First off, I just want to say that for the most part, I really like what they've done with the magic items in this edition. I like the rarity ratings, attunement limits, etc. However, I've noticed some strange inconsistencies with the magic items. Some magic items are better than others with the same or lower rarity ratings. For example:
The staff of fire and staff of frost are both very rare items, yet they are nowhere near as good as the staff of power, which is also very rare.
The potion of flying only lets you fly for 1 hour, but is a very rare item. Yet the carpet of flying, also a very rare item, lets you fly as much as you want. The broom of flying is uncommon and also lets you fly as much as you want. Also, the winged boots (uncommon) and wings of flying (rare) are both inferior to the broom of flying because they have time limits on their use. But they're still far better than the potion, since they recharge after being used.
A potion of storm giant strength and belt of the storm giant both are legendary items and both give you a strength of 29, but the potion lasts for 1 hour while the belt is a permanent item.
In general, the consumable items fare the worst. Potions, scrolls, fireball beads, etc. are all inferior to items like wands, staffs, belts, etc. of similar rarity ratings because they are consumed after being used. One would think that a consumable item would be more powerful than a permanent item of the same rarity, but that often isn't the case.
FallingIcicle wrote:
As per the guidelines in the DMG, consumable items are worth approximately half the cost of their permanent counterparts. A very rare potion is therefore less valuable than a very rare carpet of flying. Looking at the item charts, consumables also come up more frequently than permanent items.
Kalani wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Outside of the argument in the thread.
I view the rarity system not in a "this is more powerful than this" type of balance perspective. I see it more as a rising gague of how much the item can disrupt the status quo of adventuring.
Example: Potion of Jumping, rare. (lets just say there is one because I dont have the book on me) vs a Potion of Flying, very rare.
You encounter a wide river. With the Jumping potion you still have to make an athletics check, and therefore can still fail. With the Flying potion you can just fly over it...no rolls needed.
In this way it doesnt matter whether its a potion or a carpet, you're still flying.
That's my two cents. But it's obvious things within tiers are on level footing.
Jenks wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
When I play, what helps me use consumable items wisely is to remember that the game is being run by a human being, and more than that, a friend. Instead of thinking "is it absolutely essential to use this potion now, or might there be a greater need for it later?" I ask myself, "did Mike put this potion in with the expectation that I would use it now, or later?" and knowing every DM I've ever played with, they don't tend to plan too far in advance, so the answer is almost always now, unless the item is connected to one of my character's long-term personal goals, in which case that fact will be telegraphed.
Edit to clarify: This is in response to Vahnyu
That works fine, if one of your goals is to have as many unspent expendables as possible when you are no longer playing that character.
If your goals include actually using your expendables so that it matters that you even had them in the first place, saving them for "I am absolutely certain that if I don't use it right now I'll die" challenges that aren't guaranteed to even happen is not such a good plan.
Devils-Advocate wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
In answer to the OP's original question:
The rarity categories are broad, much the same way we could categorize PCs into "apprentice, heroic, paragon. and epic" tiers (I forget if these are the titles exactly, but that's not the point). A 10th level character is obviously more powerful than a 5th, but they fit in the same general category of "heroic" nonetheless. In the same way, a staff of power is a better very rare item than a staff of frost or fire. They'rej sut on opposite ends of the category.
The question then, is why don't magic items have more granularity, like how PC level is more granular than just tier? I think the answer is that adding granularity adds unneeded expectations. Either you give magic items individual prices, as with 3rd edition, and add the expectation that magic items should be purchaseable, or arrange them by exact level, as with 4th edition, and add the expectation that certain items should be available at certain levels, and not others, which could lead to player entitlement, or simply a DM not feeling like they have the flexibility to give out whatever magic items they feel are appropriate, regardless of level.
None of these situations are insurmountable, and they really just suggest a way of playing rather than enforce it, but I like the feeling of magic items being much more fully whatever the DM feels is appropriate to their game. For instance, I handed a ring of invisibility to a group of 1st level characters, because I weighed the power of the item against what I wanted for the game, and decided it would work. In an earlier edition, I may well have done the same thing, but I might not have even thought to do it. "Legendary" to me feels less like "don't give this to low level players under any circumstance" than a massive gp value or "level 18" would. It's more like, "this item will have a huge effect on your game, so think about it before you throw it in a treasure pile."
