|
Mmmmm, defending weapon, with its full bonus set to defense, since you won't attack with it anyway.RE Weapon Swap;
Why even bother having a weapon in your off-hand?
Why not just declare that your off-hand attack is a pimpslap, or a wet dish-rag, if it's going to be replaced with the main weapon anyway?
Cheaper to have a shield in that hand, if you're not going to attack with that hand anyway... :P
But since it is about Weapon Swap, they will be attacking with that hand.
Increased cost on the ability score items, for adding second and third abilities (i.e. a Belt of Str +2 should be 4k, a Belt of Str & Con +2 should be 8k, and a Belt of Physical Perfection +2 should cost 12k). Only good rule Magic Item Compendium had.
Cheaper to have a shield in that hand, if you're not going to attack with that hand anyway... :PMmmmm, defending weapon, with its full bonus set to defense, since you won't attack with it anyway.RE Weapon Swap;
Why even bother having a weapon in your off-hand?
Why not just declare that your off-hand attack is a pimpslap, or a wet dish-rag, if it's going to be replaced with the main weapon anyway?
We're talking about two weapon fighting.
With the Weapon Swap feat, both hands still attack - they just use only one weapon to do it, swapping as needed.
Seems fairly hard to swap a shield, since it's strapped onto your arm (certainly hard to do it super fast in the middle of multiple iterative and off-hand attacks), and the feat doesn't seem to mention it, so I fear it would readily be disallowed by pretty much any DM.
Hence the defending weapon idea.
|
|
Ah! but does Weapon Swap *specifically* prohibits the use of a shield in the off-hand? remember one can do a shield bash with the off-hand.
Weapon Swap, when used with Shield Mastery, becomes a very potent feat...
No but the rules for armor actually do. they spell out the action required to put on a shield and you can't do that in the middle of a round (which swapping a shield from one arm to the other is actually taking off the shield and putting it back on the other arm)
If I'm not mistaking, Jason has already stated that Weapon Swap has been killed...
Have a peek here.
True Sight. While I don't mind the concept, the actual spell completely rips apart an entire school of magic. Illusion specialists beware. I don't need it gone, just altered. A caster level check or spell level limit would be fine.
I've had some seriously bad experinces with that spell in first ed even. My cleric (Thurgon) used to cast it so often it was crazy, but one time taught me better. I had it on when a centaur witch polymorphed a female bard into a purple worm that kept it's mind, so she attacked and swallowed whole the centaur.....based on the spell discription Thurgon did not see the purple worm, but the bard actually swallow an entire centuar whole....the mental image was so distrubing that I used the spell far less often from there on out. Never mind when we had to wait to dispell her until she passed the magic horse shoes the centuar had on.....
|
|
True Seeing (5th level I think) *did* bug me when I was running my high level (20+) campaign as the whole party was hopped up on it, and it did in fact invalidate high level illusionists.
The only thing that still work against it is "Invisibility, Superior" an 8th level spell that renders you completely undetectable by any means (which also causes problems at high levels, as PCs are then hopped up on both True Seeing and Superior Invisibility... LOL!)
True Seeing (5th level I think) *did* bug me when I was running my high level (20+) campaign as the whole party was hopped up on it, and it did in fact invalidate high level illusionists.
The only thing that still work against it is "Invisibility, Superior" an 8th level spell that renders you completely undetectable by any means (which also causes problems at high levels, as PCs are then hopped up on both True Seeing and Superior Invisibility... LOL!)
Well, at least they can't see each other...
Ought to be some way to work that against them.
Ah! but does Weapon Swap *specifically* prohibits the use of a shield in the off-hand? remember one can do a shield bash with the off-hand.
Weapon Swap, when used with Shield Mastery, becomes a very potent feat...
PDK,
I sent you an PM on Candlekeep. I'm dwarvenranger over there. Not sure how to PM here.
Monks.
I know, I know, probably never happen.
Seriously though, it's been said over and over that monks aren't going to be made masters of combat, that role is reserved for fighters. Well then why let them keep the two or three interesting things they can do? An improved stunning fist rate per day (granted the DCs suck, but still), taking certain feats without BS Int prereqs, jumping & running, slowfall (again I know this isn't world-shattering), and flurry? These things have some very real and very useful combat applications, so giving them to a non-frontline class is annoying.
