races.




Few of the races of D&D exist exactly like they are in the core skinning in my game world.... I allow incredibly liberal re skinning  your lucky innocuous hero doesn't have to look at all like a halfling 

The ability to resist dying by warforged matches up nicely with a couple of character concepts like somebody wanting to play one of the Immortals of the Gathering (see Highlander).  Or somebody else wanting to play a Constructed Rock Dwarf.

I think banning something would be a sign my imagination had failed ;-)


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 14, 2009)

Zinovia said:


> I don't see the MM character stat writeups on all of those as necessarily being solely for NPC's.  They seem to be options that the DM might choose to allow for PC races if desired.



Well, the MM section starts with a disclaimer 'use at your own risk' and stresses they've included the stats primarily to create npcs. 

I have no idea what's going on on the CharOp boards because I refuse to visit them. I only hear about them if someone here mentions them. If I ever caught a player trying to use one of their infamous rule-twisting builds I'd probably kick him straight out of my game.

I'd allow any races that received a new writeup, like minotaurs, but nothing straight out of the MM. The dragon writeups have been rebalanced to be on par with the PHB races.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 14, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> This is just none-sense. ... You crack me up dude.



I guess a WotC apologist is born every day. Sorry, but I'm not gonna bite; this thread is too valuable.


----------



## talarei07 (Oct 14, 2009)

robsenworldaccount said:


> To make a long story short:  This game is all about fun.  That fun is achieved by group harmony.  For ex, if player A does 2x the damage of player b, and they are both strikers, player b is going to feel inadequate.




i disagree with this. We have two strikers in our group a barbarian and an avenger the barbarian deals way more damage and the player of the avenger doesnt feel inadequate at all. because if he wanted a character that dealt as much damage as a barbarian he would have made a barbarian not an avenger. they are both strikers and the barbarian deals more damage and the avenger isolates and destroys foes one at a time.


i dont ban anything, because nothing has been a problem in my game. but then again not a single has an ability score above 18 at third level so i cant say they have have abused anything, oh and our barbarian does have a bloodclaw mordencrad and has used it two times in twelve encounters. both times were against the "boses" of the fight.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 14, 2009)

I didn't actually have to touch the Epic/Parago boosting defenses since nobody seemed to actually WANT to take them...

I asked my players and nobody really thought it was needed even with the monsters hitting them on a 7 or 8 wthout combat advantage.

I have Bloodclaw, Reckless, Radiant banned.

I instituted the rule that penalties don't stack AND thus, they can't combine penalties from the same type (no two penalties from items)

White Lotus I'm slightly ok with....To get the at-wills to be etter than encounters, you got to spend some feats on those and if a player is willing to do that, good for him.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 14, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> Players will always lose the arms race against the DM if the DM sets his mind to it.



 True, but *that's* the mark of a bad DM, not whether something is banned.  Banning things does not make a DM bad.

Moreover, there's as much reason to trust a group of people on the internet who are dedicated to 4E rules as there is to trust the designers of the game.  So, the correlation of your "internet" comment doesn't apply.  In fact, I'd say that the opinion of brokenness (or not) from this particular forum is far more honest and credible than either the original designers or CS.  Why?  Because the people here have a massive advantage in terms of hours played.  Also, the fact that they spend free, personal time here discussing these things is testament to their dedication and commitment to, above all, a fun game.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 14, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> I guess a WotC apologist is born every day. Sorry, but I'm not gonna bite; this thread is too valuable.





If you really wanted to leave it be, you should have left it be, rather than get a dig in without supporting evidence or logic.  You've now sullied the thread you thought was valuable with even more rudeness.  Not exactly a good move.

Folks, if you don't like what someone else says, not responding at all is not only an option, it is a _preferred_ option.  You get no points or prizes for having the last word, so please don't try to do so.


----------



## Zinovia (Oct 14, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> What about genasi?



I allow genasi, but not drow.  I like the genasi as elemental based people. They are cool.  Their inclusion also adds another strength bonus race into the mix.  I dislike Forgotten Realms drow, and have no place in my world for them as written.  I replaced them with a third branch of the elven family tree known as the Sundered.  They are pale skinned, pink- or red-eyed elves that live in the deep caverns.  Sure, they are kind of like drow in a number of ways, but the slight reskinning (pun intended )makes me happier.  Their society is less stupid and self-destructive.  I swear drow would have to have litters of babies to avoid extinction – what with all the murders, child sacrifices, and casual killing of underlings, not to mention what adventurers routinely do to them.  



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I've been averaging about 18-30 damage a combat due to Bloodclaw.  Basically, one healing surge.
> 
> Since in most LFR adventures, I use about 1-3 healing surges per encounter, 3 encounters per adventure and I have 9 healing surges, I'm not too worried about using up surges.  As long as I have a cleric around healing me instead of just spending them myself, the damage is inconsequential.



It's not the total damage that is necessarily the issue.  In our particular group, the warlord's player dislikes the thought of having to use his very limited healing resources on healing self-inflicted damage.  Total surge numbers hasn't been too much of a problem as of yet (although it will be in an upcoming series of encounters), but the number of healing powers we have at our disposal (at level 5) in one combat is around 3, if we burn the MC cleric's daily use of Healing Word.  Then there are potions (limited resource), and Second Wind, which to paraphrase Radio Free Hommlett, may as well be a dwarven racial power in the eyes of some of my players.  They do use their second wind when it is needed, but they hate doing it.  Bloodclaw is a possibly overpowered option (with 2 handed weapons) that exacerbates our lack of strong healing in this particular group, so I'm going to disallow it.  Besides, I'm married to the player of the TacLord character, so maintaining good relations is important. 



Jhaelen said:


> Well, the MM section starts with a disclaimer 'use at your own risk' and stresses they've included the stats primarily to create npcs.
> 
> I have no idea what's going on on the CharOp boards because I refuse to visit them. I only hear about them if someone here mentions them. If I ever caught a player trying to use one of their infamous rule-twisting builds I'd probably kick him straight out of my game.
> 
> I'd allow any races that received a new writeup, like minotaurs, but nothing straight out of the MM. The dragon writeups have been rebalanced to be on par with the PHB races.



I agree on the MM race writeups, which made it easy to not allow them.  Minotaurs and Warforged were rebalanced when they received full character race writeups, but I still don't feel either of them fit as PC's for my game.  YMMV.  It's flavor, not balance.  

I read the CharOp boards to let other people do my research for me.  Is there some new feat or item shows up in 3/4 of the builds posted there?  If so, I am tempted to ban or houserule it on the spot because it is highly likely to be broken.  Why should I spend a lot of time worrying about broken combos when I have all these people doing it for me?  It's a useful resource.     Besides, some of the builds get me thinking about stuff in a different way, and that's all to the good.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 14, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> I have no idea what's going on on the CharOp boards because I refuse to visit them. I only hear about them if someone here mentions them. If I ever caught a player trying to use one of their infamous rule-twisting builds I'd probably kick him straight out of my game.



Firstly: how would you catch them if you never read them?

Secondly: most of the builds aren't all that rule-twisting. They're simple matters of taking rules to their logical conclusion. A bunch of the high dps builds are simple things like "take a ranger, multiclass to avenger, take every crit-enhancing feat and item you can find", or "take a wizard with high wisdom, add every save worsening feat and item you can find". These days builds that use even iffy (not outright wrong) interpretations of rules tend to get looked down on.

That said: for most groups, you can trust your players to play the game to have fun. Most optimizers are benign, and if they're not, chances are that they disrupt the game anyway.

Most of the reason I've banned stuff is
1) I don't see a reason to spend money on a book that has ill-balanced rules
2) A lot of the problems occur heuristically: there's no effort to exploit the rule, but using the rule at all unbalances things.


----------



## Flipguarder (Oct 15, 2009)

Zinovia said:


> I allow genasi, but not drow.  I like the genasi as elemental based people. They are cool.  Their inclusion also adds another strength bonus race into the mix.




This is the first time this month I disagree with you. To allow Genasi but not Warforged is racist. And I will not stand for it! . 

1. Both are strength bonus races, so your "appreciation" for that trait should be shared
2. Warforged are just as if not more cool than genasi.
3. Both are from the exact same kind of source. Both started as MM races.
4. COME ON! WOODEN ARCANE ROBOTS!
5. NO REALLY! WOODEN AND METAL ROBOTS BROUGHT TO LIFE WITH ARCANE ENERGY!


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 15, 2009)

Saeviomagy said:


> Secondly: most of the builds aren't all that rule-twisting. They're simple matters of taking rules to their logical conclusion. A bunch of the high dps builds are simple things like "take a ranger, multiclass to avenger, take every crit-enhancing feat and item you can find", or "take a wizard with high wisdom, add every save worsening feat and item you can find".



I don't have any problems with any of these approaches, since they're pretty obvious. I don't have to read the OP boards to get ideas like these.

If that's all that can be found on the OP boards these days, there's even less reason to visit them 

Regarding items: Players may create a wishlist of the items they'd like to have. This doesn't mean they'll really get them. If they really want a specific item and nothing else, they'll have to buy or create it themselves. That's one area you can easily control as a DM.

Regarding banning because of flavour reasons: I'm all for this! If a setting doesn't have an intelligent race of bipedal half-cows, then there's of course no reason minotaurs should be allowed. E.g. my current 3E setting doesn't have elves and gnomes because anything related to the fey is restricted to npcs.

Naturally, restrictions like these have to be communicated well in advance, when describing the setting/campaign outline to interested players.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 15, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> Regarding banning because of flavour reasons: I'm all for this! If a setting doesn't have an intelligent race of bipedal half-cows, then there's of course no reason minotaurs should be allowed. E.g. my current 3E setting doesn't have elves and gnomes because anything related to the fey is restricted to npcs.
> 
> Naturally, restrictions like these have to be communicated well in advance, when describing the setting/campaign outline to interested players.




Interestingly if somebody wanted a penultimate archer even with your game world were I dming I would let them build it with the elf archetype (allow swap out the language... and indicate they were not 'fey' ... skin them as a human with an odd gift ... he picked up a bow and knew it like the back of his hand etc... a natural born robinhood.


----------



## Zinovia (Oct 15, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> This is the first time this month I disagree with you. To allow Genasi but not Warforged is racist. And I will not stand for it! .



Ah, to be accused of fantasy game racism by Flipguarder after receiving the great distinction of appearing on his sig list, it is a blow from which I'll never* recover.  I cannot deny the cool factor of magically animated wooden and metal robots - who could?  The existence of _sentient_ arcanely animated constructs with a strength bonus seems to push it into a critical mass of awesome that could threaten the entire game world by its very coolness.  Besides, the other races would all be jealous.  

Genasi seemed a fair compromise.  They are weird colors and have funky hair analogues, but they are strong. And elemental.  The one genasi in my group was once a pirate, so that raises his cool factor by a couple degrees at least.  He may be nearly as cool as a killer magic robot with a weapon grafted onto its arm. Nearly. 


* for values of never approximately equaling a minute or two


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 15, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> Regarding items: Players may create a wishlist of the items they'd like to have. This doesn't mean they'll really get them. If they really want a specific item and nothing else, they'll have to buy or create it themselves. That's one area you can easily control as a DM.



 In 4E, I don't think that's fair.  As was shown in a different thread, player cannot create an item of a higher level than themselves and most likely can't afford it.  Therefore, the 4 items they get per level at item levels +1 through +4 will never be something the player wants.  I'd say that pretty much sucks.  Of course, I'm sure you account for this somehow, perhaps with more money to buy the item or some other mechanism, but based purely on rules your campaign decision is generally not a good one.


----------



## keterys (Oct 15, 2009)

Infiniti2000 said:


> In 4E, I don't think that's fair.  As was shown in a different thread, player cannot create an item of a higher level than themselves and most likely can't afford it.  Therefore, the 4 items they get per level at item levels +1 through +4 will never be something the player wants.  I'd say that pretty much sucks.  Of course, I'm sure you account for this somehow, perhaps with more money to buy the item or some other mechanism, but based purely on rules your campaign decision is generally not a good one.




This response didn't make sense. If a player makes a wish list of 3-5 items and the DM doesn't like one of them, they can still just give something else off the list.

If the player lists only one item and it's not one the DM wants, then the player failed at making a wish list in the first place (3-5 items) and the DM should ask them to pick more. Or they're asking to be the 1 of 5 players who doesn't get to pick their item that level.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 15, 2009)

So, by choosing only 1 item you're asking to get screwed?  I don't think that's what Jhaelen meant either.  I assumed that the player chooses one item and the DM tries to accommodate him/her.  Unfortunately, using the methods Jhaelen mentioned doesn't really work in 4E.  I, for one, prior to that other thread, didn't really realize it and thus thought it worthy of comment here.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 15, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Interestingly if somebody wanted a penultimate archer...




There are only two left!?

-Hyp.


----------



## keterys (Oct 15, 2009)

Infiniti2000 said:


> So, by choosing only 1 item you're asking to get screwed?




By choosing only one item you _aren't_ 'making a list of 3-5 items' which is the instruction for making a wish list. I wouldn't call that screwed, but I would say it's losing the benefit of the DM being able to customize treasure by you giving him a list with a few options.

Just as much as if the only item on the list weren't within 4 levels. The paladin can make a wish list of '+6 Holy Avenger', but I don't think the DM has to give his 1st level paladin that item. He can cheerfully ignore it.

As the DMG says "If characters don’t find things on their lists, they can purchase or enchant them when they reach sufficient level."


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 16, 2009)

Hypersmurf said:


> There are only two left!?
> 
> -Hyp.




The other dozen wanted seeker or bard .... and had to be shot... so we were left with two...  the ultimate one and the penultimate.... now if its not the elf who is the ultimate ;-/


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 16, 2009)

keterys said:


> By choosing only one item you _aren't_ 'making a list of 3-5 items' which is the instruction for making a wish list. I wouldn't call that screwed, but I would say it's losing the benefit of the DM being able to customize treasure by you giving him a list with a few options.
> 
> Just as much as if the only item on the list weren't within 4 levels. The paladin can make a wish list of '+6 Holy Avenger', but I don't think the DM has to give his 1st level paladin that item. He can cheerfully ignore it.
> 
> As the DMG says "If characters don’t find things on their lists, they can purchase or enchant them when they reach sufficient level."



Yup. The way I see it, the wish list is a tool for DMs to find out what kind of items the players are interested in. It does not exist to restrict the items I may put into my adventures.
As an example, the barbarian player who picked an executioner's axe as his weapon of choice naturally wanted an executioner's axe with an enchantment that helped when making charge attacks.
So I included a different kind of weapon with a similar enchantment. At his next opportunity he bought and used a scroll of transfer magic from the money he had gained by pilfering a gem from the group treasure.

I also found it interesting that the group decided the barbarian pc should get three of the six magic items they'd found in their first adventure (thus including the ones that I had originally intended for the ranger and the fighter). The players decided this after seeing their characters in action and found they didn't really need or want those items anymore and felt the barbarian could actually use them better!

Another player received an artifact instead of the item she was looking for. She seemed to like that even more than one of the items she had on her list.

I actually do hand out more money than indicated by the treasure parcel system. Mostly, they get this money from solving quests and by finding better deals (via roleplaying) when selling loot.

