All that other stuff aside - I do think the OP was off-base on some observations. Skills, for example. Consolidating the list was a change made by both pathfinder and 4th ed; and a wise one, by my reckoning. Why have listen and spot, when perception will do? Why not make move silently and hide into a single stealth skill?
I do think thievery was made overly broad, if I were to run a 4th ed game (which I am not, one might have discerned from my previous posts) I would definitely make that a skill that requires training. I also don't know why the warlock gets thievery as a class skill. But those are small details, when the overall changes to skills were so positive.
I don't like the magic item system for either Pathfinder or 4E. In my experience players love to treat magic item lists as their personal shopping catalogues to optimize their builds, and for me this sucks all the wonder, mystery and magic out of them. I much prefer it when magic items are rare and each item is unique and exciting. You can try to achieve this in D&D by taking control over players' access to them, but a lot of players get a bit huffy about not being able to buy whatever toys they want for their characters.Here I don't know why the 20% sell system with the DMing handing out the really cool goodies does not work for you. I felt this was a really good way to get it so that players do get to do shopping but the DM was the source of all the really exciting over levelled magic.
It has been about as successful for me as with the 50% sell system.
I so far have found that the division of treasure between the party members is uneven, sometimes with one player getting nothing that they wanted and others finding several pieces that they enjoy.
The most obvious time it feels like they players just shop through the books for the perfect items that they want has been during character creation itself. After that they seem to come out with the best array of items their character would want.
As for any man-crushes out there, form a queue. I'm pretty sure deinol's already somewhere up near the front.
That's just because I know how sexy you are in real life. ;)
|
All that other stuff aside - I do think the OP was off-base on some observations. Skills, for example. Consolidating the list was a change made by both pathfinder and 4th ed; and a wise one, by my reckoning. Why have listen and spot, when perception will do? Why not make move silently and hide into a single stealth skill?
I do think thievery was made overly broad, if I were to run a 4th ed game (which I am not, one might have discerned from my previous posts) I would definitely make that a skill that requires training. I also don't know why the warlock gets thievery as a class skill. But those are small details, when the overall changes to skills were so positive.
I think the reason is that so there does not need to be a rogue in every party. 3.0 and 3.5 made a rogue almost obligatory if you expected to face any traps (as no one else could see traps with a DC of more than 20). So, as well as simlifying that, they chose the warlock - my recollection is slightly hazy, but the 3e warlock had an interesting skill set too. From a fluff perspective, warlocks can be considered somewhat dubious individuals who have taken a short-cut to power - outright criminality wouldn't be much of a stretch.
The skill itself more-or-less combines three skills in 3.0 and 3.5 - Disable Device, Open Lock and Sleight of Hand. Many, many 3e rogues would take that anyway - certainly the first two, anyway. It's a sort of "skill tax" for rogues. So if you split up the skill it's not clear what is being achieved as you'd have to give an additional number of skill points to for the characters to function. After all, the rogue in 4e doesn't actually get anything like as many skill points as a 3e one does.
All that other stuff aside - I do think the OP was off-base on some observations. Skills, for example. Consolidating the list was a change made by both pathfinder and 4th ed; and a wise one, by my reckoning. Why have listen and spot, when perception will do? Why not make move silently and hide into a single stealth skill?
I do think thievery was made overly broad, if I were to run a 4th ed game (which I am not, one might have discerned from my previous posts) I would definitely make that a skill that requires training. I also don't know why the warlock gets thievery as a class skill. But those are small details, when the overall changes to skills were so positive.
I think the reason is that so there does not need to be a rogue in every party. 3.0 and 3.5 made a rogue almost obligatory if you expected to face any traps (as no one else could see traps with a DC of more than 20). So, as well as simlifying that, they chose the warlock - my recollection is slightly hazy, but the 3e warlock had an interesting skill set too. From a fluff perspective, warlocks can be considered somewhat dubious individuals who have taken a short-cut to power - outright criminality wouldn't be much of a stretch.
