Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 bgibbons Jun 22, 2009 13:00:32	I'm not quite sure I understand the reasoning behind having some treasure items be only available at low-tier. Sure, there's some that make sense--if the adventure has a +2 flaming weapon at high-tier, no one is going to take the +1 flaming weapon that might be available at low. A large number of restricted items, however, are completely different at low- and high-tier. If I really want, for example, gloves of agility, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say, "Sorry, you took on a tougher fight, so you can only get gloves of storing instead." Sure, the latter might be higher level, but it's entirely possible that someone would prefer the former instead. This is particularly bizarre in cases where the items' levels are at the top of the scale, e.g., a L7-10 adventure in which there's a L12 item you can only get if you play low. I suppose there's some benefits to verisimilitude ("You find a helm; it's a Helm of X at one tier and a Helm of Y at the other.") However, inasmuch as the single weapon we find on the high priest can turn out to be five completely different weapons at the end of the adventure, that's clearly not a priority. High-tier only treasure makes sense; however, I would suggest the campaign reconsider the idea of having items that a PC is unable to take as a reward because the group chose a tougher fight. (And, no, this is nothing that's ever happened to me personally, but was sparked by my preparing to run an adventure and realizing that it contained a perfect item for one of the PCs... but only if I could talk the group into playing low-tier.)
#2 Keithric Jun 22, 2009 14:46:30	Yeah, I hit that once as well when DMing - I forget which mod it was, but I think it had something for one guy on high and another on low. Ah well.
#3 gomeztoo Jun 23, 2009 2:42:58	One reason is that at certain levels magic items need to fit a certain level range. If we give out a magic item X at high level, we need another magic item Y for low level to stay fair. Sometimes certain items, while lower level, are still quite interesting at high, but such things happen. Gomez
#4 ibixat Jun 23, 2009 2:48:25	If the high tier replacement is 5 levels above the lower item you can just take it as your bundle, sell it and buy the lower level item too.
#5 joshuarandall_dup Jun 23, 2009 13:32:35	Yeah, this is a big annoyance to me. There are a couple of adventures where it is particularly bizarre. For example, Show DALE 1-2 has fireburst armor +2 (cloth) at low and deathcut armor +2 (leather, hide) at high. These items have similar functions, but because their properties apply to different types of armor, you can end up in weird situations like a 7th level cloth-armor user being better off playing the adventure low. That same adventure has a duelist's weapon +2 (light blade; Daily power to gain combat advantage) at low and a berserker weapon +2 (axe, heavy blade; Daily, +2 atk & resist 5 all but -5 defenses) at high. Those weapons appeal to completely different types of characters! Not to mention that the properties apply to different types of weapons (light blades vs. axes & heavy blades). If a rogue plays DALE 1-2 high, he'd probably prefer the duelist's weapon to the berserker weapon... but he can't get the duelist's weapon. That's screwed up.
#6 gomeztoo Jun 23, 2009 14:01:47	So if you play an adventure at high level you may get different items than when you play it at low. What is the problem? It is simular to playing two different adventures. Sometimes you find something useful, sometimes not. Magic items should not be the motivator to play adventures, so I honestly don't care much that low or high tier items differ as long as, in the long run, I find stuff I can use.
#7 Pauper Jun 23, 2009 14:49:38	If the high tier replacement is 5 levels above the lower item you can just take it as your bundle, sell it and buy the lower level item too. Keep in mind that you can't sell an item until you are within 4 levels of the item's level, which may prevent you from doing this in some circumstances. (Example: you're level 4 playing up in a 4-7 mod; the low-level version of the item is level 4 while the high-level version is level 9. You're not allowed to sell the level 9 item until you reach character level 5.) Otherwise, this is excellent advice, since the items that advance by level-multiples of 5 generally do so in such a way that the earlier level item costs 20% of the next higher-level item. Example: +1 deathcut armor = 1000gp +2 deathcut armor = 5000gp +3 deathcut armor = 25,000 gp +4 deathcut armor = 125,000 gp +5 deathcut armor = 625,000 gp -- Pauper
#8 Alphastream Jun 23, 2009 19:22:55	As Gomeztoo wrote, the primary reason is that there is a stated level band for each tier. Thus, if as an author you want to provide a low-level magic item, it might not be applicable to the high tier. Mechanics-wise, the magic item levels link back to the DMG and what is expected to be given out. I would argue there is no harm in just providing access to the low-level band, but to continue to have the cap for the high-level band. This way, you don't penalize playing high. While unlikely to be a huge deal, it can result in some disappointment. (Which I personally can live with).
#9 bgibbons Jun 23, 2009 22:31:17	As Gomeztoo wrote, the primary reason is that there is a stated level band for each tier. Thus, if as an author you want to provide a low-level magic item, it might not be applicable to the high tier. Mechanics-wise, the magic item levels link back to the DMG and what is expected to be given out. Not seeing it. The example given of Show DALE1-2
#10 gomeztoo Jun 24, 2009 2:40:19	I am not sure if the adventure example is a good one, as it was written at the start of the campaign when people weren't used yet to the rules for treasure distribution. Personally, to answer your question, I see no harm to the campaign having rewards that, in order for a PC to receive, they need to choose to face low-tier challenges. Why not? Because players shouldn't normally know what the items are, and should, imo, not make a choice based on the distinction, similar in that they should not use that critcism when choosing between different adventures. I do see a benefit to the current system, namely that low-tier play would become unattractive in any case - even when it is the right choice balance wise - when high tier gives out more options than low tier. High tier should not give more options. It should give level-appropriate options. Low tier play should be as attractive as high tier play when it comes to received rewards. Gomez
#11 elder_basilisk Jun 24, 2009 8:54:54	Another good example of this is Moon 1-2. Low tier: +2 magic armor High tier: +2 eladrin armor Since eladrin armor is chainmail only, a lot of players who would otherwise select the armor would prefer the low-tier reward. (Of course, +2 armor with good properties is readily available in 4-7 mods so the inability to get +2 magic is probably in the interest of even the people who complain about it--it stops them from doing something foolish).