They can't cast, they can't fight, they're not even that great skill-wise. Sure they can trip/grapple/disarm as well as a fighter IF they've got the strength/feats for it, but that requires standing next to someone. You could try to use them as mage-hunters, as has been suggested, but they'll just get swatted down by the first enemy/summoned creature that comes to support the mage.
On top of all that, pretty much everything they get after 11th level or so is ridiculous. It's so bad that it's borderline insulting. Tongue of the Sun & Moon? Timeless Body? Wholeness of Body? Perfect Self? What a collection of absurd fail. It's not even keeping to a single theme!
Monks are always described as mystical warriors but they are demonstrably not. Sure, being a native outsider and talking to birds and not looking old are kind of mystical, but they don't really justify a class built around them.
Monks: completely pointless.
Sorry, pet peeve. I like martial artists and have no problem creating them in D&D, they just have to be fighters.
How about ditching the monk and just having more unarmed feats/tactical feats for fighters?
Gone - Any Combat Maneuver that is considered a "melee attack".
All Combat Maneuvers should be standard actions.
In fact one of two Combat House rules in my current campaigns.
-- david
Papa.DRB
Can't disarm more than one person at the same time? Or trip several people? (I've seen that done IRL, so it seems a bit silly to take it away from fantasy characters who fight for their lives every day)
Can't disarm more than one person at the same time? Or trip several people? (I've seen that done IRL, so it seems a bit silly to take it away from fantasy characters who fight for their lives every day)
One man's silliness is another man's seriousness...
Don't like it, have house ruled it out of my games. And I know that there are 3 maneuvers that are already standard actions, so I only had to house rule the 3 others.
-- david
Papa.DRB
I'm sure there will be an onslaught of negativity, but BAB. My group had become distraught with the whole 3.5 framework and had given up on it.
About 3 years ago, I ranted on the boards about my issues with BAB (not sure where it was). It seems that everyone was OK with the math, which is their opinion. I just don't feel comfortable with the math.
Two years ago, I sat down with a friend and we hacked out the spoiler. Far from perfect, but it truly shows how BAB breaks armor. Armor has no chance versus a Good BAB.
Not trying to start a flame or anything, but I think that WotC learned this early on. Defense Bonus was added to the SW RPG and d20 Modern. It was also added to the Unearthed Arcana and a variant rule of a "Defense Roll" was in the DMG (if I remember correctly). In 4e, it was stripped entirely and everyone was given the same bonus (1/2 Level).
My other rant is CR. In my opinion, it's not an effective tool for determining how powerful anything is. A true CR would take the Level/HD and add additional modifiers based on abilities the creature has. Let's face it, Paralyzing Touch as a Standard action can wipe out an entire party (just ask any low level party without an Elf that's fought a Ghoul). Don't get me wrong, CR is a tool. Also, WotC hasn't found a suitable replacement for it yet, but is getting closer.
Of course, this is still in the testing stage, but here's some of the test options we're talking about. Also, are there any other "issues" that need to be tackled besides Base Attack Bonus? If we can get all the obstacles out in the open, it will make it easier to hit everything all at once.
First off, as Paul stated, Base Attack Bonus is not used in combat. It will be used only when determining Feats, Abilities, Spells, and Prestige Classes. All monsters will be stripped of the bonus (this may require a Cheat Sheet for 3.0 monsters as BAB isn't immediately visible).
Removing BAB will level the playing ground on all levels. A Wizard can essentially have the same chance to hit a Fighter. However, the Fighter has many options available to him. Extra Feats at alternating levels that will give the chance to add bonuses to the Attack Roll and ability to use Armor are most obvious.
Feats that rely on BAB for function will be modified to affect another condition. The two that raise eyebrows are Power Attack and Combat Expertise. Power Attack will reduce AC for the sake of extra Damage. Combat Expertise will add to AC and subtract from the Attack Roll. These two options simulate the way that combat would work when being wary or reckless.
Essentially, everyone will be on a level field (monsters and PCs alike). Weapon quality, Armor quality, shields, and magic will be key determining factors. Priests will need to be more than healing batteries. Wizards, although effective in and of themselves, can also use buffing spells to help their fellow PCs.
Conditional modifiers will also be beneficial (cover, flanking, Aid Another, concealment, prone, etc). Maneuvers (Sunder, Bull Rush, etc) can be used to impose conditional modifiers as well as disarm/disable opponents. This will add to more flavor at the table as well as coordination of efforts (think before they act).