The skill itself more-or-less combines three skills in 3.0 and 3.5 - Disable Device, Open Lock and Sleight of Hand. Many, many 3e rogues would take that anyway - certainly the first two, anyway. It's a sort of "skill tax" for rogues. So if you split up the skill it's not clear what is being achieved as you'd have to give an additional number of skill points to for the characters to function. After all, the rogue in 4e doesn't actually get anything like as many skill points as a 3e one does.
Well, like I said, I can understand the consolidation of skills - thievery just seems a tad broad, though. I would have adopted the pathfinder approach myself: pick pocket and sleight of hand do seem to go together, and so do open lock and disable device. But, like you noted, they were obligatory skills for thieves anyway, so there's certainly an argument to be made for the 4th ed approach.
As for the warlock and thievery - I could certainly see your interpretation of the warlock being valid and providing a great potential for backstory. I suppose I'm stuck in the mindset that every party should have a thief (or a ninja now, if it fits the campaign) and playing pathfinder, the thievery skills are always important in my games.
Keep in mind too, my experience with 4th ed is from the original 2008 PH, DMG and forgotten realms books - I don't know if essentials changed things around at all with the skills, so I may be out of date there as well.
It's more of an issue when players are bringing in new characters part way through the campaign. I like the new magic item rarity rules, and I prefer how 4E deals with magic items than 3e. I guess part of my beef is that many of the magic items seem like they exist purely for optimization purposes. Take an item like the "badge of the berserker". It seems to serve no other purpose than to help barbarians optimize.
The new Mordenkeinan's Emporium book looks like it might be more my speed, since it seems to contain unique items with some interesting story behind them.
I don't like the magic item system for either Pathfinder or 4E. In my experience players love to treat magic item lists as their personal shopping catalogues to optimize their builds, and for me this sucks all the wonder, mystery and magic out of them. I much prefer it when magic items are rare and each item is unique and exciting. You can try to achieve this in D&D by taking control over players' access to them, but a lot of players get a bit huffy about not being able to buy whatever toys they want for their characters.Here I don't know why the 20% sell system with the DMing handing out the really cool goodies does not work for you. I felt this was a really good way to get it so that players do get to do shopping but the DM was the source of all the really exciting over levelled magic.
You mention a penchant for 'Magic Low' campaign worlds. Not relly my thing but it does dawn on me that this hould actually be easy to make in 4E - especially with the new Rare items. Basically use the inherent bonus system. This keeps the characters in line with the math of the system. That means your players really don't need any magic items but you want to hand out a few in your approach. Well the New Rare items are overpowered items meant to only be received one per character per tier. They have a pretty interesting '1E' feel to them in that if you find a Flame Tongue it can toss fire balls (once per encounter) and has a slew of other benefits (and a bit of a weakness as well). I'd think a campaign where the players pretty much just got rares and the inherent bonuses made sure that the numbers worked should fit your bill for a low magic campaign world.
I like the new magic item rarity rules.Where are those set out?
The description of the item rarities show in the Essentials books, Heroes of the Fallen Lands (page 337) and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms (page 339).
Ah - I don't have Essentials, What are the practical impacts of the rarities? Have they amended the treasure tables so the rarities are figured into what the DM should hand out? And is it possible to get a view of item rarities through the online Character Builder?
I think the practical impacts are that magical items can now vary in power and balance, making it up to the DM to decide if they'll use it in the campaign or not. This is a different approach to the "everything must be balanced" mantra of earlier 4E products. It also helps to show what would normally be available in cities and for sale vs. what you might find in monster lairs or during your adventures.
As for the tables, yea I think they all have the Common, Uncommon, Rare tag in post-Essential products to show the item's significance. I actually really like the idea because I'm not of the opinion that all magical items are of equal level to begin with and instead of "nerfing" certain items to fall in-line with traditional means, the rarity system allows them to be a bit more powerful because the intent is that they're hard to come by and only through great risk are they obtainable.
And I'm farily certain their rarity is listed in the Character Builder.
One significant change is with regard to buying and selling items. The default assumption is that one can buy common items but that uncommon and rare items are no longer produced and are only available as part of treasure hoards (ie handed out by DM fiat).
For resale value, the common items follow the initial 4th edition rules in that you can sell them for one fifth their value. Although you cant purchase uncommon and rare items, if you sell them you will expect to receive a greater proportion of their value (half value and full value, respectively).
