First and foremost, I'm not looking to complain about any specific item errata with this thread. My issue is with the RPGA rules for replacing or selling a selected item.
One of my characters selected a 16th level Solitaire (Aquamarine) from a mod a while back, thus taking up one of my found item slots. The most recent errata changed the item to a Daily Power (instead of an Encounter Power), and although it still has purpose, I'm not willing to spend one of my Daily Item uses to trigger a basic attack. So I made the decision that I no longer wanted the Solitaire. I searched through all the 16th level or lower Wonderous items looking for an item swap. Unfortunately there was nothing that I wanted at this time. Ultimately I decided to sell the Solitaire at a 20% value.
Here's my problem. I would rather lose the item and simply get my found item slot back. That found item slot means more to me than the 9,000 gold that I gained. It doesn't seem unreasonable for the RPGA rules to allow a character to get their found item slot back if they decide to get rid of the item due to an errata. After all, that character would still be out the gold they could have taken with the "more gold" option when they originally selected the item. You could almost consider that a usage fee.
They pump out so much errata that it only seems fair that we have the option to get our found item slot back if we want it. Basically I would like to see another option added to the RPGA rules. Something like this:
Found magic items:
When a found magic item is affected by an official rules update, the player does not receive any "compensation." They can keep it (using the new rules), they can sell it at 20% of market price, they can drop it for free and regain the previously used found item slot, or they can replace it with a new, legal item of the appropriate type whose item level is less than or equal to the old item’s level.
More debate on this, and why this is a bad idea™ can be found here
The comparison to the more gold option is one of apples to bananas.
More debate on this, and why this is a bad idea™ can be found here
LOL! In that post you're suggesting that characters who have their items errated are lucky. Umm, I would rather my items never be errated. I think it's unlucky to get an item errated.
There are only 30 slots available to a character, I don't see the cheese factor in giving a character their slot back for an errated item. Again, the RPGA rules already allow a character to pretty much change anything they want, but for some reason I'm supposed to believe that Found Item Slots are sacred?
I would agree 100% with you if the RPGA rules and D&D4e in general wasn't so loose already, but it's just the opposite. Not only are the rules flexible, but they put out so much errata (I like to call it endless editing) that it's virtually impossible to keep up with it all. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Now, sure, sometimes they might arguably over-errata an item (Ankhemon's Bracers), but sometimes they might arguably under-errata it (Dice). And, sometimes, you might have chosen something very build specific. You are a leader and you took Healer's Sash specifically because you needed a reactionary heal. That's why you have the ability to sell it or trade it for something of its level or lower in that same slot.
Getting the slot back is unfair. It would allow my warlock to trade their level 1 Rod of Reaving for a level 21 item (or wait until I gain a level and get an even higher level item). That's ridiculous, especially since the errata is completely reasonable (and the item still very useful).
We should not provide such incentive for cheesy play. If we change this rule we will create a huge incentive for players to take items for which they suspect errata will be forthcoming. The incentive should be in the opposite direction.
Remember the concept is to simulate the magic item acquisiton in the DMG, where for most levels you gain one item (or sometimes buy one instead), and generally after 5 or so levels, they become obsolete. With the LFR treasure bundle construct, increasing available "found item" picks later without an opportunity cost early would result in undesirable outcomes for the campaign.
Keith
Also I am starting to dislike the "update it" mentality. I think the game is better after the updates, but these problems need to be caught before a book goes to a printer. Not 6 months after. Something more along the lines of the dragon content. Of course the important thing is to listen to the feedback.
Wasn't there something along those lines in the original LFR ccg-allowing you to retrain your item slots?
Also I am starting to dislike the "update it" mentality. I think the game is better after the updates, but these problems need to be caught before a book goes to a printer. Not 6 months after. Something more along the lines of the dragon content. Of course the important thing is to listen to the feedback.
It's a different mentality/business model, and the same used for video games. You create lots of interesting bits that create a lot of interest and which will interact with the rest of the system in lots of interesting and not completely predictable ways. Therefore, you will have to issue fixes and reign in powerful stuff over time.
The model where you produce a lot fewer errata items either requires a ton of editing, the use of only expert staff (both expensive), or having new content be from a very predictable range of expected and controlled possibilities (which is likely to be less fun and create fewer sales).
I like the ton of new stuff and the possibility of lots of interactions, so I'm totally fine with the errata. I think it is an excellent model for "the huge gaming company". I play several games* that barely change (many of which could use some errata...), so having a super dynamic RPG is something I dig.
* Though Crafty Games did just announce Spycraft 3.0, which I am excited about. Between that and Legend of the Five Rings 4th Ed, it should be a fun mid and end of the year.
By and large, you are not worse off when an item receives errata. The item lacked balance, it was corrected, you have a properly balanced item. You should be fine.
That's the theory, at least. In practice, I find that WOTC overreacts on errata more often than not.
I'm not entirely sure what the big deal was on solitaires, since they already had the "one per encounter" usage limit anyway. I pretty much agree with the OP that the solitaires-as-errata'ed aren't particularly worth using.
By and large, you are not worse off when an item receives errata. The item lacked balance, it was corrected, you have a properly balanced item. You should be fine.
That's the theory, at least. In practice, I find that WOTC overreacts on errata more often than not.
I'm not entirely sure what the big deal was on solitaires, since they already had the "one per encounter" usage limit anyway. I pretty much agree with the OP that the solitaires-as-errata'ed aren't particularly worth using.
As weird as it sounds, I think that it's Mr. Solitaire Violet that caused them to change their minds. With Crit Ranges in 18-20 (Was there a better crit range), the ability to get free action points per combat seems to me to be really powerful, even at Epic.
That said, maybe there is something that they can see happening that isn't out yet, that made them make that change. I am willing to bet it has to do with some kind of broken interaction they found with an Artificer combined with the new stuff from the Dark Sun setting.
Wasn't there something along those lines in the original LFR ccg-allowing you to retrain your item slots?
Yes, but that was for the "wish list" items (which I can't remember what it's proper name was). You had 5 slots per tier you could list items you wanted access to buy from various sources. You could retrain the unused/unpurchased slots to different items as you went along. That was scrapped pretty quickly to just "buy whatever you want" or "magic mart" for ye old Greyhawk veterans.
Its not going to happen, they already modified the CCG to handle this. VCL please just close this thread
that's great that you feel the discussion is over, Unless the discussion turns ugly there is no reason to close the thread just because you feel there's no point in discussing it.
that's great that you feel the discussion is over, Unless the discussion turns ugly there is no reason to close the thread just because you feel there's no point in discussing it.
Agreed. There's no flaming going on, the OP hasn't asked for it to be closed...I see no good reason to close it.
The discussion has been civil, and so long as it remains so, there's plenty of time for people to submit their thoughts and feelings on the matter.
While we know what the rules are now - there's always room to examine the rules, why they exist, and to consider potential for change.
While I disagree (fundamentaly!) with the idea proposed in this thread, there's still no harm being done in discussing it.
If posters feel the thread is going nowhere, they're welcome to bow out of the conversation at any time.
There, now it can be closed if need be. ;)
Wolfstar's a poopy head!
There, now it can be closed if need be. ;)
For stating the truth? I'm confused
*Scowls*
Here is an idea, a card that allows you one exchange of a found magic item for something else of say the same level, or whatever. Can only be used once in a lifetime of a character.