Example:
Attacking PC (APC): STR 14, DEX 12, Masterwork Bastard Sword = Attack +2
Defending PC (DPC): STR 12, DEX 14, Full Plate, Heavy Shield = AC 21
to hit DPC. 20
Flanking: 18
Aid Another: 16
Bull's Strength: 14
Aid Another 2: 12
Multiple Attacks will be calculated the same way in 3.5 as in the new format. When the ability to attack multiple times comes about, a negative modifier will be applied to each successive attack. Although not tested, this would be -3 (although -2 may be an option). Therefore, the First attack will be at -0, Second at -3, Third at -6, and Fourth at -9.
to hit DPC. 20/23/26/29
Flanking: 18/21/24/27
Aid Another: 16/19/22/25
Bull's Strength: 14/17/20/23
Aid Another 2: 12/15/18/21
Care will need to be taken when giving out treasure. Handing out a Masterwork weapon effectively is like giving a +1 weapon. However, this will not be so much of a problem as time goes on. As the PCs gain gear, it is less likely that they will get rid of it unless the item is better. Armor +5 isn't necesarily the end of the game either, as the PCs will likely have comparable weapons at that level, so should the bad guys. If the DMG wealth standards are followed, there really shouldn't be much of a problem.
Options that can be put into place to limit "munchkinizing" are the RPGA rules for Ability Score generation (25 points) and HP advancement (1/2+1+CON Modifier). Reviewing each Feat, Skill, Spell, and Prestige Class is also important to ensure that the new balance is kept.
Yes, this is a rough draft, and other things will come up to be dealt with. For example, Monsters will need to be evaluated.
A Colossal Red Dragon (CRD) has a 44 AC due to +39 Natural armor. What can be done? Does he need the +39 Natural Armor? Likely not. The AC could effectively be brought down by the BAB of +17. This gives the CRD a 27 AC. The same example APC would need a +5 weapon and be able to hit on a 20. Consider Flanking, Buffing, Curse (yeah, Spell Resistance is a b@*$!), Aid Another, and other options and this will bring it down to a more manageable level. Besides, what happens behind the screen is invisible to the PCs.
The Colossal Red Dragon. He's a bit of a bother. AC 41 (-8 Size, +39 Natural). So, I opened the Unearthed Arcana. Under "Armor as Damage Reduction" (UA 111), it gave the option to reduce Natural AC as DR. Using the rule, you divide your Natural AC by 5 (rounding down). This is the amount of DR (All) that you add to the monster. Then, you reduce the Natural AC by the amount of the DR.
Ex, CRD has +39 Natural AC. 39/5 = 7 (rounded down)
DR 7/-, 20/magic
AC 34 (-8 Size, +32 Natural)
A 20th level Fighter (as per the DMG pregen NPCs) has +4 melee, +6 belt of Giant Strength, 20 STR for a +12 bonus. On a 20, this is 32. Add Flanking, Aid or Bless, and Aid Another, and the Fighter can hit on a 17 or greater.
I know. Who uses Aid Another. Well, don't forget that they are going up against a Colossal Red with an impressive SR 32. Therefore, spells are less likely to work on it. However, Monster Summoning spells can bring in creatures that can hit the AC 10 to give the Fighter a chance.
Yes, the downside is that the Dragon has a DR 20/Magic normally. With this, the DR 7/- will take off all attacks that are magical (DMG 292), there goes all the Fighter's STR bonus save +1. This will make him a little tougher hombre but not too bad. The Fighter still has the +4 weapon (+5 with Greater Magic Weapon) to give more punch as well as Feats should be able to help.
Unfortunately, this makes the Fighter pretty much the only one to wander directly into the fray. Lowering the divisor increases the DR/- but also reduces the AC. Every fighter type should be packing a +4 weapon (including the Monk at +5). Coupled with Greater Magic Weapon (giving everyone a boost to +5) should get them closer to the point. Uncork a Potion of Heroism and you have another +2.
|
That is not me bashing 4E, (though I can if you want). All I'm saying is that there was that much less to getting a new level. It (and similar parts of the process), just made character advancement not fun to do.
[It was more like I'm not a 10th Level Fighter, I'm a 1st Level Fighter with +5 to all d20 rolls, for the entire campaign.]