I'm not sure how this ties in with enchant item ritual. Presumably players can only manufacture common items now.
They also moved away from the regimentation of allocating magic items via treasure parcels and presented a random treasure generation process based on percentage chance, rather than a proscriptive set of items per level.
The rarity system was definitely a good move. I haven't checked the CB in a while. Do all the magic items now have a rarity tagged on them?
The initial problem was that although they had the rarity system in place, they only had a handful rare items. I believe most of the items that had been created for the Adventure's Vault books were pretty much designated as uncommon. With a few that were set as common or rare. It's too bad they didn't implement this idea in the beginning.
I would also like to comment on the resale of magic items for 20% of their value. I know that some people have complained about this. However, I think that in game it should be thought of this way. Magic items are very expensive, and the PCs selling them are usually wanting to sell them off quickly. If they want to flip them quickly they need to settle for selling them at much less than they are worth. A merchant who makes it his business to sell the odd magic items would likely sit on an item for a long time before he finds a buying that is willing to pay what he wants to get for the item.
I've said to my players in the past that they can get more than 20% if they travel to a major city and sacrifice several weeks or months of game time looking for buyers. Usually, they have pressing adventurer type stuff to do and can't afford to waste the time doing this. They aren't merchants afterall.
Every class feeling the same is present in every version of D&D and Pathfinder, especially from an optimized standpoint, when you throw out the bad choices. One method to defeat this is to release more classes, builds or archetypes which occurs frequently with all the current systems. The other is to release more feats, but this is hard to control in regards to what is introduced to the game. But I already stated I do not like the later approach. And on top of that, Pathfinder has traits, to even muddy the water further. And if you add in all the third party support for Pathfinder, I would defintely lock down the choice of players supplements at the table; which I already did when playing 3.5 in its prime.
The one thing 4E does have going against it is the quality of powers presented. If they just focused on powers and making them a little more unique (especially for psionic classes) then I would be very happy. I also believe the 4E developers would have an easier time only releasing 20 levels for the game versus 30.
The magic item rarity system sounds like a really good solution to the magic item issue. Still not quite perfect, but better than most I've seen in either any incarnation of DnD or PF. For the homebrew world I've been working on getting down on paper, I had done something similar. The low end magic stuff is common enough to be buyable off the shelf, the uncommon stuff can be commissioned, the rare stuff is solely the DM's domain to play with. Allows for the basic assumptions of what the players will have to more or less hold true, but doesn't make it an automatic right.
The rarity system was definitely a good move. I haven't checked the CB in a while. Do all the magic items now have a rarity tagged on them?
The initial problem was that although they had the rarity system in place, they only had a handful rare items. I believe most of the items that had been created for the Adventure's Vault books were pretty much designated as uncommon. With a few that were set as common or rare. It's too bad they didn't implement this idea in the beginning.
Everything is currently tagged, and the R&D team has apparently done a complete review of existing magic items to coincide with the release of Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium. When that book's content is added to the online database, all other magic items will have their rarities reclassified to better reflect their level of power. They understood that a lot of the items that should have been made rare weren't, and way too many things were uncommon, etc. It should be a much more workable system once the update hits.
Here I don't know why the 20% sell system with the DMing handing out the really cool goodies does not work for you. I felt this was a really good way to get it so that players do get to do shopping but the DM was the source of all the really exciting over levelled magic.It has been about as successful for me as with the 50% sell system.
I so far have found that the division of treasure between the party members is uneven, sometimes with one player getting nothing that they wanted and others finding several pieces that they enjoy.
The most obvious time it feels like they players just shop through the books for the perfect items that they want has been during character creation itself. After that they seem to come out with the best array of items their character would want.
It seemed to work well for me. Some significant amount of this may have a lot to do with how I hand out treasure which is randomly. The problem with that was that 50% sell rate is really good for most items. Not sure my players ever actually formulated things but if you think about it a wondrous item, even a pretty good one like a magic rope that will see use just does not compare to something like a stat booster or one of the armour upgrades. The magic rope may see use but the stat booster sees use every single combat - its always useful. In other words selling the rope for even a 'lower' power stat booster or defence booster is usually actually a good idea.