#12 battles14 Jun 24, 2009 12:34:58	Another great example is Show MOON 1-1
#13 bgibbons Jun 24, 2009 13:56:46	I am not sure if the adventure example is a good one, as it was written at the start of the campaign when people weren't used yet to the rules for treasure distribution. Okay, so if a 1-2 module is a bad example, let's look at Show MOON1-3
#14 joshuarandall_dup Jun 24, 2009 14:03:20	I am not sure if the adventure example is a good one, as it was written at the start of the campaign when people weren't used yet to the rules for treasure distribution. For every example you reject, I can find another one. Here's Show CORE 1-9
#15 Alphastream Jun 24, 2009 15:43:58	Here are the guidelines for levels 1-4 and 4-7 (these can be found on the RPGA downloads page): Treasure Budget (Heroic Tier)
#16 _Mithreinmaethor_ Jun 24, 2009 15:54:00	They should just change the treasure bundles to the way its done in the My Realms adventures. That would fix it. And I love the leaving of AV and Dragon Magazine items out to choose as a bundle. Make ya spend that gold. Just saying.
#17 gomeztoo Jun 25, 2009 3:22:24	I agree with that reasoning, but it only makes sense if your characters live in a vacuum. NO, it only makes sense if you do not worry too much about treasure. I have several PCs who play this way, and they do not live in a vacuum. They may need to resort to a trick or two to get the right items (implements are not so easy - to clarify: they sell other items and then buy their implements), but they manage. My level 5 bard has her +1 harsh songblade. Maybe she is a +1 behind on others, but with implement expertise and a 20 Cha this does not matter that much. My paladin does well, has +1 veteran armor and a +2 viscious sword. My wizard does not have any implements yet, but she is only level 2 and focused on ritual books. She is saving up for a tome. My invoker is still level 1, and uses staffs. She'll just grab any weapon she finds and use it as a quarterstaff (I wanted to use swords as implements, but there is not an option for that yet - I hope it is in DP). Gomez
#18 gomeztoo Jun 25, 2009 3:28:24	This doesn't make any sense. You shouldn't be punished for playing high-level. You are not getting punished. You get a staff, which is higher level. Gomez
#19 Bigfluffylemon Jun 25, 2009 4:03:57	You are not getting punished. You get a staff, which is higher level. Gomez Which the warlock can't use, and the invoker who picked implement expertise (rod) doesn't want. I think the point is that if you're going to have a low-tier and a high-tier item, the items should be of the same type, or at least usable/desirable by the same character classes, to avoid this feeling. Especially where implements are concerned - heaven knows they're hard enough to find anyway.
#20 gomeztoo Jun 25, 2009 6:06:44	I just don't see the reason why this must be so. I select items as appropriate to the adventure, desired level band, and/or foreknowledge of stuff that was already given out. Sometimes you end up with different items. Sometimes you may get different items depending on a choice you make in the adventure. The rod and staff were thematically appropriate, hence the choice. I maintain that characters do not know what they can earn when they start an adventure, and that it therefor doesn't matter when the low and high tier reward different items. So I will likely continue to make such choices in the future. Gomez
#21 sithobi1 Jun 25, 2009 6:29:54	It should be so for the reasons previously explained, that characters should not feel that they "lost something" by going high tier instead of low tier when they get to the end of the adventure and find out that they could've had the perfect item for their character(might even be higher level than all-tier items), but instead, high tier means that they're probably just taking more gold and being denied access to the item they want. It's worse because, as you said, you base item choices off of "foreknowledge of stuff that was already given out", and thus the chance of getting the item they actually wanted is even lower.
#22 Bigfluffylemon Jun 25, 2009 6:35:24	It should be so for the reasons previously explained, that characters should not feel that they "lost something" by going high tier instead of low tier when they get to the end of the adventure and find out that they could've had the perfect item for their character(might even be higher level than all-tier items), but instead, high tier means that they're probably just taking more gold and being denied access to the item they want. It's worse because, as you said, you base item choices off of "foreknowledge of stuff that was already given out", and thus the chance of getting the item they actually wanted is even lower. Indeed, it sucks to pick up an item during a mod, and then be told that you can't take it at the end, since it's a low-tier only reward (and I have seen it happen). Gomez, it's your prerogative as an author to put whatever treasure you like in a mod, but I think you should see from this thread that there's a fair number of people who dislike this particular aspect of treasure distribution. Characters may not know beforehand what is available, but players may, either because they've played the mod before, or looked at spoilers. Come on, be honest, how many people have played a mod with a specific character partly (or completely) because they know that there is a very useful item for that character in the mod? I don't do it often, but it has happened that I think 'ah, played this mod before, it's the one with the nice +2 heavy armor, so I'll play it with my cleric rather than my warlock...'