@ Papa
Is it a game balance issue that you have with trip/disarm/sunder? Because it seems very logical that these are attack actions to me...
That would be a very poor reason to change the RAW, I'll wait and see what he says; maybe he feels that they unbalance combat.
Personally I wish they'd restore the usefulness of the "improved x" feats for actions that involve CMB. It's already hard as all get-out to make them work, don't penalize people that actually want to use them with a crappy +2 bonus instead of the old +4.
You know I've never seen someone bull-rush or overrun? Ever? Since my old group said to me, "hey, 3rd edition is coming out!" No one in my presence has ever attempted those combat maneuvers because they're almost useless. Sort of how I've never seen someone refocus. Please don't let combat devolve into just "I swing, he swings, 5' step"
|
|
I saw my first PC Bull Rush two weeks ago. I think the main problem is that, especially for these two feats, it is very dependent on the terrain and the grid. With Trip, you don't have to say is he standing or something. However, Bull Rush is mostly for either getting a target knocked off a cliff or into something, and a lot of times that you sit down a combat grid, it is either blank or has some essentials drawn on, so you may not know that there is a spiked wall here that would be perfect to knock someone into.
Overrun is pretty pointless. Used to be good mounted with Ride-By-Attack prior to the errata, but now that is completely useless, literally.
|
|
Overrun is pretty pointless. Used to be good mounted with Ride-By-Attack prior to the errata, but now that is completely useless, literally.
If you read the wording on the Trample and Overrun feats, they are both very similar. One way they have made Overrun useful again is with the Greater Overrun feat (if you're successful, the target falls to the ground prone and provokes attacks of opportunity from everyone threatening it... since you can do it as part of your move - and not "only" as part of a charge - this means you can walk through friendly squares, overrun the target, and keep moving to finish your move in a legal square.
This tactic can be seriously deadly if say, two or three melee types are surrounding your target: you just waltz right through your friends, knock the target on its bum, and all your friends get an AoO at +4 (since the target is prone). +6 to the attack roll if they are also flanking the target with each other...
I have a druid with Ride-by Attack, Spirited Charge & Trample, with a mount that has Improved Overrun (the mount will have Greater Overrun as well, when it reaches the BAB +6 prereq).
1. Charge with a lance for triple damage (Spirited Charge);
2. Mounts gets to attempt overruning, if successful, it makes an attack as it steps unto the hapless victim (Trample);
3. Allies that threaten (assuming they don't block the charge) all take an AoO (Greater Overrun);
4. Druid/mount choo choo train keeps moving: no AoO allowed from the victim! (Ride-by Attack)
If the allies are in a position that blocks the charge, then the mount simply take a move action to overrun the target; the allies get their AoOs; and the druid can cast a spell mid-move to zap the fallen target as it drives by.
Pretty powerful combo, and not useless, although I admit that it takes a lot of feats to get there. The weakness of this move is that a charge is blocked by friendly squares, so you may have to content yourself with a regular overrun instead of the super charge/overrun/trample move described above... another weakness is that it is quite hard to overrun someone (DC 15 + CMB means you can't try this on a fighter, paladin, ranger or anything large size or bigger, assuming the challenge is proportionate to the party's level... so this becomes something very useful vs. mages, bards, rogues, clerics, druids, etc.)
@ Papa
Is it a game balance issue that you have with trip/disarm/sunder? Because it seems very logical that these are attack actions to me...
@ Kuma
It is a combination of several things:
1) Single mechanic for all combat maneuvers
2) Game balance issues. I think multiple maneuvers are a bit much, which led to:
3) Significant abuse of trip by one of my players, especially at high levels
That said, I am trying out one other Combat Houserule, which is a reduction of iterative attacks to a maximum of two (bab=6+, 2 @ -2, bab=11+, 2 @ -1, bab=16+, 2 @ 0) attacks per round under normal circumstances that Wulf Ratbane proposed over on ENWorld. This might reverse my thoughts on maneuvers as 'melee attacks', but that is yet to be determined.
-- david
Papa.DRB
I saw my first PC Bull Rush two weeks ago. I think the main problem is that, especially for these two feats, it is very dependent on the terrain and the grid. With Trip, you don't have to say is he standing or something. However, Bull Rush is mostly for either getting a target knocked off a cliff or into something, and a lot of times that you sit down a combat grid, it is either blank or has some essentials drawn on, so you may not know that there is a spiked wall here that would be perfect to knock someone into.