In effect a 50% sell rate was just not enough of a disincentive because the real math calculation is 'will I use this stat booster more then twice as often as I use the magic rope? In reality the answer is nearly certianly 'yes' hence even at twice the price (which is sort of what one gets when selling things at 1/2 the value) an equal value stat or defence booster is worth it.
Technically this is still true in 4E but know you need to evaluate if an item is 5 times more valuable. Between the fact that this is a much more difficult calculation and 20% sure does not seem like a lot. The result has been a tendency to keep the magic items which was what I wanted as a DM in the first place...a tendency for the group to have things like magic rope and armours and weapons with attached powers that are not specifically in line with whatever their 'build' is.
Like you I have issues at character creation. So far in the group I DM for this has not really been a problem - its been essentially compensation for a dead character. In the group I am a player in its worse because some of the players have a tendency to retire characters and bring back new ones. I leave that to the DM to sort out but if it where me I'd probably roll randomly for what the player got but let him specify the types of equipment (so he could say I want a battle axe, chain armour, a ring and boots but I'd randomly determine what actual magic each of these where - though I'd reroll until he got something that was legal for his character and not specifically designed for another (so reroll magic that gets better when psionic points are put into it if the class being played had no psionic points)).
Inherent bonuses + boons is still the proest way to go
Ah - I don't have Essentials, What are the practical impacts of the rarities? Have they amended the treasure tables so the rarities are figured into what the DM should hand out? And is it possible to get a view of item rarities through the online Character Builder?
What other people said.
The only direct effects it has on game play are Common sell for 20% (as before), uncommon sell for 50% their listed value, and rare sell for 100% their listed value. In addition I believe players creating non-common items is harder and more subject to GM approval than typical.
If you are talking about the "treasure the party should get at each level" tables, I don't believe that they have adjusted them to include the rarity of the magic items.
Like you I have issues at character creation. So far in the group I DM for this has not really been a problem - its been essentially compensation for a dead character. In the group I am a player in its worse because some of the players have a tendency to retire characters and bring back new ones. I leave that to the DM to sort out but if it where me I'd probably roll randomly for what the player got but let him specify the types of equipment (so he could say I want a battle axe, chain armour, a ring and boots but I'd randomly determine what actual magic each of these where - though I'd reroll until he got something that was legal for his character and not specifically designed for another (so reroll magic that gets better when psionic points are put into it if the class being played had no psionic points)).
Yeah, I admit that it does help keep the items in the party's hands in that case.
Part of my thinks that is often depends on the group, there is one game that I run for and they sell pretty much everything that they don't want to use even if the value was so insignificant that it would take a significant number of sales to get a good magic item for their level, they even sold some pretty important items in the process too.
Another group sold pretty much nothing that they looted throughout they received the course of the campaign. The only things the bought were using monetary rewards in the treasure piles. Even at the end the party was about 8th level when, nearing the end of the campaign, I gave them expensive items (like the 12th level immovable shaft) they didn't express any desire to get rid of the things they collected.
I think 3.5 and Pathfinder's encouragement of selling behavior is more the fact that later on more and more enemies are equipped with the same defensive and offensive magical items that they need and they are just the same or inferior to the magical items the PCs currently wield.
In either edition, for either I do have to agree with ProfessorCirno's assertion. I prefer inherent bonuses and boons and only wish they were built into the system better by default.
I do have a question, is there a random table for magical items that I can roll on, either in a book or online?
That's a big issue with 3.5/Pathfinder. To keep the enemies (at least non monstrous types) viable against PCs at higher level, they need to be decked out with magic items, and PCs end often end up picking up loads of magic items that they really have no use for since they already have better stuff that does the same thing. Thankfully, 4E has fixed that and as a dm you don't have to worry about equipping all your NPCs with magic items to give the PCs a good fight.
Ah - I don't have Essentials, What are the practical impacts of the rarities? Have they amended the treasure tables so the rarities are figured into what the DM should hand out? And is it possible to get a view of item rarities through the online Character Builder?What other people said.