I'm also fond of using customized item that work similar to Weapons of Legacy in 3E, i.e. that grow with the power of the person wielding it. After reading the DMG2 I'll also definitely include some of the alternative rewards.

I think that's a more fun approach than simply handing out exactly what the players put on their lists.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Oct 18, 2009)

Just sharing a bit of experience concerning an item that was mentioned.

I ran a PbP game where you started at level 12.  Everyone was allowed 5 level appropriate items.  There were 4 melee based characters.

EVERYONE of them picked the iron armband of power.  Not the pargagon level one, it was still too high level.  The level 6 ones.  Once they had bought weapon/neck/armor they had 2 items of level 10 and 9 available and they ALL chose to downgrade to a level 6 items.  

Food for thought.

Yeah, I ban them in my home game.  No wonder.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Oct 18, 2009)

Mal Malenkirk said:


> Just sharing a bit of experience concerning an item that was mentioned.
> 
> I ran a PbP game where you started at level 12.  Everyone was allowed 5 level appropriate items.  There were 4 melee based characters.
> 
> ...



The heroic ones aren't really a problem as an item. It's that for melee character who want to focus on combat there are not really any good choices for the armslot. This is especially true for one-shot games or any group that is light on the role play. Personally, when I build a character I choose items that fit whatever theme I got going, but if I can't find one that fits it I will pick whatever items give me the most constant benefit. I hate items that only have a daily power.


----------



## renau1g (Oct 18, 2009)

Mal Malenkirk said:


> Just sharing a bit of experience concerning an item that was mentioned.
> 
> I ran a PbP game where you started at level 12.  Everyone was allowed 5 level appropriate items.  There were 4 melee based characters.
> 
> ...




Yeah, there's nothing interesting about them, same as the X expertise feats so I give the expertise as bonus feats to my players at 5th lvl. I also don't have the amrbands in my home games either.


----------



## keterys (Oct 18, 2009)

abyssaldeath said:


> The heroic ones aren't really a problem as an item. It's that for melee character who want to focus on combat there are not really any good choices for the armslot. This is especially true for one-shot games or any group that is light on the role play. Personally, when I build a character I choose items that fit whatever theme I got going, but if I can't find one that fits it I will pick whatever items give me the most constant benefit. I hate items that only have a daily power.




In the example given, it was the first slot filled of the secondary slots. So it didn't have to compete with just arms items, but all the rest as well.

The sad thing is that it makes taking a magic shield generally a bad idea. I mean, you know there's something wrong if people won't use magic shields in dnd because of an alternative item.


----------



## Akaiku (Oct 18, 2009)

keterys said:


> The sad thing is that it makes taking a magic shield generally a bad idea. I mean, you know there's something wrong if people won't use magic shields in dnd because of an alternative item.




I find it more sad that all magic sheilds are worse to people then +2 to melee damage.


----------



## keterys (Oct 18, 2009)

Akaiku said:


> I find it more sad that all magic sheilds are worse to people then +2 to melee damage.




*shrug* Then you don't buy into the implicit premise that magic items are supposed to be but one of many facets of your character, not the overriding one. A premise stated and promised by the designers of 4e and... striven for in many places... with some obvious failings.

At which point the ideal is not to keep the +2 melee damage bracer, but to make a lot of _other_ interesting treasure instead.

Or you take out the bracers and suddenly Recoil Shields, Throwing Shields, and Storm Shields are very real options.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 19, 2009)

In looking at the braciers, I wonder if the people who are talking about banning them are also concerned about the grind in a typical battle. Are we really that concerned about +2 or +4 damage on an attack (and the +4 damage is a level _16_ item)? If a lot of people pick them, perhaps it's because they haven't found anything more interesting or useful to replace them with. More interesting bracers/shield items is the cure for the iron armbands, methinks.

--Steve


----------



## keterys (Oct 19, 2009)

SteveC said:


> In looking at the braciers, I wonder if the people who are talking about banning them are also concerned about the grind in a typical battle.




If they were, I'd hope they would also supply bracers that give damage to implement attacks. And perhaps a bonus that doesn't empower multiattack powers more than single attack powers... but I wouldn't count on it.



> More interesting bracers/shield items is the cure for the iron armbands, methinks.




I suspect 'interesting' is the wrong word, but rather 'powerful' is the correct one.


----------



## WOLead (Oct 19, 2009)

SteveC said:


> In looking at the braciers, I wonder if the people who are talking about banning them are also concerned about the grind in a typical battle. Are we really that concerned about +2 or +4 damage on an attack (and the +4 damage is a level _16_ item)? If a lot of people pick them, perhaps it's because they haven't found anything more interesting or useful to replace them with. More interesting bracers/shield items is the cure for the iron armbands, methinks.
> 
> --Steve




Its just how powerful those things are.  Any melee attack gets twice the amount of added damage, then if they spent a feat for a Weapon Focus.  Same with the Bow version.  Now if a DM dropped that to a +1/+2/+3 bonus instead of +2/+4/+6, then more people might start looking at other items.

On the other hand, I like to take other enchantments in that slot when aiming defensively.  Such as Shield of the Barrier Sentinels for any shield using melee, or Warlock's Bracers for Warlocks or Swordmage|Warlock Hybrids.  Shield of the Barrier Sentinels I find especially nice if you have some way to negate the attack bonus to enemies for being Flanked, such as Uncanny Dodge or Alert Familiar.  Its kind of funny to TRY to be flanked, so your AC and Reflex is higher against any attack, while the enemies go out of their way to not flank you so they and their allies have a better chance to hit.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 19, 2009)

As I said on another thread, the fact that one of the items that gets complained about the most grants +2/+4/+6 to melee damage rolls is an indication of how well-balanced 4E is as a whole. 

It may be boring. It may be popular. It may even be "overpowered" in the sense that it is better than any other magic item occupying the same slot and of approximately the same level. 

But broken in the sense of "This will bring your game to a screeching halt"/"This will allow the PCs to overcome encounters that are supposed to challenge them too easily"/"The character with this game element will overshadow all the others in play"? Hardly.


----------



## Greatwyvern (Oct 19, 2009)

*Whats a Dm to do?*

I have just joined this site and of course this topic was like a giant bulls eye for a fellow Dm to read and after reading i feel almost a little sad.  If i could gather your attention Ladies and Gents and have you sit around the fire as I twist my tale and philosophy I would sincerely be grateful.

    As for banning Builds, items, powers or even game mechanics I have never been a fan of.  In my time of 9 years of playing D&D and 6 years now running campaigns for many different groups and people i have learned three key things.  When i first started Dming I was out to "win" and didn't like when my players easily thrashed my big nasties or easy bypassed my hard dungeon or traps.  But as the years went on I realized as a Dm I was not there to "win" but more as a guide and narrator.  As Dm's we are there for our players to guide them into a world of fantasy where they embark on fanciful quest and heroic, or diabolical, endeavors.  We strive to make the game fun and have fun our selves as the players move through the plots, stories and worlds we have created.

    With this said I move onto my banning philosophy.  If i believe items are making my players to powerful and breaking the game, I just move on to tougher enemies or better enemy groups that can work together as well as my players can.  In a recent game I played in a Dm wanted to ban haste and increasing the tempo just cause the bard poped both at once on his final boss of a dungeon on the ranger who just went and the thing was at only 1/4 its hp.  However this happened because both the ranger and bard spent 2 daily powers each and both action pointed and didn't miss once.  Is this over powered? I don't believe so as a DM, i call it skilled team work and dumb luck.  Just because a set of daily powers can crush an enemy quickly doesn't mean there over powered, that's why they are DAILY powers.  If the daily powers in a group are annoying you, do what i did and start having your group have anywhere from 1 to 6 encounters per 24 hours.  This way they will not just pop off their dailies every encounter and will learn that teamwork is stronger then just over powering daily damage.

    As for items, some items do seem like everyone and their mother are always going to get those items and sometimes it saddens a DM to have a group of monoitemized groups with no versatility.  My easiest answer to this is make your players do more then just hack and slash encounters.  Have hard encounters where they wish they had choose that floating shield(saved a full plate wearing fighter in my group from drowning to death 5 times....).  Also encourage your players to fill out back rounds and character growth that might make some other items more interesting.  Like a game i am in now my Dragonborn fighter could have went bloodclaw and iron arms but instead since he has sworn to destroy tiamat(he's lacking a lot for that job LOL) he went with dragonslayer and more deffensive route.  If players still insist on maxing out damage and power gaming them selves into walking blenders, toss in a mix of non combat action encounters, this way they realize the power of non damage maxing items.

This is just my philosophy on bans and running as a DM.  To everyone that does ban items to each their own and I respect your choices in your games, just try to always remember that as a DM we are there as story tellers, guides and narrators and above all.  Make sure our players have FUN!

     Thank you for reading my post and to all Good luck and may you have many fond memories.                          
                                                                   Richard R.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Oct 19, 2009)

WOLead said:


> Its just how powerful those things are.  Any melee attack gets twice the amount of added damage, then if they spent a feat for a Weapon Focus.  Same with the Bow version.  Now if a DM dropped that to a +1/+2/+3 bonus instead of +2/+4/+6, then more people might start looking at other items.



So because a MAGIC item is more powerful then a feat it's too much? Even if you dropped it to +1/+2/+3 bonus it will still be chosen nearly as much because people like constant bonuses. I don't even look at magic items that don't have properties.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 19, 2009)

Greatwyvern said:


> This is just my philosophy on bans and running as a DM.  To everyone that does ban items to each their own and I respect your choices in your games, just try to always remember that as a DM we are there as story tellers, guides and narrators and above all.  Make sure our players have FUN!



Good first post and welcome to ENWorld! 

While I happen to agree with your DMing philosophy, I don't think it is the only way to DM. For example, some DMs see themselves more as "referees" - neutral arbiters of the game rules and the PCs' actions. Of course, 4E does make this DMing style slightly more difficult because, unlike previous editions, there is no way to randomly generate magic items by the rules. The standard 4E approach of PC wish lists and adventures with unspecified "Level X" magic items found as treasure means that the DM is almost forced to take an active role in deciding what magic items are found by the players.

This leads me to wonder whether all this banning may be a side effect of DMs needing to choose which magic items to give to the party instead of rolling for them randomly. In a way, I think it is a mindset shift. Rolling randomly tends to provoke the question, "How do I deal with X if it shows up in my game?" whereas choosing magic items tends to provoke the question, "Do I want X in my game?"


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 19, 2009)

I've been playing and DMing D&D since about 1982. In that time I've never banned anything, although I've had a few items banned by other DMs.

Reading through this thread it's almost like there are two different interpretations of what is an acceptable reason to ban items. Some of the posters are OK with banning according to one interpretation, some the other, and some both.

The first interpretation is that the item is "broken". In that sense it implies that the item is so overpowered that it makes the game unfair with that item, power or feat. 

The second interpretation is that the item is "too commonplace". In that sense it implies that since every character of a certain role automatically takes that item, it should be banned because it is restricting the options and making the game too "cookie cutter."

In some cases both come into play.

One of the, if not the, most commonly banned items seems to be the iron armbands of power (or the bracers of archery for a ranged character). With a +2 damage per tier, it is very, very hard to see these as "broken" in the sense that it overpowers the game. However, because damage is so critical for strikers, if the item is available, it is almost game play negligence not to have them. (Disclaimer, my ranger has the iron armbands of power).

But this is a real pandora's box of banning if you think about it. Banning the iron armbands of power not because they make a character super-powered, but simply because they are near universal, means that once they are banned, the next item on the list is ripe for banning itself.

This is one major reason I don't ban items. I also don't like to "nerf" items for the same reason. What I have done in past versions of D&D is to simply customize magic items so that individual characters have options that make sense for them, and those items are comparable in usefulness to the "most common" item.

So, if every striker in my campaign is taking the iron armbands of power, my immediate reaction is not that they are overpowered, but that there simply aren't good options that cater to individual builds.

Looking at the Character Builder arm slot items, it is my opinion that this is exactly the problem. Iron Armbands of Power are a level 6 item. There is nothing else at that level, or within several levels above it, that offer ANYTHING remotely as obviously beneficial to a striker. For example, moving up to level 7, the first armslot item in the CB is "bracers of defense." With that name you might think they offer an always on +1 to AC or something, which would be comparable to an always on +2 to damage. But they don't. What they do is offer a daily power to reduce damage by 10. This is laughable compared to the Iron Armbands of Power. You would have to be a fool if you are playing a striker and you give up +2 damage for every hit to be able ONCE PER DAY to reduce damage from one attack by 10. That's simply ludicrous.

Also at level 7 is a set of bracers that ONCE PER DAY gives a +1d10 damage to ONE attack. That's an average of 5.5 additional damage, or slightly less overall damage than three hits with the Iron Armbands of Power. Again what kind of idiot would take that?

At level 8 there are no armslot items that increase damage, which is what strikers do. Again, it would be almost party-negligence to take one of them when you could have IAoP instead.

At level 9, more of the same. Situational items that don't appeal to strikers.

At level 10 you actually have a couple choices that do add damage. But a little simple math will demonstrate that neither of them will keep up with the sixth level IAoP item.

I could go on. The end result of this analysis is that it is pretty likely that until you get to the +4 Iron Armbands of Power there simply isn't another striker-specific armslot item that makes any dang sense at all.

So my conclusion isn't that Iron Armbands of Power are overpowered, or that I need to ban them because they are too common, my conclusion is that the armslot items for strikers simply suck big time.

The real solution to the "problem" is to provide more options to the role that is always picking the same thing. What else would appeal to a striker that might make a player think twice about choosing the iron armbands of power? Here are some suggested items that I don't believe are overpowered but that would also appeal to a striker.

Armbands of accuracy. Free action: Once per encounter reroll a missed attack roll with a +2 bonus to the roll.
Armbands of punishment. Free action: Once per encounter add 1d8 to every attack roll made before the end of your turn.
Armbands of reach. Extend your weapon's reach by 1 square. You grant combat advantage to all enemies.
Armbands of energy. Your melee attack becomes one of the standard energy types.

Just some examples. I can guarantee you that in the next 4e campaign I run, I intend to come up with some alternatives that will make even those already wearing the IAoP think twice about keeping them.

It is my opinion that the magic weapons available actually provide quite a bit of interesting, tempting diversity. Vengeful looks good to a one-shot nuclear bomb striker. Bloodclaw looks good to a striker who doesn't expect to take a lot of damage. Vanguard is perfect for a charging barbarian. Subtle might be great for a rogue (I don't have a rogue, but it looks good to me). Quick weapons are great for high attack bonus characters... 

Give us more options in the arm slot and we won't all pick Iron Armbands of Power.


----------



## keterys (Oct 19, 2009)

I actually think that upping the general value of magic items is a totally valid enterprise... but one that requires a _lot_ of work since you have to do it almost across the board. At the moment you've got a flat sea with, like, a few rare points above it. Budgeting everything to those points is definitely viable, but a lot of work. 

I did go through at one point redesigning a few dozen items to be more flavorful and valuable, though. I just gave up cause of the character builder* and the effort involved.