Really? In your games, you can have a spiked wall within a few feet of where you're fighting and the DM never bothers to draw that on the mat or tell you it's there?
Spiked???
I would talk to your DM about this - this is stuff you should know.
Player: OK, I move 20 feet to my right and fire an arrow at the ogre.
DM: But first... (rolls dice) ...You take 12 points of damage.
Player: From what?
DM: The spiked wall. You just impaled yourself on it.
Player: What spiked wall? There isn't a spiked wall there!
DM: Yeah there is. I just didn't want to waste time drawing it on the mat. But, you can wiggle off of the spikes with an escape artist check.
Another Player: Hey, dude, you're lucky. I'm broken and bloody down here at the bottom of this 100' cliff that I didn't know about...
But otherwise you're mostly right.
Bull Rush is best when there is something dangerous to shove your foe into. I once bullrushed a PC into an iron maiden and then slammed it shut - it's what they get for fighting in a torture room and not paying attention to what's behind them (and yes, I had it drawn on the battlemat).
But it can also be useful in a doorway to bullrush the enemy back a bit so you can enter the room - thus letting your friends behind you move forward and get into melee range.
It can also be useful to break an enemy's line, when you're facing a wall of melee enemies and there is a healer or mage behind them, you can bullrush an enemy back and then get past that line and into the "backfield" as it were.
Overrun is pretty pointless. Used to be good mounted with Ride-By-Attack prior to the errata, but now that is completely useless, literally.
Nah, it still has its uses.
Like when you're fighting in a doorway, and your big old half-orc barbarian overruns the front enemy and gets behind him, and now your rogue steps up into perfect position for flanking and sneak attacking.
Heck, I use these two options against PCs all the time, especially when they fight big stuff (ogres, giants, etc.) who love to stomp all over the battlefield.
Nothing puts fear into a mage's heart faster than seeing a group of ogres trample right through and over her front-line fighters and come straight for her.
|
|
No, I was just making an example (spiked wall). But it could be a a bolder or a tree that someone could be bullrushed into. A cactus might be funny, but probably not very damaging. All I'm saying is that there are a lot of times where there just isn't a point to drawing out a lot of details on the gridmap, and because Bullrush is very dependent on that grid, it is less used. It also tends to do a lot less direct damage than say Power Attack.
"It is a combination of several things:
1) Single mechanic for all combat maneuvers
2) Game balance issues. I think multiple maneuvers are a bit much, which led to:
3) Significant abuse of trip by one of my players, especially at high levels
That said, I am trying out one other Combat Houserule, which is a reduction of iterative attacks to a maximum of two (bab=6+, 2 @ -2, bab=11+, 2 @ -1, bab=16+, 2 @ 0) attacks per round under normal circumstances that Wulf Ratbane proposed over on ENWorld. This might reverse my thoughts on maneuvers as 'melee attacks', but that is yet to be determined."
Hum.
1) Simpler is often better, imo.
2) I guess there's no way to come to an agreement on this if it's just a difference of opinion. I still think it's not wise to disallow something that people can actually go out in the yard and do, IRL.
3) Isn't that something best dealt with in a player specific sense, rather than rewriting the RAW? You might just try large, four-legged critters with decent BaB/Strength. There's ways around that trip deal. Anyway, can't you only trip things one size category larger than you and smaller?
If you want to remove iterative attacks you are basically telling people they should only play casters. You might not mean it that way, but that's what is going to be broadcast. One of the strongest features of full BaB is the ability to hit not only more precisely, but more often. And two-weapon fighting would be unnecessarily difficult to incorporate in that sort of doctored, attack-nerfed system.
I can see that. I feel that way about monsters, they just are not as unknown as they used to be. I'm still not exactly sure, though, what sort of items you are talking about. Could you give an example?
Well, every single magical item now is based on a spell and even has caster level and things. If you read the spell descriptions you pretty much know what any item is capable of.
|
I can see that. I feel that way about monsters, they just are not as unknown as they used to be. I'm still not exactly sure, though, what sort of items you are talking about. Could you give an example?
I don't have my DMG handy, but stuff like Boots of Speed used to just make you faster, not give you "Haste" x times a day...