#23 Madfox11 Jun 25, 2009 7:22:47	Indeed, it sucks to pick up an item during a mod, and then be told that you can't take it at the end, since it's a low-tier only reward (and I have seen it happen). That really shouldn't happen, because the low-level item is NOT in the adventure run at high tier. You can hardly blame the adventure for that. It is a mistake by the DM.
#24 battles14 Jun 25, 2009 14:21:36	You are not getting punished. You get a staff, which is higher level. 1) In a way, you are getting punished. The majority of items available in LFR mods are weapons and armor, leaving some implements hard to come by. For example, only two rods can be found in 1-4 mods. To find that you missed one of your two chances to get the item you need because everyone else at the table wanted the extra XP and gold is punishment. It's implicit punishment imposed by the writers of the mods (by not having balanced treasure options) and the rules (by barring you from taking an item because you played high, a decision you might not have had any control over). Plus, it's punishment for implement characters to have to accept less gold and XP to get a +1 implement when melee characters don't have to make that sacrifice for +1 weapons and armor. 2) Plus, as someone else has already mentioned, you can't play the mod more than once. So if you miss your one or two chances to get the item you need, sorry. Notice that melee characters rarely have this problem. Sure, maybe the level 3-4 player wants the level 2-3 item, but I think they can just wait a bit and buy it with gold and be better off. 3) Another source of punishment. Melee characters don't have to save up money to get +1 magic weapons and armor. They're all over the place. Plus, it's so much fun to have to play 8+ mods before I've saved up enough gold for a +1 implement.
#25 _Mithreinmaethor_ Jun 25, 2009 14:58:32	1) In a way, you are getting punished. The majority of items available in LFR mods are weapons and armor, leaving some implements hard to come by. For example, only two rods can be found in 1-4 mods. To find that you missed one of your two chances to get the item you need because everyone else at the table wanted the extra XP and gold is punishment. It's implicit punishment imposed by the writers of the mods (by not having balanced treasure options) and the rules (by barring you from taking an item because you played high, a decision you might not have had any control over). Plus, it's punishment for implement characters to have to accept less gold and XP to get a +1 implement when melee characters don't have to make that sacrifice for +1 weapons and armor. 2) Plus, as someone else has already mentioned, you can't play the mod more than once. So if you miss your one or two chances to get the item you need, sorry. Notice that melee characters rarely have this problem.3) Another source of punishment. Melee characters don't have to save up money to get +1 magic weapons and armor. They're all over the place. Plus, it's so much fun to have to play 8+ mods before I've saved up enough gold for a +1 implement. 8+ modules to save up to get a +1 implement. Maybe my math is a little fuzzy but a +1 anything is 360 gold. You get 75 (low) / 100 (high) per module if you choose an item. At 1st level you would only need to play 3 modules (4 if you took an item in one of them) to purchase a +1 anything. Your being a bit over dramatic. The modules are not meant to be written so that something is available for everyone. Only a module written by your GM in a home game could do that. I am still in favor of them doing bundles exactly like the bundles in the My Realms adventures.
#26 Pauper Jun 25, 2009 17:11:34	To find that you missed one of your two chances to get the item you need because everyone else at the table wanted the extra XP and gold is punishment. It's implicit punishment imposed by the writers of the mods (by not having balanced treasure options) and the rules (by barring you from taking an item because you played high, a decision you might not have had any control over). I agree with those who argue that this is not 'punishment'; you either play the mod down and get the treasure you want, or play the mod up and get extra gold and XP. Either way, you're rewarded. And, since this is a team game, you can't simply assume that every decision that's good for the team will also be good for you personally. Now, if you want to argue that less common implements are difficult to find in published adventures, likely because authors don't want to feel that they're 'punishing' non-implement characters by including items they can't take, I'd be more sympathetic to your argument. (See your point #3 below.) Plus, it's so much fun to have to play 8+ mods before I've saved up enough gold for a +1 implement. Purchased items don't count against your 'found item' slots -- so there's no reason not to grab a high-level item, sell it, and use the gold to buy the low-level item you wanted from the previous adventure. Do it in one adventure (or two at most), not eight. -- Pauper
#27 kinevon Jun 25, 2009 22:42:05	Now, if you want to argue that less common implements are difficult to find in published adventures, likely because authors don't want to feel that they're 'punishing' non-implement characters by including items they can't take, I'd be more sympathetic to your argument. (See your point #3 below.) Purchased items don't count against your 'found item' slots -- so there's no reason not to grab a high-level item, sell it, and use the gold to buy the low-level item you wanted from the previous adventure. Do it in one adventure (or two at most), not eight. 1) "less common implements" unfortunately includes most ANY implements for PH1 classes, and any implements introduced in Arcane Power and/or PH2. Not what I would necessarily call "less common", unless in comparison to weapons in general. 2) You would have to take an item 4 levels ABOVE the item you want/need, to start. In order to SELL said item, it then cannot be more than 4 levels above your level. If that isn't enough of an issue, that translates, at 1st level, into a 5th level item, and a plain +1 implement. To be short: what a waste. As has been mentioned before, the LFR treasure bundle system was a nice attempt, but it has serious flaws in execution. It cannot really handle a game system where Wizards alone have 5 implement choices, and the non-vanilla enhancements are not cross-implement compatible.