So ultiamtely, I'd rather just trust the DM to decide what items to give out to keep things fun and fair, based on their own judgement and how they feel their game should progress, rather than suggest a more specific way of doing it, under the assumption that some DMs will decide to do it a different way.
In answer to the hoarding potions discussion, a quote from White Mage of 8Bit Theater:
"A living Red Mage minus one Cure spell is more versatile than a dead Red Mage."
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
The rarity is meant as a ROUGH approximation of power.
Randomly pick 10 Rare items
Randomly pick 10 Very Rare items
Which group is more powerful.... ta-da, that teir is 'roughly more powerful'
The did not say that "every single very rare is more powerful than every single rare".... to assume that was their intent is to ignore what they actually said.
Hey, if folks want to hoard their limited magic... more power to them. Not my fault, not the games fault; it is their choice. The game does not usually require magic, so not using it shouldn't be that big of a deal, OTOH, using it may make the PCs lives easier... so if they want to use it, more power to them for that too.
The game paradigm is that magic is *RARE*..... if folks don't like that, give out more magic. But even "just" a magic potion is meant to be a big deal....us it as best serves you. If you use it, then you can't use it later. If you never use it, then you might as well just throw it away. This decision making, this tension, is what makes the game exciting. If you were getting a bunch of potions on a regular basis, there is not decisions needed, there is no tension. Bland and blah...
I think it's all really just a matter of personal playstyle. I, being a very risk-averse player (and person in general), would rather retire a character with a bunch of consumables stuck in my inventory knowing I had them as a safety net in case things got dicey as opposed to using them at an inopportune time and living with the thought that I may have wasted them. I know it's just a part of my personality, and I'm well aware that it could easily be a product of bad risk assessment, but that's just how I prefer to play, and I doubt I could be convinced to play another way. This is also compounded by the fact that my current DM almost always rolls on the random loot table for loot, so I can be pretty sure that nothing is given to us with a specific future scenario in mind.
AaronOfBarbaria and Vahnyu both make interetsing points and I kind of agree with aspects of what each has said. I certianly wouldn't want to "waste" a potion that could have been better used elsewhere, but a potion-never-used is an even bigger waste.
As a player, I tend NOT to hoard potions and scrolls. In fact, I tend to use my consumables rather freely. When we find more, the party tends to allocate them to the player who can most use them ... which is often me, because I tend to have the least in my inventory (a virtue of having already used the ones I had before).
As a DM, on the other hand, my players tend to hoard. The real downside to hoarding, in this case, is that I tend to handout less consumables if I know the characters are just going to hoard them, anyway. When I see the party is getting low on such resources, I feel the need to replenish their stock. So, ultimately, if they used more consumables, they would get more consumables.
RE: consumables intentionally placed to help them with specific challenges on the road ahead ... well, I don't typically include such things "randomly," but I do include them. For example, if they're going to face a fire-breathing dragon in the dungeon, then they will NOT find a potion of fire resistance on the orcs they encounter on the way there. (IMO, that just comes off as "a little too convenient" ... which makes it feel a bit cheesy). That's not to say I don't give them consumables that will help them, because I do ... but not randomly. Sometimes, an NPC patron will give them something he knows will help. Sometimes they might find such an item on the body of a dead adventurer who came there with the intention of killing said monster. I guess that's just all part of the illusion, though. The end result is the same: they have a potion or scroll that's meant to help them. Unfortunately, these are the items that tend to get hoarded.
... but again, if they USED the potion of fire resistance to fight the dragon, then they might find another one on the next adventure. So, even if they used the first one against the dragon, they might find another one before they have to fight the Balor.
In the end, I supposed I agree with AaronOfBarbaria more. After all, an item that never gets used is of no value at all. More over, each of those unused consumables represents an opportunity that was wasted ... and that's a much bigger waste than any overeager potion-quaffage could ever be.
But as I said, I see Vahnyu's point, too. Using a potion or scroll when it's most valuable is still better than using it when it is less valuable. I wouldn't want to suck down a healing potion, for example, at the end of the last encounter before a long rest. I want to use it when doing so allows me to stay in the fight.
Kayal wrote:
Devils-Advocate wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
Devils-Advocate wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
I still remember the time that our party knew we had to fight a Black Dragon so we specifically stocked up on Potions of Acid Resistance.
Then in the first round of the fight the Black Dragon surprises us with its Acid Breath before we even had a chance to use the potionsforcing us to fall back on our plan A. 