That and all kinds of static bonuses (to anything) isn't really healthy for the game. Better off none than hordes, really.

* It is amusing how much stuff in 4e I won't bother to touch since it won't go in the character builder.


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 19, 2009)

I do think the unwillingness to customize due to the desire to use the Character Builder for everything is a pretty serious flaw in the D&D 4e marketing strategy.

As I said, I've been a DM for nearly 30 years now, and I have ALWAYS created custom magic items that are specifically intended to help players achieve their character's conceptual goals. I believe I have done a very good job at maintaining game balance while doing so.

In 4e if you are discouraged from that sort of thing, I think it significantly detracts from the flexibility and enjoyment of the game. The arm slot problem is a perfect example of what I would address with custom items if I were a DM. I've provided a couple of examples off the top of my head, but given more time, and some specific characters to work with, I could certainly come up with better ideas for reasonable arm slot items that would be comparable in usefulness to the Iron Armbands of Power and would also be quite desirable for certain character builds.

One thing I would consider doing is taking a standard set of Iron Armbands of Power and giving them an encounter power that removed any immobilizing effect, but which reduced them to +1 damage for the rest of the encounter. Or something like that. Give the player choices and options that make them balance a gain in one area with a loss in another. That way you increase flexibility while maintaining game balance.

I really don't think it would be hard to come up with a dozen or so armbands that would appeal to strikers for different reasons, and I would flat get rid of the stupid items that are out there but only an idiot would choose.


----------



## Psikus (Oct 19, 2009)

Regarding the omnipresent Iron Armbands of Power/Bracers of Archery, I had been toying with the idea of adding an equivalent effect to all magic bracers. To smooth things over, we could make it a +1 item bonus to all damage per 5 levels (i.e. +1 from 1 to 5, +2 from 6 to 10, and so on). This definitely results in an increase of character power, but it does return the missing freedom of choice in the arms item slot. 

On the other hand, all shields would now need a similar boost, or they would become even more pointless. Something like 'resist 1' to all damage per 5 levels would probably make them weaker than bracers, and overlaps with masterwork armor, but I think it would still be interesting for shield users.


----------



## Zinovia (Oct 19, 2009)

It is true that for a striker, or pretty much any melee character, there are no more generally useful arm items than the Iron Armbands of Power.  It is for that reason that I am disallowing them.  They are flat out better than any comparable, or even higher level, option for that slot.  They are better than a feat.    

_Won't banning items diminish your characters' options?_ 
No, because it opens up all those other arm items as valid choices, which currently they are not when compared to the IAoP.  From an optimization standpoint, IAoP are currently so much better than anything else that you would be foolish to take any other arm item for a melee character.  The choices are to raise every other arm item up to the same level, or to remove the one item that is better than everything else. 

_But doing lots of extra damage is fun!_
Yes, but sitting there watching someone else laying down the hurt while you are doing substantially less damage with your striker is not so much fun.  Four of the five characters in my group are melee.  If they all picked up the iron armbands, it would leave the warlock without a comparable damage boost.  Warlocks are as much controllers as strikers, but let's not exacerbate the damage discrepancy already present with superior weapons available to the melee characters.  Giving them IAoP just makes it worse.

_What about the grind?_
I'm not concerned about it in this particular group.  We kill things plenty fast with 2 strikers and an assault swordmage in the 5 person party.  If grind were to become an issue, it can be fixed invisibly on my side of the screen by reducing monster HP, rather than increasing damage done by the characters through the use of items.  

_You're just trying to win!_
Sure I am.  I win if the players are having fun playing the game.  I win by ensuring that no one is sitting there feeling jealous because their character is less effective than everyone else's.  I win by giving them a variety of items that let them make their characters distinct from each other.  I win by letting them feel clever when using items to thwart the special abilities or high damage hits of my bad guys.  Situational items often take more thought as to when you will use them, which I feel better engages the players than adding another plus onto their damage formulae.  Yes, I am out to win.  In a good way.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 19, 2009)

Zinovia said:


> _But doing lots of extra damage is fun!_
> _What about the grind?_




Almost entirely in agreement though I have few enough players the issue isnt totally burgeoning ...  so I find myself attracted to doing it the hard way... 

I like several options when something seems a must have.

1) give it to all of them free and remove the must have item (for instance with a heroic pushing rule replacing bloodclaw effects).
2) make more options so that it once again becomes an option instead of a must have. (most bracers and shields having defense boosting ability has lots of heritage.).
3) Make sure to use different skins and seeming sources on it... see alternate rewards boons, self enchantments, masters training, tattoos and body piercings etc..

number 3 is not standalone just something to mix in with the others


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 19, 2009)

Psikus said:


> Regarding the omnipresent Iron Armbands of Power/Bracers of Archery, I had been toying with the idea of adding an equivalent effect to all magic bracers. To smooth things over, we could make it a +1 item bonus to all damage per 5 levels (i.e. +1 from 1 to 5, +2 from 6 to 10, and so on). This definitely results in an increase of character power, but it does return the missing freedom of choice in the arms item slot.
> 
> On the other hand, all shields would now need a similar boost, or they would become even more pointless. Something like 'resist 1' to all damage per 5 levels would probably make them weaker than bracers, and overlaps with masterwork armor, but I think it would still be interesting for shield users.





Nice Ideas.... though I think we could have some bracers be defensive just like the shields, "wonder woman" springs to mind.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 19, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> Armbands of accuracy. Free action: Once per encounter reroll a missed attack roll with a +2 bonus to the roll.
> Armbands of punishment. Free action: Once per encounter add 1d8 to every attack roll made before the end of your turn.
> Armbands of reach. Extend your weapon's reach by 1 square. You grant combat advantage to all enemies.
> Armbands of energy. Your melee attack becomes one of the standard energy types.




sounds fun.


----------



## keterys (Oct 19, 2009)

At one point I was considering giving out passive benefits with all the secondary item types.

Something like:
Head: +1 per tier bonus to Will
Feet: +1 per tier bonus to Reflex
Waist: +1 per tier bonus to Fortitude
Hands: +2 per tier bonus to damage rolls
Arms: +5 hp per tier
Rings: +1 per tier bonus to attack rolls

And, poof, you can get rid of some of the boring items while at the same time getting rid of boring static feats like focus, toughness, defense feats, etc. 

But, there are side effects of doing that too. Like people upgrading to otherwise useless items of the next tier purely to get the shiny static bonus. And bonuses to damage rolls shift the power inexorably in the direction of those who make multiple attacks, instead of those who make a single big attack, which isn't particularly fair. As a DM there's a lot you can do to just change hp, defenses, damage, what have you instead.

But if you want cooler items, the above is certainly one way to do it.


----------



## renau1g (Oct 20, 2009)

Yeah, those rangers are even more deadly now, Twin Strike *pew, pew*... which if anyone _didn't_ need a boost it's them.


----------



## Bayuer (Oct 20, 2009)

@brassbaboon
There are many items in arms slot. Why do I need to throw them all, becouse of few overpowered items? When I will ban Iron Armbads and similiar items (4 or so), then other arms slot items will be a fair choice. Better solution is to ban Armbands etc. and give players +2 to dmg at 6, +4 at 16 and +6 at 26 lvl or cut the bonus in half. I didn't decided what to do myself, but this are options I prefer.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 20, 2009)

abyssaldeath said:


> So because a MAGIC item is more powerful then a feat it's too much? Even if you dropped it to +1/+2/+3 bonus it will still be chosen nearly as much because people like constant bonuses. I don't even look at magic items that don't have properties.




I would be tempted to just make it on one damage roll per round.... the magic item throbs with power... and yes something for Warlocks ... how about chains of might that you wrap around your forearms and help out the locks.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 20, 2009)

keterys said:


> * It is amusing how much stuff in 4e I won't bother to touch since it won't go in the character builder.




Customization in CB is more than a bit overly gimped.. do they want to hire a programmer to help,< raises hand />


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 20, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> I would be tempted to just make it on one damage roll per round.... the magic item throbs with power... and yes something for Warlocks ... how about chains of might that you wrap around your forearms and help out the locks.




I'd just be happy with a feat that allows me to bump the dice from my Warlock's Curse, like the Ranger does his Hunter's Quarry. An item would be nice, but the pluses I get to basic ranged attacks (Eldritch Blast) from Bracers of the Perfect Shot is plenty.


----------



## renau1g (Oct 20, 2009)

Or the backstabber feat for the rogue. Yeah, the warlock's left in the cold on extra damage.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 20, 2009)

renau1g said:


> Or the backstabber feat for the rogue. Yeah, the warlock's left in the cold on extra damage.




Mind you things have improved somewhat since I picked up Dark Pact as a dual, then also took Cursebite and Cursegrind. Coupled with a Weapon of Summer as an implement, for an additional 1d8 fire on a hit, my DPR has risen significantly. That likely means the Weapon of Summer would be on the chopping block for many here


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 20, 2009)

Ryujin said:


> That likely means the Weapon of Summer would be on the chopping block for many here




Well, it already is for people who do not use Dungeon Magazine items. 

One of the problems with 4E is the mid to high level math. Virtually the only way to take out foes is to damage them and higher level foe hit points increase faster than PCs damage increases, so the only "good items" for many players tend to be items that increase damage.

Isn't that why you acquired that item???


----------



## keterys (Oct 20, 2009)

People keep saying that, and I keep wondering what they mean by 'mid to high level', since I haven't run into it yet. I've actually seen things speed up slightly so far.

Only played/run up to 14th level though.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Oct 20, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> I would be tempted to just make it on one damage roll per round.... the magic item throbs with power... and yes something for Warlocks ... how about chains of might that you wrap around your forearms and help out the locks.




I would do once per power if I were to change it. That way you get to keep the bonus when you nova and it will also make the Quickhit Bracers more appealing to Rangers.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 20, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Well, it already is for people who do not use Dungeon Magazine items.
> 
> One of the problems with 4E is the mid to high level math. Virtually the only way to take out foes is to damage them and higher level foe hit points increase faster than PCs damage increases, so the only "good items" for many players tend to be items that increase damage.
> 
> Isn't that why you acquired that item???




It's certainly one of the reasons, but so was the once-per-day +4 to all defences. That has saved my bacon in several encounters already, when I was being singled out.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 20, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> Looking at the Character Builder arm slot items, it is my opinion that this is exactly the problem. Iron Armbands of Power are a level 6 item. There is nothing else at that level, or within several levels above it, that offer ANYTHING remotely as obviously beneficial to a striker...
> 
> ...So my conclusion isn't that Iron Armbands of Power are overpowered, or that I need to ban them because they are too common, my conclusion is that the armslot items for strikers simply suck big time.



Only when compared with the iron armbands of power (and possibly one or two other things).

The simple fact of the matter is that the balance among armbands was fine until AV came out and IAoP blew the curve.

But naturally it's every other item in the game that's the problem, not the IAoP...


----------



## Akaiku (Oct 21, 2009)

Saeviomagy said:


> But naturally it's every other item in the game that's the problem, not the IAoP...




What non shield magic arm slot item would you think to actually put on a wish list for a melee striker? Without the IAoP, you are not shorting yourself an useful slot by taking random things that occasionally do something. Then it's just "Well, is this worthwhile or should I disenchant it for 1/5th its value towards something I feel I actually NEED"


----------



## abyssaldeath (Oct 21, 2009)

Saeviomagy said:


> Only when compared with the iron armbands of power (and possibly one or two other things).
> 
> The simple fact of the matter is that the balance among armbands was fine until AV came out and IAoP blew the curve.
> 
> But naturally it's every other item in the game that's the problem, not the IAoP...



Until AV came out there were *3 armbands/bracers.* I hardly call that an indication of balance. What it was was a complete lack of options.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Oct 21, 2009)

I try not to ban stuff unless it proves fundamentally unusable in play, or it's plainly wrong to my way of thinking. So I haven't banned any armbands or bloodclaw weapons because I haven't yet seen them in play, but I do ban all feats that grant unconditional attack/defense bonuses, including armor spec, because they're a part of the PC stat lag/feat tax problem that rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

Akaiku said:


> What non shield magic arm slot item would you think to actually put on a wish list for a melee striker? Without the IAoP, you are not shorting yourself an useful slot by taking random things that occasionally do something. Then it's just "Well, is this worthwhile or should I disenchant it for 1/5th its value towards something I feel I actually NEED"




Going through the 1st-8th bracers that might be options if IAoP were off the table, this is probably my first gut feelings for some of my characters - Desirable (I'd ask for it from the group), Useful (I'd take it but would let someone else claim them first), Questionable (just as soon sell or leave as party treasure):

Desirable:
Flame Bracers
Executioner's Bracers
Bracers of Mighty Striking (Certain builds/parties)
Bracers of the Perfect Shot (Ditto)
Couters of Second Chances
Quickhit Braces
Bracers of Brachiation
Warded Vambraces
Bracers of Rejuvenation

Useful
Bracers of Enforced Regret
Phylactery of Action
Bloodthirst Bracers
Counterstrike Guards
Feyleaf Vambraces
Tangler
Bracers of Mental Might
Bracers of Tactical Blows
Razor Bracers
Bracers of Escape
Bracers of Defense
Bracers of Bold Maneuvering
Mindiron Vambraces
Charm Bracelet

Questionable / Specialized
Lunia's Bracelet
Breach Bracers
Shimmering Light
Cold Iron Bracers
Skull Bracers

I do find it amusing that the same book that had IAoP contained an item of the same level that gave +1d6 with OAs and one that 1/day gave +1d10 as a minor and hopefully you hit.

It's also interesting to look at competing level 6 items. The horned helm is great for barbarians, though rogues, rangers, avengers, and monks probably don't care. After that, we're looking at a couple different gloves that give a little bit of damage, a solitaire that lets you save on a crit, a couple of  boots that don't help with damage at all but seem solid, a pretty kickass flute if you've got the ability to draw, free hand it, put it away each encounter... probably the best damage option among all secondary slots is the Luckbender Gloves which give you about +2-4 damage _per encounter_.

So please don't restrict comparisons to just the arms slot. Remember these are taken above competing secondary items, of all types, up through 11th level.


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 21, 2009)

keterys said:


> Going through the 1st-8th bracers that might be options if IAoP were off the table, this is probably my first gut feelings for some of my characters - Desirable (I'd ask for it from the group), Useful (I'd take it but would let someone else claim them first), Questionable (just as soon sell or leave as party treasure):
> 
> Desirable:
> Flame Bracers
> ...




LOL, sure, if by "desirable" you mean "as opposed to wearing nothing at all on my arms" and if by "useful" you mean "occasionally does something remotely arguably beneficial" and if by "questionable" you mean "not really better than nothing at all."

I mean you seriously want to argue that an eighth level ranger would look at "Bracers of enforced regret" and say "I just GOTTA have those!" Or the Bracers of Mighty Striking "because I'm doing melee basic attacks ALL THE TIME."

Here are the "Flame bracers" you list as "desirable". For 520 gold I get to add a +1d6 to one attack IF I HIT before the end of my next turn ONCE PER DAY! If that's what you think merits "desirable" status, I think you just won the argument for your opponents. For that same 520 gold I'd be much more inclined to buy five "frozen whetstones" to give me a +2 cold damage to ALL ATTACKS for the ENTIRE ENCOUNTER for five encounters. I figure in five encounters I can make back the 500 gold and buy five more.