#28 elder_basilisk Jun 26, 2009 1:28:07	1) "less common implements" unfortunately includes most ANY implements for PH1 classes, and any implements introduced in Arcane Power and/or PH2. Not what I would necessarily call "less common", unless in comparison to weapons in general. Agreed. There are actually only two implement choices that are actually easy to find: heavy blades (swordmages, characters with arcane implement proficiency: heavy blade, wizards of the spiral tower (not that that is relevant yet) and eladrin wizards with eladrin sword magic) light blades (sorcerers, swordmages, and characters with arcane implement proficiency: light blades). For characters who use staves, wands, rods, holy symbols, tomes, orbs, totems, etc, they are lucky to be able to find a magic implement that is not lower level than they are, let alone one they actually want. It is enough to make arcane implement proficiency and/or eladrin sword wizardry top flight feats if only because it solves the problem of not being able to find the implement you want. That is not a good thing.
#29 elder_basilisk Jun 26, 2009 1:35:30	Also note that there is no need to create this problem. The reasoning behind high-tier only treasure is clear. It is an extra reward for extra risk and is aimed at characters in the upper end of the level band. The reasoning behind low tier only treasure is what exactly? The low level items would be too powerful for higher level PCs? I can understand writers picking items that they think are appropriate to the mod but once that is done, there is really no reason to deselect those items. The treasure is abstract enough that characters rarely notice where they picked up the various items anyway. Occasionally they are found and used in-game but if the NPC who approaches you at the end of the mod is willing to sell you one more item or an item that you have not yet seen, it will hardly cause the logic of the system to come crashing down. It's a simple fix to start making low-tier treasure available when playing high tier. It won't solve all of the problems that we have with the treasure bundle system, but it would be a good start. Just like aspirin won't cure cancer but you should still have some in your medicine cabinet for when you have a headache, the powers that be should fix this problem even though it is a small step. It is also an easy step so the relevant question is why not fix it?
#30 gomeztoo Jun 26, 2009 1:47:22	Playing low tier should not be 'punished' by giving out less treasure bundles than high tier. So when you have a high tier only treasure bundle, you'll have a low-tier only treasure bundle. I am very much against giving high tier more treasure options than low tier. I can see that that that appeals to people who only play high tier, but not everybody does that. Note that I think magic quarterstaffs can be used as implements, so staffs should be available as weapons in a fair number of bundles.
#31 kinevon Jun 26, 2009 8:19:40	Playing low tier should not be 'punished' by giving out less treasure bundles than high tier. So when you have a high tier only treasure bundle, you'll have a low-tier only treasure bundle. I am very much against giving high tier more treasure options than low tier. I can see that that that appeals to people who only play high tier, but not everybody does that. Note that I think magic quarterstaffs can be used as implements, so staffs should be available as weapons in a fair number of bundles. Unlike EB, I am not advocating adding the low-tier bundles to those availabe when playing high-tier. However, I am fully in favor of each module, including pre-existing ones, gaining an additional treasure bundle choice, the "Any item of you rlevel or less from any PH" one although I wouldn't think adding "or any AV" would be too much oif a breaker. Or, as an alternative, adding additional bundles IN GENERAL to the mods. Right now, counting playtests, you have 18 (yes, EIGHTEEN!) class choices available. That doesn't count the fact that each class, except Mnks, has at least two variations available, which can change more than the flavor of the class. For example, the current Cleric variations literally change the importance to the cleric of a weapon vs a holy symbol. In general, at most, the writer's guidelines allow the inclusion of 8 bundles, of which there is a cap in place of 2 of them being limited to one tier or the other, leaving 6 bundles available per tier. Add-in that ritual scrolls and/or ritual books fill bundle slots, and you wind up with, frequently, less choices of magic items t choose from than there are PCs in the party. Maybe that was to help simulate the "4 items for 5 PCs per level" feel of the DMG's campaign guidelines. Doesn't work, especially with some of the non-optimal choices available. A plain vanilla +1 weapon using up a bundle slot>? Please! Let's see, I think only Wizards can normally use staves as implements, and that ignores the other 4 implement choices that even a Wizard could have. Heck, the Wizard builds I am trying to decide between to play tomorrow both are going to be Tome of Readiness builds, despite their other differences. And I understand, going in, as an experienced LFR GM, that Tome implements are currently rare to non-existent as treasure bundles in the current crop of modules... For a new player, new to LFR and/or 4th Edition, and probably new to RPGA, some of the bundle decisions could be off-putting. To be honest, with the new untracked PCs, I honestly think that, especially if you GM for a fairly consistent group of players/PCs, the existing bundles in modules should be replaced with an option for the GM to substitute in items of the same level as the current items, but of his (or her, not meaning to come off as sexist) choice, with an eye on his PCs. Maybe even go so far as to use the "get a list" recommendation from the DMG. I admit that this wouldn't work as well at a convention slot, but I think the drawbacks would be less pronounced than they currently can be for some PC builds. YMV.
#32 Bigfluffylemon Jun 26, 2009 8:40:45	Unlike EB, I am not advocating adding the low-tier bundles to those availabe when playing high-tier. However, I am fully in favor of each module, including pre-existing ones, gaining an additional treasure bundle choice, the "Any item of you rlevel or less from any PH" one although I wouldn't think adding "or any AV" would be too much oif a breaker. Any item of level or less from the PHB/PHBII/AP is probably more appropriate, so that users of totems, songblades, tomes etc. can choose one as a bundle option. As it stands, the only way to get a totem is to buy one or use a 'magic implement +X' vanilla bundle choice.