I hated all the x/day stuff in the Magic Item Compendium. I don't want to have something that works three times a day if I need it to work four, that's wasted money for me.
I can see that. I feel that way about monsters, they just are not as unknown as they used to be. I'm still not exactly sure, though, what sort of items you are talking about. Could you give an example?Well, every single magical item now is based on a spell and even has caster level and things. If you read the spell descriptions you pretty much know what any item is capable of.
Not really; a Cube of Force is much different than a Wall of Force, and you certainly couldn't reverse-engineer an Apparatus of Kwalish from the spells Continual Flame and Animate Objects!
The "spell in a can" items aren't that much more common in 3.5E than they were in AD&D, as far as I know.
I always thought most of the DMG was pretty much the same as in AD&D, item-wise.
|
|
So, are you wanting more items that do not behave exactly like the spell? Is that what you mean?
I pretty much hated the entire Magic Item Compendium. Most of the once good items are super weak now and super over priced, (um um Relics), way to focused on Level 1 characters, (not literally, barely), and just not all that fun looking (to me anyway).
Toss in a few Items like the Pheonix Cloak, (hey I can fly now, constantly for like 50k), a lack of rules for making your own set items, (which could be a little cooler than they really are), and the over all poor setup of the sections, and I just was really disapointed in the overall book. At the very least, I wish they would have broken the items up by slot rather than alphabetically, and and gotten rid of the thrice bedamned new format.
|
|
Nothing puts fear into a mage's heart faster than seeing a group of ogres trample right through and over her front-line fighters and come straight for her.
Nice... I'll try to remember that one! :P Wondrous things can happen when the DM truly puts him/herself in the monsters' shoes! (i.e. think like an ogre and get to the squishies faster so you can have "right of kill", and let the ones that are not fast enough deal with opening the tedious fighter tin cans; it's like your super hungry, and you're handed a choice between a nice, ready plate with a fully cooked steak (with all the sides) or a lobster (which you now must work on tediously to extract anything good out of it))
:P
|
|
I hated all the x/day stuff in the Magic Item Compendium. I don't want to have something that works three times a day if I need it to work four, that's wasted money for me.
The thing is that many of them are cheap and slotless... a player in my group has made it his "thing" to find the most cheapass x/day items and then just buy a bunch of them. He's got a bunch of chronocharms that are basically slotless items, from what I understand, and they each allow a reroll each day. Guess what? he's never missed a save-or-suck or save-or-die saving throw yet, and we're about to turn level 10.
To a DM's auditing eye, his character sheet looks harmless, as he doesn't have any big expensive magical item; the reality is that he is the most broken PC of 'em all, thanks to his half dozen chronocharms, as he'll never fail a saving throw.
|
|
I just don't like being told levels 4 - 9 are the only ones worth playing, which is basically what they kept pushing.
From what I remember, the Chonocharms are like a necklace, (they are little pendants on a necklace), but you can wear more than one of them at a time. In a sense, they are slotless, though I do believe it says you can only benefit from one individual type of charm 1 in a day. I could be wrong, but the DM is well within their rights to say no to this sort of thing.
I just don't like being told levels 4 - 9 are the only ones worth playing, which is basically what they kept pushing.
From what I remember, the Chonocharms are like a necklace, (they are little pendants on a necklace), but you can wear more than one of them at a time. In a sense, they are slotless, though I do believe it says you can only benefit from one individual type of charm 1 in a day. I could be wrong, but the DM is well within their rights to say no to this sort of thing.
You got it right on the chronocharms, once per day each charm, but you can have multiples of the same charm (so if you have 3 that let you redo a reflex save, you can redo 3 reflex saves a day).
As to MiC, I loved it. The problem I had with the items in the DMG is that almost all of it was aimed at 12-20 level characters. MiC added some to that range, but most of it was for 1-12. I considered it a balancing out book, giving you stuff to give out at lower levels. My players love it, they can get some magic items at level 1 to 3, which they never could before. And it's not the really powerful stuff they like, it's the utility stuff. Neverending rations, field ration box, replenishing skin, everful mug (I had a guy who bought multiples of those so he could always RP drinking ale, even out in the wilderness). The bedroll that doubles your healing, the weapon and armor augment crystals are also favorites (especially since you can put the least ones on MW armor/weapons). It's a way to get some magical enhancements at low levels, before your ready for them to get +1's.
It's all in your perceptions I guess.