I suppose that pretty much makes the frozen whetstones unbalanced too though...


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Oct 21, 2009)

Well, Bracers of Mental Might were a lot more useful pre-PH2 (which brought Melee training, which with a feet largely makes BoMM redundant), at least with a Warlord with commanders strike in the party.

I gave a set of them to my party, and the charisma palladin has enjoyed them greatly, especially in conjunction with his vanguard spear (which gives bonuses to charges, which until divine power were all basic melee attacks for a chaladin) or his brother the warlord bossing him around by saying "hit it again".

Even post PH2, the player wants to keep them around to be able to use his charisma for the odd athletics check that may come up.

Now, I don't do wish lists and my players really aren't optimizers, but bracers of mental might at least have value for some character/party builds.


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> LOL, sure, if by "desirable" you mean "as opposed to wearing nothing at all on my arms" and if by "useful" you mean "occasionally does something remotely arguably beneficial" and if by "questionable" you mean "not really better than nothing at all."




Psst. 4E items aren't intended to be big game changers. Evidence: 98% of the items.

So, yes, in comparison to having nothing, they sure seem quite desirable.



> I mean you seriously want to argue that an eighth level ranger would look at "Bracers of enforced regret" and say "I just GOTTA have those!" Or the Bracers of Mighty Striking "because I'm doing melee basic attacks ALL THE TIME."



They're level 2 items. I'd hope a level 1 ranger was looking at them and going 'Hey, cool, that's a big improvement over the nothing I'm wearing. Go ahead, mark me, I'll only get stronger, or My charges and OAs are more effective, and oh, hey, hi Mr. Warlord with Commander's Strike and Hammer and Anvil.'



> Here are the "Flame bracers" you list as "desirable". For 520 gold I get to add a +1d6 to one attack IF I HIT before the end of my next turn ONCE PER DAY! If that's what you think merits "desirable" status, I think you just won the argument for your opponents.



You may have missed this line:
*Property*: When you score a critical hit with a melee attack, deal an extra 1d6 fire damage.
Which was the primary reason I put it in desirable.

Many rangers and dagger masters like dealing more damage on crits. It's a moderate bonus that doesn't require any setup, stacks with everything, adds straight to DPS. It isn't a gigantic difference, but it's not supposed to.


----------



## Bayuer (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> I suppose that pretty much makes the frozen whetstones unbalanced too though...



Actually this item can be used once per day. Look at the Whetstone entry in Adventurer's Vault. Try to look at the rules first before you make wrong assumptions.


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

Bayuer said:


> Actually this item can be used once per day. Look at the Whetstone entry in Adventurer's Vault. Try to look at the rules first before you make wrong assumptions.




Also 5 levels higher and a consumable item, which means that over the course of even a single level it would cost more gold, require a minor action every combat (minor actions often being useful to rangers at the beginnings of combat), only applies to one weapon, etc. It's certainly a more effective option if you ignore those restrictions however.

Also stacks with a bracer item, and if you don't have IAoP to hedge out all competition in every secondary slot, they're still looking pretty darn good compared to nothing.


----------



## Bayuer (Oct 21, 2009)

@keterys
Well, you make me think about banning all items that give straight dmg bonus (Armbands, Bracers of Archery - even those who add +2 with basic attacks only, Staff or Ruin - wizard shouldn't have such a boost to they area powers!, Radiant Weapon). Did I miss something?


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 21, 2009)

Bayuer said:


> Actually this item can be used once per day. Look at the Whetstone entry in Adventurer's Vault. Try to look at the rules first before you make wrong assumptions.




Ah, well, good point, but I'd still take a 1/day item that gave me a +2 damage for an entire encounter over a daily item that gave me a +1d6 if I manage to hit by the end of my next turn.  So yeah, I didn't fully understand how they worked, but now that I do fully understand, they're still miles above the armslot item I was comparing them to.


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 21, 2009)

keterys said:


> Also 5 levels higher and a consumable item, which means that over the course of even a single level it would cost more gold, require a minor action every combat (minor actions often being useful to rangers at the beginnings of combat), only applies to one weapon, etc. It's certainly a more effective option if you ignore those restrictions however.
> 
> Also stacks with a bracer item, and if you don't have IAoP to hedge out all competition in every secondary slot, they're still looking pretty darn good compared to nothing.




Arrows are consumable items. Encounter or daily items are also "consumable items" they just recharge for free. So what if it costs more gold if it is making your encounters more successful? That's the whole point of the game isn't it? What else are you going to spend your gold on? Sure, they are probably expensive for a lower level character, but by the time you get to level 8 or so, 100g isn't that big of an expense for an additional +2 over a fourteen round encounter. Of course that's all game play style. People are willing to pay 5,000 gold to upgrade to a +2 weapon, well, 5,000 gold will buy a whopping pile of whetstones. I'm not "ignoring" any restrictions, I'm making a cost/benefit analysis.

I had earlier made the point that there were two reasons people banned items. The first was that an item was "broken." I stated, and will state again, that if a +2 damage item "breaks" the game at level 8, the game is broken by definition. You're talking about adding a MAXIMUM of 4 damage to round when fighting enemies with hundreds of hit points. If a +2 item truly "breaks" the game, then the game is inherently broken to begin with.

It is the SECOND reason that items are banned that are the real issue here, and that reason is "everyone takes it because it is manifestly the only reasonable choice for your character." I believe I said it would amount to party malfeasance to not take it since nothing else was remotely as useful.

So all this arguing about how it's so much more powerful than the other items at that level is just silly. IT'S NOT BROKEN. THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM. The problem is that ALL THE OTHER STUFF IS VIRTUALLY USELESS IN COMPARISON. There's no compelling reason that every other arm slot item should be so pathetic in comparison. Not if the IAoP don't break the game. Since they DON'T break the game, then that means the other stuff is crap.

I think that's a pretty obvious statement.

Compared to other items in other slots, it is manifestly not overpowered. Cloaks of distortion give +5 to AC on ranged attacks more than 5 squares away. Gauntlets of blood give a +2 to bloodied targets. Bloodclaw weapons can give up to a +6 damage per hit.

They are MANIFESTLY NOT BROKEN. All the other armslot items are simply crap.

Or, to make the negative argument, if they ARE broken, then so is just about every other decent item in the game.


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> Arrows are consumable items.




Of negligible cost.



> Encounter or daily items are also "consumable items" they just recharge for free.



Well, costing time only 



> So what if it costs more gold if it is making your encounters more successful?



It only nets you more gold if it saves you gold in some other way, such as by not failing an encounter, or not dying. And either way, the whetstones still cost more, require a minor action, stack with the bracers, etc.



> That's the whole point of the game isn't it? What else are you going to spend your gold on?



More items? 



> Sure, they are probably expensive for a lower level character, but by the time you get to level 8 or so, 100g isn't that big of an expense for an additional +2 over a fourteen round encounter. Of course that's all game play style. People are willing to pay 5,000 gold to upgrade to a +2 weapon, well, 5,000 gold will buy a whopping pile of whetstones. I'm not "ignoring" any restrictions, I'm making a cost/benefit analysis.



I've never had a 14 round encounter, and am a lot more used to 5, so in your case it would in fact be more valuable. Of course, if you spend 2000 gold and 20 minor actions on whetstones, you might have had another option. But it's really quite immaterial if the triggering condition is 'The DM gave us an item' since then you're comparing a single whetstone to the sell/disenchant value of the item (20% of a the value of a level 2) _obtained 6 levels later_... especially since you can use the item until you get something better, and then still sell it.



> The first was that an item was "broken." I stated, and will state again, that if a +2 damage item "breaks" the game



Of course it doesn't break the game.

But nor would the game be broken if I decided that all barbarians deal +Level damage once per round and all fighters get +2*Level HP.

Made more unhealthy? Sure. That's a totally unnecessary change that gravitates play towards barbarians and fighters, unbalances encounters by a step (and every step adds up), etc. 

In this particular case, the main thing it does is devalues all other magic items. To the point where you're openly scoffing at all other reasonable options because they don't measure up.

Very, very few things 'break' the game. But lots of stuff injure it. 



> It is the SECOND reason that items are banned that are the real issue here, and that reason is "everyone takes it because it is manifestly the only reasonable choice for your character." I believe I said it would amount to party malfeasance to not take it since nothing else was remotely as useful.



Yep, it degrades choice. Worse, it does so in a way that does not make the game more inherently interesting.



> There's no compelling reason that every other arm slot item should be so pathetic in comparison.



Of course there is. Because the others ones all follow the standards of balance decided upon for the game.



> Not if the IAoP don't break the game. Since they DON'T break the game, then that means the other stuff is crap.



If someone creates a class that is identical to the rogue in every single possible way, except it also deals an additional +1d8 per tier on all attacks, does it break the game?

Does that mean the rogue class is crap, and this new class is correct?



> I think that's a pretty obvious statement.



Unfortunately, there are clear logical holes in your statement. If all of the items in the game were balanced equivalent with the IAoP then there'd be no reason for people to object to them.



> Compared to other items in other slots, it is manifestly not overpowered. Cloaks of distortion give +5 to AC on ranged attacks more than 5 squares away. Gauntlets of blood give a +2 to bloodied targets. Bloodclaw weapons can give up to a +6 damage per hit.



1) Don't compare to primary slot items - they're intended to just be better. Compare a cloak of resistance to an ironskin belt, for instance.
2) Gauntlets of Blood are nowhere near as good as iron armbands of power. _And_ are in the previously mentioned upper 2% of items. As are cloaks of distortion and bloodclaw, of course.



> They are MANIFESTLY NOT BROKEN. All the other armslot items are simply crap.



Which means that the balance point for armslot items is 'crap', and you have proven the armbands are overpowered for their slot and should not be allowed. Congratulations.

For most builds, the armbands of power (level 6) are more powerful than gauntlets of destruction (level 18). Are the gauntlets also crap?

It may not have been clear, but the objection isn't even with giving out a +2 bonus to damage necessarily. Several people against the armbands have said they'd be fine _giving that out for free instead_.


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 21, 2009)

keterys said:


> Of negligible cost.
> 
> For most builds, the armbands of power (level 6) are more powerful than gauntlets of destruction (level 18). Are the gauntlets also crap?
> 
> It may not have been clear, but the objection isn't even with giving out a +2 bonus to damage necessarily. Several people against the armbands have said they'd be fine _giving that out for free instead_.




Look, I didn't invent the Iron Armbands of Power. Wizards did. If Wizards thinks they are a legitimate item, and they list them as comparable in value and cost to other items, then those items should be balanced.

They are not. This is manifestly obvious.

So the only FACT here is that the IAoP are obviously HUGELY superior to the other options Wizards has provided.

You seem to be arguing that Wizards should never have offered the IAoP. I am arguing that their other choices are ridiculously lame. The introduction of the IAoP did not "break" anything, it simply revealed how crappy the other options were.

To me this is a game balance issue that Wizards screwed up. I would rather all of their items were reasonably competitive with the IAoP, not that the IAoP were never created.

There is no way that I am the only person who has perused the magic items available in the Character Builder shop and has laughed out loud at how lame a HUGE NUMBER of these magic items are.

I suppose the original idea was that the designers didn't want to have magic items overpower encounter powers or feats. They also obviously wanted magic items to be common and easily created, modified or transferred.

But after awhile even they looked at what they had created and said "geez, these magic items suck. Let's at least make some magic items that people will actually be excited about using."

My personal opinion is that their main mistake was in deciding to make magic items so easily available in the first place. That more or less led them to create magic items that were lame BY DESIGN to avoid unbalancing the game. But even they eventually conceded that magic items should be rare and valuable things that provide a significant boost to a character's abilties. Magic items that are laughably lame don't do anything for the game but make people shake their heads and say "geez, OK, I guess an item that lets me add a 1d6 on every 20th attack roll is better than NOTHING, but geez..."

So the end result is what we have now. A few really nice magic items that people are excited about and a whole lot of "legacy" magic items that nobody in their right mind would take.

If it were me I'd completely revise magic items, make them rarer and more powerful.

My ninth level ranger has about ten magic items. He just went to the store and bought them. It's like a Super Walmart. My 14th level ranger in 3.5e had fewer magic items, but they were all VALUABLE and POWERFUL items. Most of them were EARNED because you couldn't just walk into a store in 3.5e and buy what you wanted, nor could your party wizard take a few minutes and some gold and create a +2 sword for you.

It is my opinion that 4e has truly screwed up magic items royally, and is now in a no-win situation.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> There's no compelling reason that every other arm slot item should be so pathetic in comparison.




I think the word  "lame" is adequate and expresses  it well enough... hence several people saying lets boost other items... but thats a lot of work to do it responsibly hence most saying its way more practical to ban the very useful non broken out lier


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 21, 2009)

Since I'm being so hard on the arm slot items, I feel I should point out that I think the designers actually did a fairly good job on magic weapons. There are a lot of interesting and comparable weapons to choose from, many of which fit well with particular character builds.

It appears to me that they gave a lot more thought to the weapon options. Some of the other slots are also not bad, such as the neck slot options. I sort of like that virtually all of the neck slot items provide a boost to Will, Reflex and Fortitude defense, plus some power or property that is also useful.

So I think they got SOME of it right. Or close enough anyway.


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> So the only FACT here is that the IAoP are obviously HUGELY superior to the other options Wizards has provided.




Exactly. So the options, roughly, are:

1) Leave them as is. Implement users are SOL compared to melee and archers in this regard. Also, there's no point to having any of the other arm item types. Even giving out level 10-15 arm items will be ignored compared to the level 6. That level 16 one, snapped up like hotcakes.
2) Replace or add other options to the game that are on par. This is a totally valid tactic, but as discussed above, one complicated by the degree of work required and the fact that we're talking about fairly literally 49 out of every 50 items.
3) Drop them from the game. Opens up the arm slot to other options, doesn't leave the warlock in the dust, and hey... it's just +2 damage, the lack of it isn't breaking the game. So poof, easiest option.



> You seem to be arguing that Wizards should never have offered the IAoP. I am arguing that their other choices are ridiculously lame.



Both can be true, of course. Though I still am dubious that '+1d6 to all crits' and 'Reroll an attack' are ridiculously lame. Not very powerful, sure.



> To me this is a game balance issue that Wizards screwed up. I would rather all of their items were reasonably competitive with the IAoP, not that the IAoP were never created.



In for a penny, in for a pound. They need to pick a spot on the scale and _try_. In the very same book, in the very same slot, very same level, there's an item that gives you +1d10 _once per day_ and one that gives +1d6 to OAs only. You think there was an actual plan involved in the IAoP? 



> There is no way that I am the only person who has perused the magic items available in the Character Builder shop and has laughed out loud at how lame a HUGE NUMBER of these magic items are.



By design. 
*Secondary Slots*

   These items don’t have enhancement bonuses. That makes them essentially optional. You could adventure with no items in your secondary item slots and not see a huge decrease in your overall power. Take what looks cool, but don’t worry about having empty slots.