The only direct effects it has on game play are Common sell for 20% (as before), uncommon sell for 50% their listed value, and rare sell for 100% their listed value. In addition I believe players creating non-common items is harder and more subject to GM approval than typical.
If you are talking about the "treasure the party should get at each level" tables, I don't believe that they have adjusted them to include the rarity of the magic items.
Like you I have issues at character creation. So far in the group I DM for this has not really been a problem - its been essentially compensation for a dead character. In the group I am a player in its worse because some of the players have a tendency to retire characters and bring back new ones. I leave that to the DM to sort out but if it where me I'd probably roll randomly for what the player got but let him specify the types of equipment (so he could say I want a battle axe, chain armour, a ring and boots but I'd randomly determine what actual magic each of these where - though I'd reroll until he got something that was legal for his character and not specifically designed for another (so reroll magic that gets better when psionic points are put into it if the class being played had no psionic points)).Yeah, I admit that it does help keep the items in the party's hands in that case.
Part of my thinks that is often depends on the group, there is one game that I run for and they sell pretty much everything that they don't want to use even if the value was so insignificant that it would take a significant number of sales to get a good magic item for their level, they even sold some...
I do have a question, is there a random table for magical items that I can roll on, either in a book or online?
I use www.asmor.com however it only really goes up to PHB3. It does have AV1 and AV2 and a bunch of dungeons as well. Up until the release of the new Mordenkainen book I did not really miss the two dozen or whatever random pieces of magic items I did not have access to randomly (when your rolling from thousands its pretty irreverent if the list is short 30 items).
Its possible some one will be motivated to make a new program that is more up to date - we shall see. WotC should really include this type of program on the DDI. Does not strike me as that hard to make.
If you do go with random treasure then some observations I have made in using the system. One is you may want to reward them a little more then normal - make no mistake they will be somewhat under powered compared to say wish lists. Personally I treat them as 1 level higher then they actually are when working out what magic items parcels they get - this helps to offset any items they sell as they will be worth more. Note that even with this benefit they will still be under powered compared to wish lists...that happens to be OK by me as I think 4E tends to make characters a little to powerful anyway and this just eases my job making good opposition.
Furthermore you'll need some kind of 'system' that makes the random treasure slightly less 'random'. True random treasure just gives out way to many 'there is no hope in hell of us finding a use for this' type items. I do want some of that in my game - they sell them for the measly 20%...but not as much as true random treasure gives out.
What I do is I generate the random treasure using the above script. Note that each magic item has a little die next to it - press that and that specific item is randomly generated again. The script gives off some consumables some of the time for some reason.
So I now have my master list - I go through it and reroll any consumables until there are none. OK now I go through it looking for any 'useless' items. Note that when I say useless I mean relitive to my party. If they all already have +2 or better magic weapons then any magic weapon of +2 or less is useless to them. If the item requires psionics and none of them have psionic powers then I almost always call teh item 'useless' even if the ycould still use it at lesser effect...I will change my mind occasionally in this type of circumstance if I think even the weaker version of the item is pretty friggen good. As can be seen I'm doing a judgment call here.
OK every item deemed useless gets a reroll. Again all consumables are always immediately rerolled until what is showing is not a consumable. Finally I look over these new items and reroll yet again for exactly 1 useless item. At this point whatever is on the list is what they get. If they where really unlucky they could get all useless items but in general my method seems to give out about 1 useless item per two levels. That can really go up and down however as there are periods where the players can only get +2 items and they have been receiving +2 items for a while so there are lots of useless results while the moment they switch over to +3 items there won't be any useless gear for a while.
Anyway that is my system for random magic item treasure.
Note that even "useless items" aren't neccisarily useless, they can be melted down for their residium.
Note that even "useless items" aren't neccisarily useless, they can be melted down for their residium.
Functionally the same as selling IIRC.
I've found that trying to build incentives into the system to use the odder magic items to be a nice idea, but if players aren't in a mindset to use them, they'll still get sold/melted down/ignored. The only time I've seen them used extensively by most players is when the DM encourages it by rewarding the party for doing so, not when the system penalizes them by reducing the sellback value.