#33 elder_basilisk Jun 26, 2009 9:02:39	Playing low tier should not be 'punished' by giving out less treasure bundles than high tier. So when you have a high tier only treasure bundle, you'll have a low-tier only treasure bundle. I am very much against giving high tier more treasure options than low tier. I can see that that that appeals to people who only play high tier, but not everybody does that. Note that I think magic quarterstaffs can be used as implements, so staffs should be available as weapons in a fair number of bundles. Playing low tier is already "punished" (if you can call it that) by generally getting lower quality bundles than high tier. Getting an extra bundle at high tier will not change the fact that, in general, high tier treasure is better than low tier. All it will do is remove the odd situation that for certain characters in certain mods, low tier treasure is better than high tier. In any event, eliminating the difference between low tier and high tier entirely would still be an improvement over the current system if you insist that somehow having one more bundle at high tier would be "punishing" low tier players but the current system of generally better bundles is not. And if you're worried about first level characters getting +2 magic weapons, that cat is already out of the bag. As far as only playing high tier, I suppose "everyone" may not do that, but it is awfully close. At least in the greater San Francisco bay area, I have neither seen nor heard of a low tier table being played in something like ten months. Once people figured out that: A. A lot of high tier mods have +2 weapons while low tier ones are stuck at +1. B. This isn't LG where higher tiers were actually likely to kill an unprepared or underpowered party. C. The general difficulty level of the campaign is such that only high tier mods are going to even make a pretense of challenging even poorly balanced groups of low-level characters playing up. everyone stopped playing low tier.
#34 christopher_rowe Jun 26, 2009 9:15:48	The quickest "fix" for implement users looking for goodies that I've found is to play a MYRE module.
#35 battles14 Jun 26, 2009 10:41:00	In any event, eliminating the difference between low tier and high tier entirely would still be an improvement over the current system. In my opinion, that's ultimately what it comes down to. The system as it currently is unfair, hurting some PCs. (And to preempt the argument, it's unfair because some classes have a better chance to find useful items playing high than others). Allowing low-tier items at high tier wouldn't harm anyone. Those people who play high for the better items would take those items regardless, and players who choose to voluntarily take a lower-powered item that fits with their character could do so as well. Retaining the high-level only items would also be fair, since it rewards parties that defeat a more challenging mod. I agree with those who argue that this is not 'punishment'; you either play the mod down and get the treasure you want, or play the mod up and get extra gold and XP. Either way, you're rewarded. That's punishment. Certain classes shouldn't have to play the mod low, taking less gold and XP, and likely ticking off everyone else at the table to get an item that fits with a character. Fighters and rangers don't have to do that; there's armor and +2 weapons well-distributed throughout the mods as a whole. When the rules force me to make a sub-optimal decision that others don't have to make, that's a punishment. Or at the very least discrimination. The quickest "fix" for implement users looking for goodies that I've found is to play a MYRE module. That's unfair as well. A 2nd-level fighter can play AGLA 1-1 (low or high) and pick up a +2 Magic Weapon, usable immediately. A 2nd-level Wizard can't get a +2 implement in MYRE until 6th level. I understand the argument about finding certain items in certain situations, and the luck of the draw, but in my opinion, this goes deeper than that. Given the current distribution of treasure throughout the mods, and the general player preference for playing high, the rules create a situation where certain characters are at an inherent disadvantage when trying to find useful magic items; that is clearly at odds with the aims of LFR. Allowing characters to choose low-tier only items when playing high-tier is a simple solution which has little if any detrimental effect. With all due respect to those who disagree, this one is a no-brainer.
#36 bgibbons Jun 26, 2009 12:08:09	Another way it plays out is that you are following the guidelines, which make it a pretty strong suggestion that you should have low and high tier items. I think you're making a few assumptions here which aren't necessarily valid: Low-tier only items are mandated by the writer's guidelines. While items above a certain level shouldn't show up in a low-tier adventure (and hence need to be high-tier only), there is nothing in the writer's guidelines which mandates that you need to have an equal number of high-tier and low-tier only items. The only mandate is that there is a maximum for the total number of items. It certainly appears to be an unwritten rule, however. I think this is an important enough issue that it should be considered, discussed, and if it becomes a rule, be made so explicitly and deliberately. (Indeed, I note that an adventure which was released just this week, Show AKAN1-4
#37 Pauper Jun 26, 2009 13:50:13	Let's see, I think only Wizards can normally use staves as implements... That would mean you're ignoring Druids, Invokers, Artificers, and Sorcerers. Convenient, that. Also, while I tend to appreciate Elder Basilisk's feedback on many issues, I think he's just wrong about the rarity of implements; my primary character is a staff wizard, and the very first adventure in which I participated had a magic staff. I could have had three or four by now if I were so inclined. Based on a list of adventure spoilers for 48 different published LFR adventures (not including Weekend in the Realms, which was only available for one weekend of play, nor the ADAP adventures, which not everyone plays, nor QUES 1-1, which not everyone will qualify for): - 13 have magic holy symbols, of which 8 are available to 1st level characters - 8 have magic orbs, of which 3, including the orb of inevitable continuance are available to 1st level characters - 6 have magic rods, of which 2 are available to 1st level characters - 11 have magic staves, of which 3 are available to 1st level characters - 8 have magic wands, of which 3 are available to 1st level characters - there are no implements exclusive to PH2 classes So if you're playing an implement user from PH1, you should have no trouble getting ahold of a magical implement, even at first level -- there are at least two different adventures for each implement at levels 1-4, and significantly more as you go up in level. (If you're playing a PH2 implement class, perhaps playing adventures developed prior to PH2 is not the best strategy -- it's hard to blame this on the RPGA writers, who don't gain any more advanced access to material than the rest of us do.) Even in a home-run game, there's no guarantee that you'll get precisely the magic item you want as a 'treasure drop'; that's why there are rules for creating and purchasing magic items, after all. -- Pauper