You can dislike it. That's totally cool. You can update every single item they've put out to put them to a higher level of balance. That's wicked cool, and I'd love to see the result.

But it doesn't make you right. Nor the armbands.



> But after awhile even they looked at what they had created and said "geez, these magic items suck. Let's at least make some magic items that people will actually be excited about using."



This would almost make sense, if it's what actually happened. What actually happened is there were some outliers in almost every single product put out. They're a few prominent ones in AV. There are a few more in AV2. But still the lion's share (or perhaps the dinosaur's share) follow the pattern.



> My personal opinion is that their main mistake was in deciding to make magic items so easily available in the first place.



Maybe - but they decided back in 2000 with 3e to make magic items easy to obtain, and they've only continued that principle. At least now they have levels on items to constrain things and selling items is 20%, so it's actually more difficult than it was in the previous edition.



> If it were me I'd completely revise magic items, make them rarer and more powerful.



A totally valid option. I played around with the concept myself. I even played around with trying to keep things balanced if someone did go a little hogwild - like have items all have reasonable but not earth shattering passive bonuses, and then one kickass item usage, and you get 1 item usage per tier per encounter. That way the guy with 1 item is a little behind the guy with 6, most particularly in terms of versatility, but they get equal opportunities to shine by smashing a guy through a wall with their shield of bashing or whatever.

But, it was a lot of work, and I realized it wouldn't go in the character builder. So instead I just give out a lot of magic items to my players. And they're happy for it. They love their Couters of Second Chances and Throwing Shields. Even though I didn't give them armbands of power.



> My ninth level ranger has about ten magic items. He just went to the store and bought them. It's like a Super Walmart. My 14th level ranger in 3.5e had fewer magic items, but they were all VALUABLE and POWERFUL items. Most of them were EARNED because you couldn't just walk into a store in 3.5e and buy what you wanted, nor could your party wizard take a few minutes and some gold and create a +2 sword for you.



My 10th level 3.5e fighter had over three dozen items, including all manner of swift action gadgets, wands I bought solely to loan out to others in a pinch, maxed out AC gear, bonuses to three or four stats, etc. And I got them by traipsing down to a store and buying 'em all.

My 4e 10th fighter has 7 pieces of gear. I found 4 of them, and 3 of them are low level (1 6th, 2 2nd) and I bought those.

I did have a 10th-ish 3e monk once who got a... helm of crazy gems that gave fire resist 30 and exploded if it took fire damage and you could hurl off fireballs, walls of fire, prismatic sprays and stuff. Something like a 108,000gp item, straight from the DMG, probably intended for 16th-ish level characters and randomly found as treasure from a random encounter.

This isn't an edition thing, on getting treasure easy, even if you want to make it out to be. 



> It is my opinion that 4e has truly screwed up magic items royally, and is now in a no-win situation.



Was there ever a 'win' situation for magic items? People hate and love every way you can do it.


----------



## Bayuer (Oct 21, 2009)

@brassbaboon
I don't understand one "gold rule" about WotC. What they do isn't always well designed. We have plenty of such a individual examples:
* Expertise feats - they said it's just temporary solution to fix the math
* Epic Will, For, Ref - they didn't said it's solution but if expertise is, then this is too
* Skill Challenges
* Minions, Solos, Elittes, Brutes and Swarms...
* Orb of Imposition and stacking of penalties
* Battlerager and Dual Strike got big nerf after one year! This is absurd.
* etc.

There are many things that will be broken, unbalanced or must-have, but you must open you mind and look at those bad designed items and make them work as intended (to be a choic, not a must-have). WotC will at some point make crucial changes, but I will not make a bet on that.

Bloodclaw, Reckless are very broken things, Righteous Rage of Tempus even after errata is broken, Cloak of Walking Wounded (I made it daily power), Cloak of Distortion (daily power again; used as minor action; work untile end of next turn). Iron Armbands etc. are now banned too. 

What do I have now? Balance? Probably not, but I have arms slot free, no stupid RRoT and crit combo, no huge dmg outstandin strikers becouse of bloodclaw, reckless and hundreds of items that are at almost the same balance level. My game is better now. Changing 1,000 items to be as good as 10 items isn't simplest way of making things better. It is going into mountains with big rock over you neck and saying there's nothing wrong with this rock, just change the freakin' mountains! 

Cheers!


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

Interesting that Walking Wounded made your list. Just cause of dwarves...?


----------



## Bayuer (Oct 21, 2009)

keterys said:


> Interesting that Walking Wounded made your list. Just cause of dwarves...?



No, but dwarves have huge adventage when they use this item.

CoWW give you ability to heal= 1/2 of your hp. And you can do it every encounter. It's standard action for many characters but still gaing +1/2 of your max hp with one standard action every encounter makes many fights not challenging at all. Dwarves have even better times with this item. And ther is no other item that give so much healing and can be used every encounter.

Dwarven Armor is Daily. It's strong but as a Daily power it won't be used when really need or in final battle. CoWW is far more superior than this item. Making it daily left it still very solid choice for Dwarves, but overall just optional item for everyone.


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

Dwarven Armor is actually a lot better than walking wounded in my experience. It's rare people are willing to burn an action to second wind at all, but a free action that you can trigger as you're about to fall down, doesn't cost a surge, that also gives you a bonus to Endurance? Dwarven Armor is reeeeally good. Walking Wounded on a non-dwarf is just something that would make me think about second winding, maybe.

But, I'm also used to clerics and warlords healing people for half with any old heal, I suppose.


----------



## Bayuer (Oct 21, 2009)

Dwarven armor only heals 1/4 of you overall hp (once per extended rest), while CoWW give you +1/2 of overall hp every encounter. While you can argue that this is free action compared to standard, still standard and +1/2hp every fight is better than +1/4hp as free once per day... For dwarves it's even stronger. As a Daily this item is optional for people who like to be survivor guy. Dwarves will not have huge adventage when using this item too.


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 21, 2009)

You guys aren't understanding me. I'm the one saying that the IAoP and similar items AREN'T broken.

Let's do a little ranger math. Most encounters are designed for appropriately built strikers to hit 60% of the time. That means the IAoP are adding 2.4 damage per round, max, unless you use an action point, or some minor attack power or something, when it can get as high as 6 damage per round, but that would be no more than once per encounter and use a bunch of encounter powers at least.

Let's say you are fighting an elite solo with 400 hit points. Let's say three melee attackers have the IAoP, but that the other two aren't rangers, so are only getting 1.2 extra damage per round, meaning a total of 4.8 damage per round.

Let's say the encounter would last 7 rounds without the IAoP. That would mean an average damage of just more than 57 per round. With the IAoP in seven rounds you would add 33.6 total damage, which, since it isn't a full rounds worth of damage, means that the fight would take EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF ROUNDS. And that's with THREE of them on different party members. At best it will reduce the odd fight by a round.

Based on my experience in combat in 4e, with the incredible overhead of tracking all the different save ends, ends on next turn effects (We've had seven or eight foam circles under one miniature to track all the effects on it), that means instead of a 45 minute fight, it's a 40 minute fight, giving five more minutes to actually role play.

If I were to start a list of "problems with 4e" I would put "combat takes FOREVER" right near the top of that list. So anything that reduces the number of rounds I'm probably going to be OK with.

But, the point is THEY AREN'T BROKEN. So those of you banning them are banning a PERFECTLY LEVEL APPROPRIATE ITEM, not because it damages game play, but because you don't like them. And you don't like them because you think they get picked too often by players.

That strikes me as an odd reason to ban an item.

I would argue that other items are only "broken" if you interpret them too broadly. The reckless gloves, for example. I would simply rule that you can't use them with another weapon. Period. I don't believe they were designed that way, and it doesn't make SENSE to me that you can gain the benefits of the glove in an attack unless YOU ATTACK WITH THE GLOVES. Problem solved.

Bloodclaw is only "broken" when you allow double weapons to be treated as two handed weapons. This takes the x3 damage intended for TWO HANDED use and applies it to double weapon use, allowing rangers to get it TWICE in one round. That's just wrong. I wouldn't allow it. Double weapon use does not mean two handed weapon use. I would rule that you can't simultaneously gain the advantage of an off-hand weapon and the advantage of two handed attacks. If you have a spiked chain and you use it two handed, you aren't dual-wielding anymore. If you are dual-wielding, then you aren't using both hands in one attack. Duh.

Anyway, this won't get resolved here. I do think Wizards made a terrible error in how they created magic items in 4e. Not just in their crazily wide range of powers for supposedly equally valuable items, but the whole encounter and daily power stuff just makes the game more complex and confusing and MAKES NO SENSE. Why in the name of all that is holy would one magic item's use suddenly make another magic item unusable? That's just plain nuts.

I know WHY the game designers did what they did, but I think the whole magic item mechanic is totally, and probably unfixably, screwed.

That doesn't mean I won't play the game. There were parts of the 3.5e game mechanic that were totally, unfixably, screwed (grapple, anyone?).

But that doesn't mean I won't acknowledge that that part of the game is totally bolluxed up. It is.


----------



## Bayuer (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> Anyway, this won't get resolved here. I do think Wizards made a terrible error in how they created magic items in 4e. Not just in their crazily wide range of powers for supposedly equally valuable items, but the whole encounter and daily power stuff just makes the game more complex and confusing and MAKES NO SENSE. Why in the name of all that is holy would one magic item's use suddenly make another magic item unusable? That's just plain nuts.



The problem lays not in daily item powers but with items that gives constant benefits becouse of they property. When you make a Daily item power that add +5 dmg to single damage roll and then you put an item that grants constant +2 bonus to dmg to every attack, what option is better? 

IAoP shouldn't existest at all as property. It should be encounter power adding +2 to dmg and then it will be in pair with other items that add damage to your powers. +1 from feat to every attack; +2 to dmg once every encounter; +5 to dmg once per day. Isn't it better balanced?


----------



## FireLance (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> Bloodclaw is only "broken" when you allow double weapons to be treated as two handed weapons. This takes the x3 damage intended for TWO HANDED use and applies it to double weapon use, allowing rangers to get it TWICE in one round. That's just wrong. I wouldn't allow it. Double weapon use does not mean two handed weapon use. I would rule that you can't simultaneously gain the advantage of an off-hand weapon and the advantage of two handed attacks. If you have a spiked chain and you use it two handed, you aren't dual-wielding anymore. If you are dual-wielding, then you aren't using both hands in one attack. Duh.



It's also arguable that since you don't benefit from the _properties_ of a magic double weapon when you attack with off hand end, you shouldn't be able to use the _powers_ of a magic double weapon when you attack with the off hand end, either. With this interpretation, you're back to a Bloodclaw double weapon being not much better than a two-handed one.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> Let's do a little ranger math. Most encounters are designed for appropriately built strikers to hit 60% of the time. That means the IAoP are adding 2.4 damage per round, max, unless you use an action point, or some minor attack power or something, when it can get as high as 6 damage per round, but that would be no more than once per encounter and use a bunch of encounter powers at least.
> 
> Let's say you are fighting an elite solo with 400 hit points. Let's say three melee attackers have the IAoP, but that the other two aren't rangers, so are only getting 1.2 extra damage per round, meaning a total of 4.8 damage per round.
> 
> Let's say the encounter would last 7 rounds without the IAoP. That would mean an average damage of just more than 57 per round. With the IAoP in seven rounds you would add 33.6 total damage, which, since it isn't a full rounds worth of damage, means that the fight would take EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF ROUNDS. And that's with THREE of them on different party members. At best it will reduce the odd fight by a round.



While I do appreciate your argument, and it is something that I have suspected, i.e. _iron armbands of power_ make the users feel good when they roll damage but have little impact overall on the outcome of a fight, there are too many assumptions above for this to be a useful analysis.


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> You guys aren't understanding me. I'm the one saying that the IAoP and similar items AREN'T broken.




I agree. It's not broken.



> PERFECTLY LEVEL APPROPRIATE ITEM



Ahh, but you're wrong. It's absolutely not a level appropriate item. That is factually proven in this thread. You've even said so yourself.

But, again, there is a totally reasonable option to make it level appropriate by changing the 98% or whatever other items you need to in order to bring things up to par.

It's just a lot of work.

And not really appropriate for a thread about _banning_.

Though I still think just giving the benefit out for free and removing it is more effective. Still leaves you an item slot people can do something with. Still leaves you with the damage output you feel entitled to. And hey, you're _more_ effective because you got the bonus and another item.

The only thing I don't like is it furthers the gap between multi attacks and single attacks, but that's more a pet peeve than anything else. Storm of Blades away and all that.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 21, 2009)

keterys said:


> The only thing I don't like is it furthers the gap between multi attacks and single attacks, but that's more a pet peeve than anything else. Storm of Blades away and all that.




well it seems easier if you are giving something out more generally.. to tweak it.

for instance when Bloodclaw becomes Heroic over exertion / Heroic Sacrefice / Heroic Pushing you can choose to define it as payment per damage roll that is boosted.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Oct 21, 2009)

I would think dwarven armour is better - its a _free _action and a _free _surge.  Sure its just once a day, but how many times a day does a given player need to use the cloak of the walking wounded?

Additionally, the armour also boosts endurance checks, though admittedly that's a "secoundary" ability.

So, for me the cloak doesn't push any buttons - its _good_ and one of the better cloaks (I also like cloak of the mountebank), but I don't think its overshadowingly good.  Your milleage obviously varies from mine, though .


----------



## Obryn (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> You guys aren't understanding me. I'm the one saying that the IAoP and similar items AREN'T broken.



No, I understand it perfectly well.  Of course it's not unbalancing.  It's _boring._  Far, far more boring than the other arm slot items, crappy benefits or no.



> But, the point is THEY AREN'T BROKEN. So those of you banning them are banning a PERFECTLY LEVEL APPROPRIATE ITEM, not because it damages game play, but because you don't like them. And you don't like them because you think they get picked too often by players.
> 
> That strikes me as an odd reason to ban an item.



You mentioned above that your 3.5 game didn't have magic item shops, but your 4e game does.  In both cases, those are campaign decisions - driven not by the limitations or offerings of the game, but by the DM's choice of what elements to include in their game.  It's not an edition thing - it's a campaign thing, and you could have magic item shops in every edition from 1e to 4e - just like you could say there aren't any.

This is really no different.  It's a choice made for campaign flavor.

I think the Iron Armbands are ridiculously boring.  That's my prerogative as the DM.  Even the armbands that only give bonuses to damage bloodied enemies are more interesting, since there are circumstances where you would rather have another item.  You say they're not brokenly overpowered?  I agree.  But that really, really misses the point.

-O


----------



## abyssaldeath (Oct 21, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I think the Iron Armbands are ridiculously boring.  That's my prerogative as the DM.
> -O




This is the argument that I don't understand. Why do you think that as the DM you get to decide what is fun for the players. Some people enjoy a constant bonus to damage way more then a daily power magic item. Why is it that because you think it's boring that overrides what your players might think about it, especially when you agree it's not overpowered?


----------



## eamon (Oct 21, 2009)

Dr_Ruminahui said:


> I would think dwarven armour is better - its a _free _action and a _free _surge.  Sure its just once a day, but how many times a day does a given player need to use the cloak of the walking wounded?