I removed a bunch of posts, and replies to them, that attempted to make this a discussion about people and not a game system.
Really, just flag it and move on.
Anyway that is my system for random magic item treasure.
Cool, I will probably use a modified version of your system in my own game. Thanks for sharing.
Note that even "useless items" aren't neccisarily useless, they can be melted down for their residium.
In that case I think it is preferable to jump straight to giving them coin or art objects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am glad this thread is here. Over on enworld there are several threads about grognards and pf players being the main problem in the edition wars. It is nice to see the pf fans defend 4e, really making my point that neither side is worst than the other.
I only play 4e because one of my friends wants me in the group. I don't like the game enough to buy any of the books. My view on 4e is really shaped on the core initial release. I play the new updates but I only know them as far as the avenger I play.
Wotc changed the game to something I do not like, it still feels like a boardgames when I play even now. More than likely it is because it fails to immerse me like pf. If not for pf I would most likely be playing 1st edition again.
I am glad this thread is here. Over on enworld there are several threads about grognards and pf players being the main problem in the edition wars. It is nice to see the pf fans defend 4e, really making my point that neither side is worst than the other.
This does not prove the point that you think it proves.
I only play 4e because one of my friends wants me in the group. I don't like the game enough to buy any of the books. My view on 4e is really shaped on the core initial release. I play the new updates but I only know them as far as the avenger I play.
Wotc changed the game to something I do not like, it still feels like a boardgames when I play even now. More than likely it is because it fails to immerse me like pf. If not for pf I would most likely be playing 1st edition again.
You are laying blame at the feet of the system when you ought to be looking elsewhere. Don't blame your weapon for missing its mark when you insist on firing over your own shoulder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This does not prove the point that you think it proves.
In fact it does. PF players defending 4e. Thank you.
You are laying blame at the feet of the system when you ought to be looking elsewhere. Don't blame your weapon for missing its mark when you insist on firing over your own shoulder.
What pray tell am I laying blame for?
Perhaps that I play 4e and still don't like it? How is that possible?
The fact remains, for ME, 4e is a system I do not like. That is not my FAULT.
(Scott betts may not have left the above quote)
In fact it does. PF players defending 4e. Thank you.
This does not prove the point that you think it proves.
No. You said it proves that neither "side" is worse than the other. It doesn't. You have a handful of anecdotes, and nothing that reliably generalizes to either population.
What pray tell am I laying blame for?
Not being immersed. 4e "fails to immerse" you. You believe this to be a failure on 4e's part, rather than a failure due to some other factor - the mindset with which you approach the game, for instance, or the behavior of your fellow players, or the style of the DM.
Given the similar level of support the two systems provide for immersion, it seems much more plausible to me that any difference in immersion you are experiencing is the result of a factor that actually might have some effect on your level of immersion, rather than the game system, which has precious little influence on immersion compared to, say, the style of game the DM chooses to run.
Dear OP: A winner is you!
Nothing makes me ashamed of my hobby quite like threads like this one.
Three years on and we're still doing this? Three years?
I've found that trying to build incentives into the system to use the odder magic items to be a nice idea, but if players aren't in a mindset to use them, they'll still get sold/melted down/ignored. The only time I've seen them used extensively by most players is when the DM encourages it by rewarding the party for doing so, not when the system penalizes them by reducing the sellback value.
This is actually a complex issue. In truth there is no correct value for most wondrous items like Decanter of Endless Water or Magic rope. This is because they retain their value but the value is pretty small.
In effect if we assume an 'average' adventure will see the wonderous item used once and there will be 5 combats then the value of a wonderous item is about 1/5 of +X. +X is defined as the +1 you could have had to your magic sword or magic armour. So at low levels +X is +1 while at higher levels its the trade off between having +3 magic armour and +4 magic armour. So its the extra +1 more you could have had on something useful in combat.
Note that this means that the value of a wonderous item is constantly changing - they are generally nearly as useful at 6th level as they are at 12th. Character abilities reduce their value somewhat - with 4E ones retaining more value because what they offer the entire group is harder to emulate with wizard spells. For example magic rope is more useful to a 4E group at 12th because the wizard does not have something like mass flight on a scroll.