#38 joshuarandall_dup Jun 26, 2009 14:32:34	Based on a list of adventure spoilers for 48 different published LFR adventures You are leaving out a critical part of the analysis, namely, how many of those adventures have weapons in them? I used a more up-to-date version of the spoiler list (which I maintain). I excluded WEEK, QUES, the SPECS, and the ADAPs. This left 54 adventures. * 37 contain weapons * 15 holy symbol * 10 orb * 8 rod * 17 staff * 12 wand * 1 totem (and just for reference) * 34 contain armor * 39 contain rituals Note that because a few adventures contain a generic implement, this list double-counts in a few places. But anyway, if you were to randomly pick an adventure to play (and met the level requirements), there is a much higher chance that it will contain a magic weapon than that it will contain any given type of implement. n fact, you are over twice as likely to find a weapon as you are to find an implement. The problem is really with the design of 4e itself: the game distinguishes implements from each other at a much higher level of granularity than it distinguishes weapons from each other. Unfortunately, this means that any implement enhancement other than a vanilla +X becomes implement specific, whereas most weapon enhancements are not weapon specific. The differentiation between low- and high- treasure bundles only exascerbates the existing problem.
#39 gomeztoo Jun 26, 2009 15:44:43	However, I am fully in favor of each module, including pre-existing ones, gaining an additional treasure bundle choice, the "Any item of you rlevel or less from any PH" one although I wouldn't think adding "or any AV" would be too much oif a breaker. It is a simple solution, but I don't know if it is feasable to do it always. It is added to some adventures, maybe that will be enough. Gomez
#40 Keithric Jun 26, 2009 15:58:37	Well, it would be feasible if it were added to the CCG as an always available option.
#41 Pauper Jun 26, 2009 18:59:28	You are leaving out a critical part of the analysis, namely, how many of those adventures have weapons in them? And why, exactly, is this relevant? I'm serious. Is the argument that there should be as many weapons as implements? If so, that's pretty silly, given that the most commonly shared implement type (staff) is shared by five classes, and there are as many or more classes just in the original PH that can use weapons as a primary power focus (fighter, paladin, rogue, warlord, melee ranger, weapon-based cleric). There will generally be more characters who can use weapons than characters who don't, so it shouldn't be surprising that weapons are more prevalent than non-weapons. (And the armor argument doesn't wash with me, since some of those armors are specific classes of armors that not all characters will want or use -- breaking down the armor types will likely show a similar pattern to the weapon vs. non-weapon comparison, only this time comparing commonly used (leather, hide, chain) vs less-commonly used (cloth, scale, plate).) What the argument seems to boil down to is that people are upset that non-sword implements aren't as common as weapon types that can be used for heavy or light blades, and thus that swordmages have an 'unfair' advantage over other implement users in found treasure acquisition. I see this as irrelevant for two reasons: 1) The ability of a swordmage to use a blade as an implement is part of the design of the class; complaining about it is akin to complaining that it's unfair to fighters that wizards have so many attacks against non-armor defenses, so the fighters should get more. It's a failure to understand the design features underlying the game structure. 2) Even if there are fewer implements than weapons in treasure bundles, it doesn't follow that implements are thus harder to get, since the rules allow you to take an item you can't use, sell it for gold, and use that gold to purchase an item you can use. The only situation in which this is non-optimal is if you're a low-level character playing up in a mod where the high-level items are more than 4 levels above yours, in which case I don't see why the module designers should change the rules to cater to your desire to have both increased XP and gold gain as well as optimal treasure selection. Ultimately, the problem boils down to characters at the lower end of the level range playing up in modules, which I don't feel should be encouraged. If lower-level characters are going to consistently 'play up' and demand the benefits of playing down as well, then why even have distinct lower-level and higher-level versions of the modules? -- Pauper
#42 Alphastream Jun 26, 2009 19:18:59	I think you're making a few assumptions here which aren't necessarily valid: Low-tier only items are mandated by the writer's guidelines. While items above a certain level shouldn't show up in a low-tier adventure (and hence need to be high-tier only), there is nothing in the writer's guidelines which mandates that you need to have an equal number of high-tier and low-tier only items. The only mandate is that there is a maximum for the total number of items. You make good points here and in the rest of your post. I can't speak to what the writer's guidelines intend. On my own reading, they strongly suggest that each module should have a Low and High option. They state that a module may have 4-8 bundles in one bullet, then in another say that a mod with 4 bundles should have at least one High and one Low pick (leaving 2 other options!). From that, it would seem to me that having more bundles should necessarily also include that condition. Nothing says the Low/High picks must include something outside of the level range of the other tier. It just makes sense a lot of times when you try to cover the spread with a different + of item. It doesn't happen as much with something that doesn't have a plus, or if you have a certain item(s) in mind as an author. My guess is that those people reviewing the mods don't likely catch some of these things, if they are meant to be caught. Myself as an author, I had bigger things to worry about than bugging an admin for the exact nature of bundles. I used high and low in my module because it seemed to be the intent of the rules. They aren't the rules as I would write them, but it isn't my job to write the rules for the campaign, so I respected what seemed to be the intent. In terms of catching any exceptions (if indeed they are things that should not be done, such as some of what you mention that seem to be exceptions), I would not expect any playtesters to catch this. I've DMd three playtests and never looked at item level. Rewards often change from playtest to finished version anyway. I think admins and WotC are likely busy enough not to check this carefully either, except when they see items that are too strong or that are likely to be problem items. So, the exceptions might just be mistakes. Or, maybe the guidelines aren't hard and fast rules. I have no idea. I really don't think it is a big deal for High tables to miss out on a Low pick. Most of the time, it isn't a pick you wanted. If it is, you can either afford it or will be able to afford it fairly soon. Most optimizers would likely tell you to wait and buy it. So, it isn't a really huge loss even if it is a perceived loss. And, not having the pick is a non-issue if we fix the core problem with the lack of sufficient picks overall. Increasing the number of bundles seems to be the best way to address the various issues. It should not vastly hurt the challenge level of the game and should make rewards more... rewarding.