Particularly the "free action" aspect is really critical: for most characters it's attractive to delay healing until the last moment: and the dwarven armor lets you take that risk and saves you when it goes wrong.  Conversely, the cloak for non-dwarves is pretty uninspiring: most characters will (rightly) choose to avoid a second wind as long as they possibly can, and if you wait _too_ long, you may end up dropping without ever getting a chance to use the cloak.

There's another factor here, which favors the armor; that's that players _usually_ win safely anyhow.  Mostly, deaths are attributable at least partially to bit of solidly bad luck.  Abilities which allow you to mitigate a few bad rolls mean you're much less vulnerable to that kind of thing.  The players' need for a buff isn't constant.  A weaker but more flexible buff can easily turn out superior to a stronger but less flexible buff.  In that sense, things like the elven reroll, couters of second chances, and luckblades all work quite well - It's often not a problem to miss and just attack next turn; but sometimes the tactics are such that hitting _now_ is very important.  Similarly with healing, the ability to heal _when you need it_ is quite powerful.

Oh, and let's not forget the level difference too; the armor is in the attractive 2/7/12 etc block, whereas the cloak is in the expensive 4/9/14 etc. block; so by choosing such a highlevel item, you're paying with your defenses 3/5 levels rather than just 1/5 levels.

Cloak of the Walking Wounded doesn't need banning.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 21, 2009)

abyssaldeath said:


> this is the argument that i don't understand. Why do you think that as the dm you get to decide what is fun for the players. Some people enjoy a constant bonus to damage way more then a daily power magic item. Why is it that because you think it's boring that overrides what your players might think about it, especially when you agree it's not overpowered?




qft


----------



## Obryn (Oct 21, 2009)

abyssaldeath said:


> This is the argument that I don't understand. Why do you think that as the DM you get to decide what is fun for the players. Some people enjoy a constant bonus to damage way more then a daily power magic item. Why is it that because you think it's boring that overrides what your players might think about it, especially when you agree it's not overpowered?



Who said I'm deciding it's not fun for the players?  I decided it's not fun for me.

-O


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Oct 21, 2009)

I would have thought that is exactly the DMs job - ideally they should craft an experience that is the most enjoyable for all involved (so, for himself and each of the players).

So yes, it is the DM's call to decide what is the most fun for his players as a group.  Hopefully he decides what is best for his group - if a player is unhappy with his call, the player can bring it up with the DM, but ultimately is is the DM's call.

Of course, if the DM isn't deciding on what his players actually find fun, he may find himself without players.

I think its important to emphasize that the DM should be deciding on behalf of the party as a whole - so, if one player doesn't like the DM's decision but most of the players do, the DM is likely correct on ruling the way he has (I say "likely" because it will also depend on personal dynamics and strength of feelings).

So, it is totally the DM's job to decide what is fun for his player.


Myself, my own call is not to give out the armbands as treasure, but allow players to buy them for their characters.  That said, this works for me in that my players really aren't optimizers and therefore likely won't - but if they feel so strongly about it that they do buy them, I'm not going to stand in the way of that.


----------



## Flipguarder (Oct 21, 2009)

I find the fighter class boring, that doesn't mean i ban it for my players.


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

My primary experience with armbands is as a player. They're boring. I'd much rather have the freedom to have a Throwing Shield on my fighter or frost charger or bloodsoaked bracers on my dragonborn warlord.

But, I mean, that'd be really dumb, when I can just get armbands instead. I'm not going to commit a disservice to the rest of my gaming group and my own e-peen by taking a totally suboptimal option  In LFR especially, people would just be confused if you didn't have the bonus. It's almost like a fighter using a sling as his primary weapon or a rogue using a greataxe. Insane and fishy, indeed.

I'm still confused as to how 'Give the bonus out for free and get rid of the item' is somehow less fun than 'Keep the item'. Then again, trying to make sense of things on the internet is inherently fraught with peril, so maybe I should stop


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> I find the fighter class boring, that doesn't mean i ban it for my players.




And, yet, pre-errata many DMs _did_ ban the battlerager. Were those DMs mean ratfinks for denying their players their fun?

Were they suddenly good DMs when the errata came in?

Much like professional sports chooses to avoid performance enhancing drugs and equipment made of superior materials if they deem that such things will be harmful for the game _even though the players would use them in a heartbeat if it meant they played better_, so too will players gravitate towards the strongest and most efficient options.

Players will optimize themselves into easier and more boring games. And it's the DMs job to either keep things interesting despite that, or take small measures to cover for the game otherwise.

When the game is broken by something - for example, epic builds that can take infinite action point attacks in the first round of combat and kill anything - that job is _easy_. When it's just 'Eh, the game is 2% more boring because of this' it's a lot more debatable. And that's why some people will do it. Some people won't bother. And a lot of people won't really care.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 21, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> I find the fighter class boring, that doesn't mean i ban it for my players.



...and when I ban entire classes or races, rather than a short list of items and 1 daily power, I'll discuss this point with you.

-O


----------



## Flipguarder (Oct 21, 2009)

That's really here nor there honestly. The point is, just because you don't find something fun, doesn't mean it's a good idea to not allow your players to have it. There's no logic in that.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 21, 2009)

keterys said:


> And, yet, pre-errata many DMs _did_ ban the battlerager. Were those DMs mean ratfinks for denying their players their fun?
> 
> Were they suddenly good DMs when the errata came in?




I am more inclined to change something instead of banning it.. usually I see a cool idea I can keep while adjusting it so it works better for me.... while still giving a player interested in it ... about what they ask for.

Giving something to everyone since everyone wants it or ought to... is cool ... In most cases I would prefer to do it with flavor (bloodclaw example I have mentioned) ... but as per expertise feat taxes I am willing to do it blandly so that it fades away and leaves other options flavorful.

In the case of the Iron Armbands of Power I would really think maybe upping the grade of armslot /shield so that it is a primary seems the order of the day... even if it is a lot of work. ... should we start a house rules thread for it? with people posting improvements to make arm slot items more primary.


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

Definitely an option - wouldn't it make sense to address every item slot at that point, though? Ie, gloves, head, arms, waist, feet, rings?

Back when I had my Tier item uses per encounter theory, I threw some things together, like:

Shield of Protection
Property: Increase the penalty you inflict by marking to -4 when an enemy attacks an ally adjacent to you.
Power (Item): Standard Action. You and an adjacent ally gain resist 10 to all damage until the end of your next turn.

Gloves of Piercing
Property: Your attacks ignore any resistance of 5 or less.
Power (Item): Free Action. Use when you hit with an attack. This attack bypasses any resistance (but not immunity) of its targets.

Level 5 -
Bashing Shield
Property: When you bull rush, you gain a +2 item bonus to the attack roll, deal Strength damage, and push the target 2 squares.
Power (Item): Free Action. Use this power when you hit an enemy with a melee attack. Push the enemy 1d4 squares after applying the attack's effects.

Gauntlets of Ogre Power
Property: Your weight limits for encumbrance are doubled. Increase both the normal and long range for heavy thrown weapons by 2.
Power (Item): Free Action. Use this power when you hit with a melee attack. Add a +5 power bonus to the damage roll and push the target 1 square.

Level 7 -
Bracers of Defense
Property: As long as one of your hands is free, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC and Reflex.
Power (Item): Immediate Interrupt. You can use this power when you are hit by a melee or ranged attack. Reduce the damage dealt to you by the attack by 10.

Not sure they really compare that well to +2 to damage to all atacks, though. Nor all that sure I'd want to keep pumping them even further.


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 21, 2009)

Heh, for whoever it was that suggested a discussion of the power of an item is not on topic for a thread about banning items, I can only say "wtf?" Isn't that the whole point of putting something on a banned list? How is it off topic to say "hmmm. you want to ban this, based on its power, I don't get that?"

For those of you who think it is your "perogative" as a DM to ban things YOU find unfun, with no regard to what the PLAYERS find fun, I would suggest that you might be misinterpreting the FUNDAMENTAL responsibility of the DM role. Hint: It's not about YOU.

Sure, I understand there are lots of opinions on this subject. I think I understand most of them (outside of "I'm the DM, I get to decide what is fun for my players.") I just fundamentally don't agree with the "I ban them because they are boring" argument. If the item bored the PLAYER, they wouldn't pick them. I think that's a sort of self-evident statement.

I do find it interesting to hear the argument that magic items should be very limited in power because that makes the game more interesting and provides for better balance and more "options" for the players. From looking at the magic items Wizards created, I would have to say there is a powerful argument to be made that Wizards intentionally nerfed magic items for precisely that reason. But for some reason they slipped some reasonably powerful items into the mix. It should have been obvious to them and their play testers that doing so would make all their hard work in creating magic items with "interesting" but weak daily powers instantly obsolete, or else lead to DMs simply banning the new items. Again, I see this as a failure of the game design team, not the players or even the DMs.

I can even appreciate the argument that the game is more "interesting" if three melee strikers each have armbands with encounter or daily abilities that give a limited but situationally useful boost so that one might add a 1d6 to an attack, another might make their attack electric and a third might get to shift as part of an attack. You could argue that such items provide opportunities for players to have to think tactically.

That's all fine. My immediate argument back is that there is no reason the magic items can't do that AND be reasonably powerful.

When you are at level 9 fighting solo monsters with 400 hit points, a set of arm bracers which provide a single daily or even encounter +1d6 to damage aren't "interesting," they are "asinine." If I were the enemy I'd laugh in the striker's face. "Ooohhh 3.5 more damage on your attack. I'm so scared!"

This is why I think magic items are irredeemably screwed in 4e. They don't really "fit" into the whole 4e paradigm, which is built really around encounter and daily powers. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I have to come clean here and say I think the whole at-will, encounter and daily power mechanic is completely ridiculous and arbitrary, but that's what drives the game now).

The trap Wizards is in with magic items is that they have "balanced" the game so precariously on the at-will, encounter and daily powers, along with the extremely limited sorts of feats (feats have their own problems, but that's for another thread I suppose), that introducing magic items at all creates a monstrous game mechanic problem.

No matter what you do, if magic items have any real impact on the game whatsoever, that precarious balance you created is instantly unbalanced. I have no doubt that the game designers went to great pains to create mathematical models for all the classes and all their powers to balance them as well as they could. Not only against each other, but against the monsters you fight as well.

So since a POWERFUL feat is one that grants a +1 to something (attack, damage, attribute, etc), then any magic items that provides even a +1 to something is instantly as powerful as a feat! OMG! So now what do you do? Well, you have to create magic items that aren't that powerful, so you create one-shot magic items which do daily effects. But OMG! Now you've given a character another daily power! That totally unbalances things! So you have to nerf even that. But what does that do? OMG! Now you've added another encounter power!...

No matter what your magic item does, it screws your game balance all up.

My guess is that this issue was a major bone of contention with the game designers, where people fell into camps, and those camps were probably the same camps you see in the players. There was the "make them powerful but rare and expensive camp" and the "make them as interesting as possible, but keep them limited" camp, and there was no doubt the "Crap, we screwed this up and there's nothing we can do about it now, so we should just make some that are fun" camp.

As I said, I think the whole mechanic is screwed up and the reason magic items look so bad is because they expose the fundamental underlying faults in the overall game design. The idea that a simple set of bracers that give a +2 to damage on an attack could lead to this sort of hand-wringing and arguing is just obvious proof of the fundamental fragility of the system.

ESPECIALLY when you realize that a major component of Wizard's marketing scheme is to constantly release new content with new magic items. It was INEVITABLE that the system would start unraveling. I would be willing to bet that there are huge battles inside Wizards where some of the game designers are saying "You're breaking the game just to sell more books!" While the marketing team is yelling back "You were supposed to create a system that was DESIGNED to allow us to sell more books full of magic items!"

I'll continue to play 4e because I more or less have to. But if you don't realize that a game which can't handle the introduction of a magic item that demonstrably doesn't even affect the outcome of a single encounter significantly is a game which is fundamentally unsound, well, I'm not sure what to say.

I would never have released this version. As soon as I saw it my immediate reaction was "those idiots have created an unmanageable, unscalable system that will break itself."


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Oct 21, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> That's really here nor there honestly. The point is, just because you don't find something fun, doesn't mean it's a good idea to not allow your players to have it. There's no logic in that.




The logic is that it is the DM's job to create an enjoyable gaming experience for the party as a whole.  If the DM thinks removing something makes the game more enjoyable for his party, he is fully within his right to remove it.  The DMG2 makes this clear.

Of course, he shouldn't be making decisions that run counter to what the party as a whole feels is fun.  That however doesn't change the logic that a DM should make changes that improve the fun of the game.

And the issue isn't whether the DM himself likes playing with a particular option, but whether he thinks said option is a good thing for his game.  So, its not whether the DM thinks playing a fighter is boring, but whether having fighters in his game makes the game more boring for the majority of the players.  If the DM finds the later, then the DM certainly can ban them.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 21, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> That's really here nor there honestly. The point is, just because you don't find something fun, doesn't mean it's a good idea to not allow your players to have it. There's no logic in that.



No, but I fail to see the logic in allowing everything in every WotC book, either.  I also won't allow every third-party sourcebook, or automatically accept custom items that other DMs created for their own games.  Being in a WotC book isn't a magic circle of perfection.  I need to make the call as a DM as to what will or won't improve the game as a whole.

This isn't a question about logic - it's a question about flavor.  And, frankly, if someone's character concept depends on Iron Armbands and won't work without them, it's a wacky concept, indeed.  If a player's fun is severely impaired by not having access to this very short list of items, their definition of fun is likely too narrow for my table.

-O


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 21, 2009)

Obryn said:


> No, but I fail to see the logic in allowing everything in every WotC book, either.  I also won't allow every third-party sourcebook, or automatically accept custom items that other DMs created for their own games.  Being in a WotC book isn't a magic circle of perfection.  I need to make the call as a DM as to what will or won't improve the game as a whole.
> 
> This isn't a question about logic - it's a question about flavor.  And, frankly, if someone's character concept depends on Iron Armbands and won't work without them, it's a wacky concept, indeed.  If a player's fun is severely impaired by not having access to this very short list of items, their definition of fun is likely too narrow for my table.
> 
> -O




Hmm... so what if the character's concept depends on executioner's axe? Or dual bastard swords? The whole point of those concept choices is that the character does more damage than with other weapons. How is that logically different than IAoP? "OK, I'm banning IAoP because they do more damage per attack, but I accept Executioner's Axe which does exactly the same thing."  Huh?

Where does this logic stop? Only at IAoP? If so, then why? What is so offensive about IAoP that you ban them for doing the same thing as a brutal  d12 axe?


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> But if you don't realize that a game which can't handle the introduction of a magic item that demonstrably doesn't even affect the outcome of a single encounter significantly is a game which is fundamentally unsound, well, I'm not sure what to say.




I so rarely use magic items exactly as written in my game (in any edition) that I find using wow people complain about the balance and over usefulness of this or that item as an excuse to edition bash ridiculous in extreme. When people complain about minor things ... umm that usually means their are far fewer big things to complain about, it doesnt mean the game is fragile.