Hence the most accurate way of pricing a wondrous item would be to have it constantly rising but be worth about 1/5th the value of the current +1 increase (might want to make it a little less then this - no adventure presupposes that you will actually need magic rope to succeed). However not even 4Es gamism is willing to go that far.
Thus we are stuck with some kind of inaccurate system which needs to convince players to keep the things and doing so obvously means they absolutely must come into play...I've found that the disincentive they get with the sale on top of this helps as well mainly because it gets us straight to the 1/5th the value right off the bat meaning that at the moment the players found the item they don't immediately recognize that its always the best option to liquidate the item right now and buy +1 to something that helps in combat.
The fact that it 'seems' like such a small amount helps here. As the OP commented 'no one would ever sell at only 20%'. Clearly he had not worked out the numbers - even in 4E the math actually says you should always sell unless your likely to use magic rope more often then you are likely to have 5 encounters with monsters.
Now if you do have a group that likes to sell and you want your players to use wondrous items one way to drop wondrous items that are actually lower level then the group (combine it with gold to make up the difference in the wealth by level tables) since at that point the math starts to say that they should keep the item (in 4E's 1/5 sale system). Some groups might still always choose to sell but here the math should be working against them if they take that option and the item would have been regularly useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact it does. PF players defending 4e. Thank you.
This does not prove the point that you think it proves.
No. You said it proves that neither "side" is worse than the other. It doesn't. You have a handful of anecdotes, and nothing that reliably generalizes to either population.
What pray tell am I laying blame for?Not being immersed. 4e "fails to immerse" you. You believe this to be a failure on 4e's part, rather than a failure due to some other factor - the mindset with which you approach the game, for instance, or the behavior of your fellow players, or the style of the DM.
Given the similar level of support the two systems provide for immersion, it seems much more plausible to me that any difference in immersion you are experiencing is the result of a factor that actually might have some effect on your level of immersion, rather than the game system, which has precious little influence on immersion compared to, say, the style of game the DM chooses to run.
Certainly the mindset with which I approach the game is not a failure. The failure lies in the mechanics of the game for me. The mechanics fail ME. The hyper concern of balance fails me. The gamist philosophy fails me in the same way the gamist philosophy of WOW players prevents me from becoming immersed in MMO's.
Note this is not the same as me saying the mechanics fail to immerse players. I claim the mechanics fail to immerse me, and that is a fault of the mechanics.
If I find a particular bicycle uncomfortable to ride, the fault lies with the bicycle.
And as to your point of anecdotes. Well that is my point while arguing the people that claim the edition wars is mostly the fault of non 4e players. They have nothing but anecdotes with which to evaluate. My claim is both sides are equally to blame. I have not seen evidence to the contrary. This thread, actually throws a stick in the spokes of the claim that edition wars are mostly the fault of older edition players. To claim either side is more responsible is ridiculous.
I will not however apologize for thinking the mechanics of 4e inferior.
In fact it does. PF players defending 4e. Thank you.
It's seems it's more "4e players who also play PF defending 4e, while PF players who do not play 4e attack it and call anyone who defends it literally a 4e shill."
This thread does basically the opposite of what you think it does.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fact it does. PF players defending 4e. Thank you.It's seems it's more "4e players who also play PF defending 4e, while PF players who do not play 4e attack it and call anyone who defends it literally a 4e shill."
This thread does basically the opposite of what you think it does.
However in this particular thread no player of 4e has been labelled a shill. So once again this thread can be used as evidence (anecdotal yes, but all evidence in that argument is anecdotal) to point to bias in the assessment.
Nothing makes me ashamed of my hobby quite like threads like this one.
Three years on and we're still doing this? Three years?
It isn't their fault. What else do you do with a flaming bag?
an interesting post
These are all interesting points, but I'm not sure most players really put that much thought into their selling decisions. It will end up dissuading a few, but doesn't really get around the fact that the majority of players will still ignore the complexities and sell it anyway. Unless the DM makes an effort to highlight the use of such items, 1 in 5 encounters is close enough to useless that they don't care what losses they take. Any gold is better than what is seen a practically useless item.