#43 telvin3d Jun 26, 2009 19:36:19	What the argument seems to boil down to is that people are upset that non-sword implements aren't as common as weapon types that can be used for heavy or light blades, and thus that swordmages have an 'unfair' advantage over other implement users in found treasure acquisition. No. People are upset that there are items necessary to their class that show up less than 15% of the time. And to add insult to injury the few times that they do show up they can't be taken because the party played up, either because they wanted a challenge or because they were legitimately in the upper half of the level band. As an example, grand total in all adventures released to date (not including ADAPs or WEEK), there are 9 rod choices. This includes all level modules including several that provide generic +x implements as rewards. Now, if you don't include any of the low treasure bundle rods, you choices drop to 7. This is in 62 released modules. So, best case if you include all 9 rod choices, a rod user sees a rod less than 15% of the time. If you don't include the low tier rods that drops to just above 10%. Characters seem to average about two levels ever 5 modules, so it is (roughly) 25 modules to take a character from level 1 to level 11. As such it is possible and not even statistically unlikely for an implement user to reach paragon without seeing a single usable implement. Can you imagine the frustration involved if the only usable item you see can't be taken because you played up instead of down? No one is saying that swordmages (or anyone else that uses standard weapons for that matter) have some sort of unfair advantage. This is not about pointing fingers or trying to pull you down somehow. This is about saying that the current treasure actively hurts the playability of roughly half the classes at the table and that the decision to restrict some items to lower level characters exacerbates the problem. There are good game mechanic reasons and balance reasons that you would not want a level 4 character to have the same standard access to items meant for 7th level characters. But there is no balance reason to restrict characters in the higher half of the level band from lower band items.
#44 battles14 Jun 26, 2009 20:47:56	Even if there are fewer implements than weapons in treasure bundles, it doesn't follow that implements are thus harder to get, since the rules allow you to take an item you can't use, sell it for gold, and use that gold to purchase an item you can use. That argument, while correct, doesn't explain how this is fair. The majority of characters do not have to do this; they save up their gold for items not found in the mods since the items they need - usually magic weapons and armor - are plentiful in the mods. And since the 20% selling rules make a 6th level item equivalent to a 1st level one, I'm still at a disadvantage. Let me remix a previous example. A 2nd level Fighter can choose a +2 Magic Weapon and use it immediately. A 2nd level Warlock can take that same weapon, sell it, and use the gold to purchase a +1 Magic Rod. Please explain how this is fair. I really don't think it is a big deal for High tables to miss out on a Low pick. Most of the time, it isn't a pick you wanted. But it is a big deal for characters who would want that pick and can't replay the mod in order to get it. Allowing those characters access to the low-level only item alleviates that problem without giving those characters an advantage, since they're purposely taking a lower-powered item. If it is, you can either afford it or will be able to afford it fairly soon. That's not a good argument when a) I'd like to use a +1 implement now, not in a couple mods when I can afford it but everyone has +2 weapons, and b) most other characters don't have to wait until they can afford it. As an example, grand total in all adventures released to date (not including ADAPs or WEEK), there are 9 rod choices. This includes all level modules including several that provide generic +x implements as rewards. Now, if you don't include any of the low treasure bundle rods, you choices drop to 7. This is in 62 released modules. So, best case if you include all 9 rod choices, a rod user sees a rod less than 15% of the time. If you don't include the low tier rods that drops to just above 10%. Allow me to expand on that point. There are only 2 rods available in the Core and Regional 1-4 mods, and one of them happens to be low-tier. Oh, and it's a Rod of Dark Reward, which happens to be pretty useful for a Warlock. Ultimately, the problem boils down to characters at the lower end of the level range playing up in modules, which I don't feel should be encouraged. I completely agree. The problem stems from the mods being too easy. But that's not my characters fault, and it's not the fault of the other people at my table who want to play high. So why should anyone be put at a disadvantage?