And obsidian firebrand sword in my game causes ongoing damage as a secondary attack without increasing to hit ... but it does increase the chances of a critical, it also requires arcana skill to ignite it.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Oct 21, 2009)

Its because the IAoP invalidate all other arm slot options.  Which the executioner's axe doesn't do - even if a player only uses an EA, that still leaves a broad range of enchantments that can be put on said axe.

Though, I can't see how you can have read the last few pages of this thread and missed that the issue that folks have with the IAoP isn't that they add damage, but that they make all of the other arm slot items non-choices.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> For those of you who think it is your "perogative" as a DM to ban things YOU find unfun, with no regard to what the PLAYERS find fun, I would suggest that you might be misinterpreting the FUNDAMENTAL responsibility of the DM role. Hint: It's not about YOU.



Actually, it is, partly, about me.  I love DMing.  I enjoy bringing stuff to the table every week and creating an enjoyable play experience for my players.  But my fun is important, too.

I don't like to ban character concepts, so I don't.  You'll never see me ban a race or a class.  If something doesn't exist, I'll work with my players to make it exist.  If my homebrew world doesn't usually have devas, but someone wants to play a deva, I'll make it work so they can play a deva.  I have limits, though, and I resent the implication that limiting some minor items which are either impossibly broken (Grasp of the Grave) or extremely dull (Iron Armbands) is a sign that I don't give a crap about my players' fun and I'm somehow neglecting my fundamental DMing responsibilties.

I'm not going to argue that players' fun is critical.  It's what I strive for.  But just as I can't have an over-narrow version of fun, neither should my players.  My fun ends where Grasp of the Grave, RRoT, and Iron Armbands begin.  If my players can't meet me past that, then they are the ones who don't understand what "collaborative play experience" means.



> I'll continue to play 4e because I more or less have to. But if you don't realize that a game which can't handle the introduction of a magic item that demonstrably doesn't even affect the outcome of a single encounter significantly is a game which is fundamentally unsound, well, I'm not sure what to say.



And how does banning an item destroy that fundamental balance?  Nothing you're writing above gives any positive reason to _include_ it.

In fact, by your argument, you're saying, "Well, it clearly makes no difference in fights!"  I don't think your conclusion follows at all from your premises, unless you also include the premise that everything WotC writes is special and perfect, and adds to the game experience by its simple existence.

-O


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> If the item bored the PLAYER, they wouldn't pick them. I think that's a sort of self-evident statement.




And an incorrect one.



> I do find it interesting to hear the argument that magic items should be very limited in power because that makes the game more interesting and provides for better balance and more "options" for the players. From looking at the magic items Wizards created, I would have to say there is a powerful argument to be made that Wizards intentionally nerfed magic items for precisely that reason. But for some reason they slipped some reasonably powerful items into the mix. It should have been obvious to them and their play testers that doing so would make all their hard work in creating magic items with "interesting" but weak daily powers instantly obsolete, or else lead to DMs simply banning the new items. Again, I see this as a failure of the game design team, not the players or even the DMs.




Yep. It's actually a lot more complex than you might think - for example, things have many spots to get screwed up and there's limited staff, so a lot of things like items in Adventurer's Vault come from freelancers, get inadequate testing, aren't read by key people, etc. Every single product has a slight amount of slippage, whether it's Rain of Blows, Blade Cascade, Battleragers, Righteous Rage of Tempus, or what. 



> I can even appreciate the argument that the game is more "interesting" if three melee strikers each have armbands with encounter or daily abilities that give a limited but situationally useful boost so that one might add a 1d6 to an attack, another might make their attack electric and a third might get to shift as part of an attack. You could argue that such items provide opportunities for players to have to think tactically.




Well, even ignoring what they end up, the _first_ interesting part is that you're able to give out different arm treasure at all. As it currently stands, from level 6 through 15 you may as well not give out any arms items at all, until you get up to that next tier of armband. The more item slots that happens for, the less interesting treasure the DM can give out. Now, there's certainly plenty of cool weapons and armors to give out... but again, it's not like this one item _breaks_ the game, it just _harms_ the game.



> That's all fine. My immediate argument back is that there is no reason the magic items can't do that AND be reasonably powerful.




Of course they can. They just didn't do that. On purpose. I imagine that if they'd gone that route we'd instead be arguing about a different item that gave +6 to damage, when we already had the perfectly decent baseline of a bracer giving +2 to damage and a 1/enc kickass bull rush, or whatever.

After all, it's just +6 to damage (or +4 relative), that's not exactly going to break the game!




> In the spirit of full disclosure, I have to come clean here and say I think the whole at-will, encounter and daily power mechanic is completely ridiculous and arbitrary




Has it ever occurred to you that if you dislike many of the base principles of the game, dislike the entire principle of item balance, etc... that perhaps your views would be better served _not_ in a thread by those looking for what items don't fit within those base principles? Perhaps they'd be best served in the house rules campaigning for a lot more cool items? I know I've seen those threads before and they're often interesting.

Or perhaps in a different thread of which are the best and most optimal items that have been published, where armbands can be championed as a good example thereof?



> So since a POWERFUL feat is one that grants a +1 to something (attack, damage, attribute, etc), then any magic items that provides even a +1 to something is instantly as powerful as a feat!




Indeed. And since you ten or so slots to fill and three tiers, that's not a bad benchmark to at least begin to compare things. After all, at 10 * 3 = 30 you're already twice as powerful as feats.



> So now what do you do? Well, you have to create magic items that aren't that powerful, so you create one-shot magic items which do daily effects.




That is _one_ option - the other option is to have daily effects of decent power, encounter effects of lower power than that, and persistent effects (properties) of even lower value. For example, things like +1d6 damage to all opportunity attacks and charges. Or Gloves of Giantkind that let you throw things in a decent way and let you get a bonus to damage each encounter. Or Luckbender's that let you reroll damage once per encounter. There's a lot more options than one crappy power once a day.



> Now you've given a character another daily power! That totally unbalances things!




That's a fallacy, of course... it's entirely possible to have reasonable daily powers that don't suck. For example a 1/day attack reroll and 1/day free healing surge.



> No matter what your magic item does, it screws your game balance all up.




No, because balance is set by an intended standard. The problem with the armbands isn't that they break the game, it's that they're so much better than everything else. If everything else were as good, there'd be no problem at all.



> As I said, I think the whole mechanic is screwed up and the reason magic items look so bad is because they expose the fundamental underlying faults in the overall game design. The idea that a simple set of bracers that give a +2 to damage on an attack could lead to this sort of hand-wringing and arguing is just obvious proof of the fundamental fragility of the system.




It's actually a lot more dealable than that. From a game design standpoint, it's really not that hard to make logical decisions on where you want things to be to get how much audience or have other effects, and keep things within rough guideposts. Of course, the more product you put out, the harder it is to police that material, and some things slip through. And then you can consider errata, but errata is something you generally reserve only for the furthest and most damaging outliers.



> But if you don't realize that a game which can't handle the introduction of a magic item that demonstrably doesn't even affect the outcome of a single encounter significantly is a game which is fundamentally unsound, well, I'm not sure what to say.




You don't  really like how magic items work in this system and you don't really like or fully understand how they balance, so an attempt to rectify things to work with the established system doesn't sit well with you. If the entire game changed to add items that did fit that center of balance, it would make you happier.

It's just not what this thread is about.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Oct 21, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> That's really here nor there honestly. The point is, just because you don't find something fun, doesn't mean it's a good idea to not allow your players to have it. There's no logic in that.



If you know that every one of your players like items that grant unconditional bonuses, then you're right: a DM has little reason to ban unconditional bonuses just because he thinks they're boring. Heck, if he were an excellent DM he'd turn every single option in the game into some kind of unconditional bonus because that would be more fun for his players. (An implement equivalent of IABoP, all powers only grant attack bonuses and/or deal damage, stackable feats, etc.)

But if just one player thinks that unconditional bonuses are boring, that player has to choose between being more effective (using unconditional bonuses) or having more fun (using other stuff). In turn, the DM has a relevant decision to make: to cater to the player/s who like 'em, or to cater to the player/s who don't like 'em. Either way, the game is going to be less fun for someone.

Finally, considering that the DM is a player who wants to have fun too, yes a DM is justified in banning stuff just because he thinks it's boring. I know I don't want to GM a lot of game options/types just because I think they're boring; does that make me a selfish/petty/bad GM?


----------



## Obryn (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> Hmm... so what if the character's concept depends on executioner's axe? Or dual bastard swords? The whole point of those concept choices is that the character does more damage than with other weapons. How is that logically different than IAoP? "OK, I'm banning IAoP because they do more damage per attack, but I accept Executioner's Axe which does exactly the same thing."  Huh?
> 
> Where does this logic stop? Only at IAoP? If so, then why? What is so offensive about IAoP that you ban them for doing the same thing as a brutal  d12 axe?



Dr_Ruminahui nailed it in his post, and I think you've completely missed my point.  There's no problem with wanting to do more damage.  I'd argue that superior weapons like the Executioner's Axe are a _perfect_ example of an important player choice.

(1) It takes a feat to use, so there's a real character cost.
(2) There are other equally valid options at the same tier - fullblades and mordenkrads - which have their own features.  (Or bastard swords vs. craghammers vs. dwarven waraxes, for that matter.)
(3) Whether an Executioner's Axe proficiency is better than other options depends on the specific character, their power selection, and so on.

Iron Armbands/Bracers of Archery fit none of these categories for any weapon-users.  It's essentially free for any mid-heroic character, and there are no other equally valid options for the arm slot.

-O


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 21, 2009)

keterys said:


> Definitely an option - wouldn't it make sense to address every item slot at that point, though? Ie, gloves, head, arms, waist, feet, rings?
> 
> Back when I had my Tier item uses per encounter theory, I threw some things together, like:



Ah.. 3 uses at Epic one 1 heroic eh... intriguing.

I think one step at a time on the slots ;-). I think armbands of power have a certain amount of D&D heritage going on as do shields having real umph (if your secondary weapon or implement has oomph so should the shield right)


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 21, 2009)

Dr_Ruminahui said:


> Its because the IAoP invalidate all other arm slot options.  Which the executioner's axe doesn't do - even if a player only uses an EA, that still leaves a broad range of enchantments that can be put on said axe.
> 
> Though, I can't see how you can have read the last few pages of this thread and missed that the issue that folks have with the IAoP isn't that they add damage, but that they make all of the other arm slot items non-choices.




LOL, then you obviously haven't been reading the last few pages either because I've directly addressed that multiple times.

I am sympathetic to the approach of making all armslot items give a damage bonus, like all neck slot items give a bonus to fort, reflex and will. That way all those options you want will all open up, and the items won't be insanely underpowered.

So why not do that instead of ban the only decent item?

Also, I still think that encounters take way too freaking long, so allowing items that potentially reduce the battle time is, to me, increasing the fun of the game.


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 21, 2009)

LOL, in my opinion to point out that people are banning items because of a fundamental flaw in the game design is a perfectly on topic response in a thread about banning items.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> So why not do that instead of ban the only decent item?



What would the game gain from that?  Honestly?

All you're doing in that case is changing the baseline.  "Now everyone does +x damage!"  You're basically changing the entire balance of the game based on a single item.

I don't think the other arm slot items are crappy.  They're an additional, small boost that you can choose from.  While they might not rock the world, I don't see any argument as to why they should.

Take, for example, the items that give you +2 to damage on basic attacks.  I haven't banned them.  Why?  Because it adds another meaningful choice to attacks.  It basically gives you another at-will option, at a low cost.  Now, if your fighter has Dual Strike and Footwork Lure, you might want to use a Basic Attack for the damage boost in circumstances where neither of those is helpful.  Or, the similar bracers which only work against bloodied foes.  Now, you have a meaningful choice when an enemy out of striking distance becomes bloodied.  Is it worth going over there to get your bonus?  It's another decision tree that can influence your tactical decisions as a player.

-O


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> I am sympathetic to the approach of making all armslot items give a damage bonus, like all neck slot items give a bonus to fort, reflex and will. That way all those options you want will all open up, and the items won't be insanely underpowered.




well purely a damage bonus as a boost sounds ... hmm 
+1 damage per tier, some of them for melee attacks only and others for ranged attacks only....


----------



## Obryn (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> LOL, in my opinion to point out that people are banning items because of a fundamental flaw in the game design is a perfectly on topic response in a thread about banning items.



You're arguing that Iron Armbands are good items that expose a fundamental flaw within a bad system, and that the system is at fault.  Keterys (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) and I are arguing that Iron Armbands are fundamentally flawed items which disrupt a good system, and that the Iron Armbands are at fault.

It's a different argument.

-O


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> LOL, in my opinion to point out that people are banning items because of a fundamental flaw in the game design is a perfectly on topic response in a thread about banning items.




I personally didn't say you were off topic just ridiculous making a big deal out of a minor one (planned yes fundamental nyeh).  I didn't use every magic item in any edition... don't know anyone who did? I always liked fewer more powerful items with things that made them fit my fantasy world. 

That WOTC items are usually pale in comparison means my players can go wow... look what I got it must be an artifact, I combine multiple WOTC items or borrow effects from them and get a general feel for how powerful they are... every once in a while something is more useful than its peers and I need to know about it... which is what these threads are useful for me.. not because I intend to ban something but because I use book items as a measure of value.


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 21, 2009)

Obryn said:


> You're arguing that Iron Armbands are good items that expose a fundamental flaw within a bad system, and that the system is at fault.  Keterys (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) and I are arguing that Iron Armbands are fundamentally flawed items which disrupt a good system, and that the Iron Armbands are at fault.
> 
> It's a different argument.
> 
> -O




I see it as the same argument with different perspectives.

I doubt I'm going to get a board dedicated to the 4e game to agree with my analysis that 4e is deeply, fundamentally flawed and that this sort of problem was inevitable because of the poor design choices made at the very beginning of the effort... so let's go down your track instead.

An item that does +2 damage per attack is "fundamentally flawed?" Hmmm, does that mean a WEAPON that does +2 damage per attack is also fundamentally flawed? Or is it only flawed because it's an  armslot item? Would an item that gave a +2 to AC also be fundamentally flawed (in pure mathematical game terms a +2 to AC is identical in game balance to a +2 to hit, and a +2 to hit is generally recognized as far more powerful than a +2 to damage.)

Seriously, are you saying the item is fundamentally flawed BECAUSE it's an arm slot item, and all the myriad other equally (or more) powerful items are not flawed because they are NOT armslot items?


----------



## Bayuer (Oct 21, 2009)

Dr_Ruminahui said:


> I would think dwarven armour is better - its a _free _action and a _free _surge.  Sure its just once a day, but how many times a day does a given player need to use the cloak of the walking wounded?



The problem is that you can use CoWW whenever you want to significantly boost your hp. When the fight become hard *ping* +1/2hp and monster can "bite you". It's it potential that is in my opinion to good in fight (and can be used every encounter).



eamon said:


> Cloak of the Walking Wounded doesn't need banning.



I didn't said it should be banned. I converted it into daily power, and now it's resonable option for players (well mostly dwarves I think).


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> I doubt I'm going to get a board dedicated to the 4e game to agree with my analysis that 4e is deeply, fundamentally flawed and that this sort of problem was inevitable because of the poor design choices made at the very beginning of the effort...




The real question is why are you even trying? There's definitely been some interesting discussion, but it seems almost inevitable that it ends up eventually being threadcrapping.



> An item that does +2 damage per attack is "fundamentally flawed?" Hmmm, does that mean a WEAPON that does +2 damage per attack is also fundamentally flawed? Or is it only flawed because it's an  armslot item? Would an item that gave a +2 to AC also be fundamentally flawed (in pure mathematical game terms a +2 to AC is identical in game balance to a +2 to hit, and a +2 to hit is generally recognized as far more powerful than a +2 to damage.)




It is by design for the weapon to be okay doing that, yes. A +2 AC arm item would also be fundamentally flawed, though you're completely wrong about it being identical in game balance to +2 to hit. 



> Seriously, are you saying the item is fundamentally flawed BECAUSE it's an arm slot item, and all the myriad other equally (or more) powerful items are not flawed because they are NOT armslot items?




Some of those are also flawed, as mentioned upthread, but yes. Exactly. It doesn't matter if there are reasonable comparisons on weapons. Weapons are designed to be better.

You can argue with that, of course. But that's not the point of this thread.

It so happens that I don't like that design choice either, but changing things so primary and secondary slots are equally powerful is way into the houserule forum's territory.


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> Hmm... so what if the character's concept depends on executioner's axe? Or dual bastard swords?




Out of curiosity, in terms other than mathematical ones, how can the character's concept _depend_ on those?

For example, a player goes 'I want to play a dwarf barbarian who hurls himself into combat while swinging around a huge axe'. Beyond DPR, what's the difference in his concept between it being a greataxe or an executioner's axe? Same thing for the dual-katana wielding samurai - those can be bastard swords or longswords, and the only thing that changes is 1 point of damage. It's not going to change your combat style. As you've previously posted, apparently it's not even going to change the combat at all if he's dealing more damage.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> I doubt I'm going to get a board dedicated to the 4e game to agree with my analysis that 4e is deeply, fundamentally flawed and that this sort of problem was inevitable because of the poor design choices made at the very beginning of the effort... so let's go down your track instead.
> 
> An item that does +2 damage per attack is "fundamentally flawed?" Hmmm, does that mean a WEAPON that does +2 damage per attack is also fundamentally flawed? Or is it only flawed because it's an  armslot item?



Weapons that give +2 to damage aren't flawed.  Weapons that give +2 to attack aren't flawed.  Armbands that give +2 to damage are, IMO, flawed.  I'll explain below...



> Would an item that gave a +2 to AC also be fundamentally flawed (in pure mathematical game terms a +2 to AC is identical in game balance to a +2 to hit, and a +2 to hit is generally recognized as far more powerful than a +2 to damage.)



You're missing some key details here which changed between 3.5 and 4e.  In 4e terms, any non-weapon item which gave a universal +2 to hit, or non-armor item that gave +2 to AC would be very broken, if it stacked with weapons or armor.

4e's attack roll math is quite tight - bonuses to attack rolls are about as major as you can get.  Ditto, bonuses to AC.  In 3.5 a +1 to hit barely matters - especially when you had attack rolls that exceeded your enemy's AC.  Ditto, a +1 bonus to AC.  In 4e, attack rolls pivot around the 50% mark, so every +1 represents a 10% increase in your frequency of hitting.  (Yes, 10%; if you hit on 11-20 before, but now hit on 10-20, you hit 10% more often.)  Your AC is similarily valuable.  If you have any cost-free items that add to AC or Attack Rolls, and they stack with your armor or weapon, it's a problem.

In comparison, bonuses to damage are much less powerful in 4e.  You need to hit first and, in general, HPs are higher.  This is rather immaterial to the question of the Iron Armbands, though, since I'm not arguing they're brokenly overpowered.



> Seriously, are you saying the item is fundamentally flawed BECAUSE it's an arm slot item, and all the myriad other equally (or more) powerful items are not flawed because they are NOT armslot items?



This is still the same argument, and I still have the same reasons as above.  And yes, part of it is because the arm slot is a secondary one, as opposed to the Big 3.  Armbands should not be essential, and if someone wants one, there should be meaningful choices among them.

-O


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 21, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Weapons that give +2 to damage aren't flawed.  Weapons that give +2 to attack aren't flawed.  Armbands that give +2 to damage are, IMO, flawed.  I'll explain below...
> 
> 
> You're missing some key details here which changed between 3.5 and 4e.  In 4e terms, any non-weapon item which gave a universal +2 to hit, or non-armor item that gave +2 to AC would be very broken, if it stacked with weapons or armor.
> ...




OK, so the problem isn't that they provide a +2, but that they are "secondary slot items" and therefore should not provide damage bonuses that stack with weapons or feats. That's the sum total of your argument then.

I. simply. disagree.

It's a magic item. What the heck is the whole concept of a "secondary slot" in the first place? Is magic INHERENTLY less powerful if it emanates from something attached to your arm, as opposed to being worn on your hands or embedded into a weapon?

That is so outrageously arbitrary that it beggars verisimilitude (which has already been thrown to the ground and kicked repeatedly by the at-will, encounter and daily power mechanic).

In fact, this is a primary example of what I mean when I say the game is fundamentally unsound. Everything about the game mechanic is arbitrarily twisted around this goal of maintaining some artificial balance to the point that the rules no longer make any SENSE. They're just rules for the sake of rules. And they are so obviously absurd that the GAME'S OWN DESIGNERS don't even understand or adhere to them.


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> I. simply. disagree.




That's your prerogative... and would potentially engender some great house rules.

But it's neither here nor there on actual 4e rules discussion.



> It's a magic item. What the heck is the whole concept of a "secondary slot" in the first place? Is magic INHERENTLY less powerful if it emanates from something attached to your arm, as opposed to being worn on your hands or embedded into a weapon?




Primary slot items are weapons, armor, and neck, and are intended to be more powerful than the other types. It was discussed in the article I linked earlier about the design of magic item slots in 4e.

But, yes, they're more powerful. Full stop. Them's the rules. You don't like them. We get it.


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 21, 2009)

keterys said:


> That's your prerogative... and would potentially engender some great house rules.
> 
> But it's neither here nor there on actual 4e rules discussion.
> 
> ...




No, you DON'T "get it." It's not about ME. It's about a game system that is so arbitrary and unsound that THE GAME'S OWN DESIGNERS can't stick to the "rules" you think exist. I say again. I. Didn't. Create. The. Iron. Armbands. Of. Power. I really didn't. It wasn't me. It was WIZARDS OF THE COAST. You know, the guys who MADE the rules.

All I'm doing is pointing out the REASON for this is because the game mechanic is fundamentally unsound. If it was fundamentally sound THEY WOULDN'T HAVE MADE THESE ITEMS. Or the other items that are being discussed. The problem isn't that someone created some item, the problem is that the rules are so arbitrary and unreasonable that the game designers themselves are obviously not sticking to them. If your analysis of this is so obviously correct, why hasn't Wizards simply errata'd the items out of existence? (Along with everything else that breaks the same rules?)

I'll tell you why. BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH THEIR MARKETING STRATEGY.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 21, 2009)

I am of the camp: don´t ban items.

But I also of the camp: players can make wishlists and create items, but i won´t give out everything they demand.

But for beginning DM´s i advice removing items from play which are not balanced. If you hand out to good items either nerf them (make bracers a daily power which will last for an encounter or an encounter power which lasts for a round like barb and sorcerer feats respectively) or remove them.

Never would i give those items to every character of a group. If its an item of all players lists, i would hand out a single one and look what happens 

edit: the whole balance debate is somewhat superficial. 4e does a very good job of balancing. But it can never be balanced. 

Only problem: The game is (still) too transparent for players.

I remember the times, when players were not allowed to even look at DM material. In 3e players had to look into this book. 4e puts everything a player needs into the Phb again. I don´t think all magic items belong there.
And most unbalancing items are in adventurers vault. A misnomer. The old tome of treasures would have been a more proper name. It suggests, that it is DM material. So there would be a nice line between "basic" magic items and "extra" items to reward players. Treasures, not tools of trade.


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

Heh.

Moving right along, what do other people think of the dragonshard augments that got added? +1/+3/+5 damage to lightning or radiant or implement powers with a weapon. 

Or the warlock armor that gives them combat advantage whenever shadow walking.

Or anything other than armbands, really.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Oct 21, 2009)

Those all from the Eberon Player's Guide?  I haven't seen that yet.

Not having seen them I can't really comment other than to say as you have described it the warlock armour sounds really powerful.


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

The warlock armor is in AV2 - I believe it's 10/15/20/25/30 for levels, and yeah... it's very powerful indeed. It's also put on warlocks who could arguably use a boost. Not sure if it's viable to do things like have a rogue/warlock use it to always have combat advantage, or if that's even a real problem.

The dragonshards are in the eberron book, but I've started to see them trickling into use, being added onto staves, or used by the lightning and radiant weapon users, etc.


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 21, 2009)

keterys said:


> Heh.
> 
> Moving right along, what do other people think of the dragonshard augments that got added? +1/+3/+5 damage to lightning or radiant or implement powers with a weapon.
> 
> ...




Heh, yeah, let's talk about other items that break the "secondary slot" rules or otherwise unbalance things.

Just a quick question. With more and more splat books coming out, do you think this problem is going to get better or worse?


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> Heh, yeah, let's talk about other items that break the "secondary slot" rules or otherwise unbalance things.




Absolutely. That is the entire point of the thread. 



> Just a quick question. With more and more splat books coming out, do you think this problem is going to get better or worse?




To be honest, so far it seems like it's amazingly good. I'm shocked how few 'this is broken' threads I see so far. Sure, each book has a small handful of things that rock the boat, but it's trivial to allow them or not.

One of my games I give extra* random treasure out and I like how I can keep adding on sheet after sheet of random treasure as it's released. It's pretty darn cool.

* As in, literally just extra - they get it for doing cool things and for playing quickly


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 21, 2009)

keterys said:


> Heh.
> 
> Moving right along, what do other people think of the dragonshard augments that got added? +1/+3/+5 damage to lightning or radiant or implement powers with a weapon.
> 
> ...




As a player, I like them. Throw something on my Longsword of Summer that will do +3 stackable damage every time that I use a fire attack, which is EVERY attack? Perfect.

As a DM I'll feel free to disallow them as my campaign is running in The Realms, not Eberron.


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 21, 2009)

keterys said:


> Absolutely. That is the entire point of the thread.
> 
> To be honest, so far it seems like it's amazingly good. I'm shocked how few 'this is broken' threads I see so far. Sure, each book has a small handful of things that rock the boat, but it's trivial to allow them or not.
> 
> ...




OK, I'll stop beating on the limitations of the game mechanics. I do think the pressure to put out money making splat books is a tremendous pressure on the design team and that will inevitably lead to more unbalanced items as they find it more and more difficult to come up with "flavor" items that have the right balance but still offer something different than what already exists. Banned lists may be small now, but I suspect they will grow rapidly.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> OK, so the problem isn't that they provide a +2, but that they are "secondary slot items" and therefore should not provide damage bonuses that stack with weapons or feats. That's the sum total of your argument then.
> 
> I. simply. disagree.



Alright.  Conversation over, then.  We've reached an impasse.  Fortunately, since I neither play in your game, nor you in mine, we don't need to go further than that.



> In fact, this is a primary example of what I mean when I say the game is fundamentally unsound. Everything about the game mechanic is arbitrarily twisted around this goal of maintaining some artificial balance to the point that the rules no longer make any SENSE. They're just rules for the sake of rules. And they are so obviously absurd that the GAME'S OWN DESIGNERS don't even understand or adhere to them.






brassbaboon said:


> No, you DON'T "get it." It's not about ME. It's about a game system that is so arbitrary and unsound that THE GAME'S OWN DESIGNERS can't stick to the "rules" you think exist. I say again. I. Didn't. Create. The. Iron. Armbands. Of. Power. I really didn't. It wasn't me. It was WIZARDS OF THE COAST. You know, the guys who MADE the rules.
> 
> All I'm doing is pointing out the REASON for this is because the game mechanic is fundamentally unsound. If it was fundamentally sound THEY WOULDN'T HAVE MADE THESE ITEMS. Or the other items that are being discussed. The problem isn't that someone created some item, the problem is that the rules are so arbitrary and unreasonable that the game designers themselves are obviously not sticking to them. If your analysis of this is so obviously correct, why hasn't Wizards simply errata'd the items out of existence? (Along with everything else that breaks the same rules?)
> 
> I'll tell you why. BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH THEIR MARKETING STRATEGY.



...ookay.

I think you might find more mileage out of this argument either on another board, or in another subforum of this board.   Or, follow the handy Edition War Flowchart linked on the front page!

I'll just say that I disagree with your premise that any and every item that WotC makes improves the 4e game experience for every table.  Frankly, while I think WotC has an outstanding track record this edition, they're not perfect.  If you want to talk about false marketing-strategy-related ideas, I'd add _"DMs should use everything WotC wrote, without hesitation, because they wrote it"_ right in!  If they're selling that line, you seem to have bought it!

-O


----------



## Obryn (Oct 21, 2009)

brassbaboon said:


> Heh, yeah, let's talk about other items that break the "secondary slot" rules or otherwise unbalance things.



Yes, please!



> Just a quick question. With more and more splat books coming out, do you think this problem is going to get better or worse?



Hmm...  Both?

I think that, as the design team gets more proficient, they are going to have fewer major missteps.  You can already see a narrowing of focus in Arcane and Divine power - whereas in the PHB1 and in Martial Power, most of the feats applied to anything you did; in AP and DP, the feats are limited to, say, your Wizard powers.  Or your Invoker powers.

So I think they've better learned to firewall options.  Whether or not that's good, I have no idea.

I also see a general trend towards less outlandish stuff.  Note that most of the stuff I listed was all released within the first few months of 4e, and was probably in production before or shortly after release.

With that said, option creep is inevitable in any continually-supported game line.  It was a huge issue in 3.5 by the middle of its production run, and I'm sure it will be an issue with 4e as well.

Personally, I'm thrilled that my list only needed to be as long as it is.  I call that a net win for WotC.

-O


----------



## Umbran (Oct 21, 2009)

Need I mention that bashing 4e is not acceptable behavior in the 4e forums?  Well, apparently I must.  But don't expect another warning, folks.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Oct 21, 2009)

keterys said:


> The warlock armor is in AV2 - I believe it's 10/15/20/25/30 for levels, and yeah... it's very powerful indeed. It's also put on warlocks who could arguably use a boost. Not sure if it's viable to do things like have a rogue/warlock use it to always have combat advantage, or if that's even a real problem.




Yeah, Warlocks could use the boost, though giving them an item that basically becomes a "must have" leads to the whole IAoP argument - so I don't think an item fix is the way to deal with the warlock unless there are other armours that are as appealing.

That said, I don't see it as a big problem for multiclassing between rogue/warlock, as rogue->warlock doesn't get the shadow walk ability, and for warlock->rogue it basically just gets him sneak attack twice per encounter, which isn't horrible.  It is a big deal for a hybrid, though, which is something to consider if you have such a hybrid in your campaign.


----------