#45 kinevon Jun 27, 2009 5:23:42	The quickest "fix" for implement users looking for goodies that I've found is to play a MYRE module. Are there really tome implements in one of the PHBs? I do believe that they were introduced in the Wizard enhancements in Arcane Power, and that no classes in the PH2 use tomes as implements. And that the Wizard I am planning on playing today, if the module comes off to start with, and that no one else there can only play a Controller, is a Tome of Readiness Wizard. Who doesn't use any sort of weapon at all, by the way, he uses Magic Missile as his melee basic attack, thanks to Reaper's Touch. Perfectly legal, completely reasonable, and if a newbie uses the pregen version of this PC, I will have to warn him, right out of the box, that the odds of his finding a magical tome implement, at the current time in LFR, is absolutely nil. Not even in the flexible modules, MYRE and the like, can he hope to ever find a tome to take. Not a good thing to add to someone's introduction to LFR and 4th Ed, is it?
#46 syrinx_dm Jun 27, 2009 10:16:23	The My Realms modules do not help Tome users, but Totem users can benefit from them. Generic Magic Implements can be found in Core 1-4 (P2): Magic +2 DRAG 1-4 (P2): Magic +2 SPEC 1-2 (P3): Magic +3
#47 SYB Jun 28, 2009 9:47:30	I used a more up-to-date version of the spoiler list (which I maintain). I excluded WEEK, QUES, the SPECS, and the ADAPs. This left 54 adventures. * 37 contain weapons * 15 holy symbol * 10 orb * 8 rod * 17 staff * 12 wand * 1 totem (and just for reference) * 34 contain armor * 39 contain rituals Note that because a few adventures contain a generic implement, this list double-counts in a few places. This list leaves out a lot of pertinent information. You break implements into categories, but not weapons or armors. Off the top of my head, I can think of a weapon choice that is "Long Bow only", another that is ranged weapon only, and another that is hammers, maces, etc. (blunt only). Also, one of the weapon choice that I remember is +1 (practically not a real choice). Similarly, my fighter never found armor in his first 4 levels of play because every armor choice I found in the adventure set he ran was not available for scale or plate armor (only chain and below). Categorize the weapons and armors and this list would actually be an accurate representation. -SYB
#48 kinevon Jun 28, 2009 22:32:09	The My Realms modules do not help Tome users, but Totem users can benefit from them. Generic Magic Implements can be found in Core 1-4 (P2): Magic +2 DRAG 1-4 (P2): Magic +2 SPEC 1-2 (P3): Magic +3
#49 _Mithreinmaethor_ Jun 28, 2009 23:05:36	The GM running the module should not even tell you what was available at tiers other than yours, and people shouldnt really know what is available in the module prior to playing it either.
#50 kinevon Jun 28, 2009 23:43:03	The GM running the module should not even tell you what was available at tiers other than yours, and people shouldnt really know what is available in the module prior to playing it either. Replayers, GMs playing, and there are plenty of other ways to find out what the treasure is, both "legal" and not. Not to mention that most GMs in my local area just hand out the rewards page for people to look at to decide what they want to take.... This isn't like LG, although I admit to upset in a few modules there, as well. Playing a module at APL4, and finding that an item my character has a jones for is available at APL6+ only. And it was an item that in my region was a rare item to find....
#51 syrinx_dm Jun 28, 2009 23:45:04	Show Yes, I meant H not P Given that Tomes and Totems were not around when the 1-1's and 1-2's were written, it's not all that surprising they are hard to come by.
#52 Bigfluffylemon Jun 29, 2009 4:48:54	I fear we're getting off-topic. The implement discussion in LFR treasure has been done to death. I hope that that particular gripe has been taken on board by the writers and campaign staff, although the way WOTC has designed implements, I don't see how they could fix the LFR problem without completely changing how implements are handed out (any implement of level 8 or lower as a bundle goes against the idea that you use what you find, to some extent...) But that particular issue is exacerbated by some implements only being available at low tier. I don't think having more treasure available at high tier is 'punishing' anyone. Higher risk = higher reward, and it just doesn't make sense that the better reward for some characters comes from playing low. I don't think that anyone playing a mod at low tier would feel hard-done-by if they discovered that high tier play had one or two more bundle picks, but it is clear from this thread that the vice-versa situation annoys a lot of people. By the way, if you really want to, you can always play high for the challenge and take the low tier rewards (i.e. really play low, but use DME to use the high level fights), but that would involves the whole party agreeing, and using all the low tier rewards - XP, gold and treasure. No high tier XP and low tier treasure.
#53 joshuarandall_dup Jun 29, 2009 11:55:26	Getting off-topic so I'll s-block this whole conversation about implements. Show You break implements into categories, but not weapons or armors. That is a fair point. However, the majority of weapon enhancements can apply to any weapon, or apply to broad categories of weapon (any melee, any ranged). Every single implement enhancement is by definition specific to that type of implement. Right? If you find an XXX of inevitable continuance, it is always an orb. If you find an XXX of reaving, it is always a rod. And so forth. Like I said, this is (in my view) a flaw in the design of 4e... not an LFR flaw. Also, one of the weapon choice that I remember is +1 (practically not a real choice). But for people looking for an implement, a +1 is far too rare. Most adventures that have implements, have a specific implement. Which is more flavorful, but less useful to the players in aggregate. Similarly, my fighter never found armor in his first 4 levels of play because every armor choice I found in the adventure set he ran was not available for scale or plate armor Bad luck. Heavy armor is reasonably common. Maybe you should use the spoiler list to choose adventures that have the type of armor you want. ;)