Some mods give out a generic implement as a reward and you get to choose what type of implement.
My 8th level wizard is currently using a staff that she bought for herself since none of the rewards she's encountered matched what she wanted either.
So saving up to buy what you want isn't something that just PHB2 characters have to do.
Eh it's not that bad.
Some mods give out a generic implement as a reward and you get to choose what type of implement.
My 8th level wizard is currently using a staff that she bought for herself since none of the rewards she's encountered matched what she wanted either.
So saving up to buy what you want isn't something that just PHB2 characters have to do.
Oh, I understand that, but at 2nd or 3rd level when all the others have a +1 magic weapon, and the shaman doesn't because he's not supported, I can see where he's going to feel like he's getting the "shaft".
Oh, I understand that, but at 2nd or 3rd level when all the others have a +1 magic weapon, and the shaman doesn't because he's not supported, I can see where he's going to feel like he's getting the "shaft".
Understandably so, and that's something that a player of an implement-wielding class from PHB2 should be made aware of going in.
I'd expect there to be item support for those characters in upcoming modules, but it may be a while.
Everyoen should understand that the modules are nto being written to be compatible with whatever is coming down the pike class wise. You can't do that. So when the newest campaign or setting book comes out and a class uses some funky new widget, you have to expect that you are going to have to save the gp to buy it. New modules will come out and you will see support for it then.
I do understand that, but I also think that a DM should be allowed some flexability with items. Why can't you put in a tome +1 where a wand +1 is? It's not going to break anything.
I do understand that, but I also think that a DM should be allowed some flexability with items. Why can't you put in a tome +1 where a wand +1 is? It's not going to break anything.
If you're running LFR for your home group, and those PCs are only being played in that home group, although it's still outside the bounds of DME, it probably doesn't make much of a difference if you do those sorts of substitutions...it's not like the RPGA police are going to track you down and strip you of your RPGA number.
The issue arises when players go to play in other venues. Particularly with found items, which are often of a significantly higher level than what the PC could buy on his own, if your buddy's 2nd-level Tome Wizard is running around with a level 5 magic tome (when one has never appeared in an LFR module), and someone else sees that he has that, it'll lead to questions, at least.
With the proliferation of new magic items (and new implement types), I do think it'd be advisable for the authors / staff to put in a certain number of less-specific bundles (such as "any level 5 implement"). But, up until now, that simply hasn't been the RPGA's general philosophy on the topic.
I do understand that, but I also think that a DM should be allowed some flexability with items. Why can't you put in a tome +1 where a wand +1 is? It's not going to break anything.
Not break anything? Right... until your buddy Dm starts giving you +2 items in place of that +1 item. And every bundle is a level +4 item. Etc. etc.
No, in RPGA games all rewards are dictated by the campaign/module. Even with the My Realms adventures that will be forthcoming, they will list what can be given as rewards.
Allowing DMs to do that is just a bad, bad, bad idea. Did I say it was bad?
LFR will not allow the DM to do substitutions of magic items, unless explicitly stated in an LFR adventure treasure section.
Keith
If you're running LFR for your home group, and those PCs are only being played in that home group, although it's still outside the bounds of DME, it probably doesn't make much of a difference if you do those sorts of substitutions...it's not like the RPGA police are going to track you down and strip you of your RPGA number.
The issue arises when players go to play in other venues. Particularly with found items, which are often of a significantly higher level than what the PC could buy on his own, if your buddy's 2nd-level Tome Wizard is running around with a level 5 magic tome (when one has never appeared in an LFR module), and someone else sees that he has that, it'll lead to questions, at least.
I think it's worth being a little clearer on this.
If you are running a home game, and just happen to be using LFR adventures as inspiration for your home game, you can do whatever you want. You can change the adventure; you can change the rewards; you can set the module in Greyhawk for all we care and give everyone +5 vorpal swords. If you are not playing this as an official LFR game, the characters are not official LFR PCs and it doesn't matter what you do.
If you are running an LFR adventure as an official LFR adventure anywhere, including in your home group, then you're expected to abide by the LFR guidelines, of which pretty much the most important one is that a PC does not leave an LFR module with any reward (XP, GP or items) that is not listed as a possible reward in the adventure.
If an LFR PC shows up at a later table (at a game day, convention or what not) and someone recognizes that they have listed rewards on their character sheet that were not given out in an official module, that will generally be considered either deliberate cheating or incompetence. If it just "leads to questions", that will be because gamers are notoriously a conflict-averse group.
At a convention or other event where the DM has others he can pass the situation up to (or any gameday where the DM is not conflict-averse), the player runs the risk of being asked to leave, play another PC, or at the least, be put in the rather embarrassing position of being blind-sided with accusations of having cheated.
As Dragon9 says, this isn't just a bad idea, it's a bad, bad, bad idea. The best outcome is that other players just think you were incompetent; the worst outcome is being seen as someone who deliberately cheats. There are very few ways to get banned from RPGA play; this is one of them.
In either case, you're likely to end up with an unhappy player who you sent out into the wilds thinking they were perfectly fine, only to come back with questions as to why you set them up for these accusations.
Not break anything? Right... until your buddy Dm starts giving you +2 items in place of that +1 item. And every bundle is a level +4 item. Etc. etc.
No, in RPGA games all rewards are dictated by the campaign/module. Even with the My Realms adventures that will be forthcoming, they will list what can be given as rewards.
Allowing DMs to do that is just a bad, bad, bad idea. Did I say it was bad?
Hmm...glad to see you actually read the part where a +1 wand would be substituted with a +1 tome. I never said "substitute a +1 wand with a +2 item."
That would you assuming what the intentions where/are, and I also do not like the insinuation/hint that I would "cheat". I only asked if it would be allowable, and the answer is an overwhelming no.
I never, ever suggested that a DM start "giving away" better items that were listed, only giving ones of same level. But again, the answer is no, so the players who want to use the newer classes/builds will have to be "shafted" until the save up the money for magic items that can be used with their class, while the others (generally) get to pick a new item every level (at least until new modules come out that allow for new classes/builds).
If you are running an LFR adventure as an official LFR adventure anywhere, including in your home group, then you're expected to abide by the LFR guidelines, of which pretty much the most important one is that a PC does not leave an LFR module with any reward (XP, GP or items) that is not listed as a possible reward in the adventure.
If an LFR PC shows up at a later table (at a game day, convention or what not) and someone recognizes that they have listed rewards on their character sheet that were not given out in an official module, that will generally be considered either deliberate cheating or incompetence. If it just "leads to questions", that will be because gamers are notoriously a conflict-averse group.
At a convention or other event where the DM has others he can pass the situation up to (or any gameday where the DM is not conflict-averse), the player runs the risk of being asked to leave, play another PC, or at the least, be put in the rather embarrassing position of being blind-sided with accusations of having cheated.
As Dragon9 says, this isn't just a bad idea, it's a bad, bad, bad idea. The best outcome is that other players just think you were incompetent; the worst outcome is being seen as someone who deliberately cheats. There are very few ways to get banned from RPGA play; this is one of them.
In either case, you're likely to end up with an unhappy player who you sent out into the wilds thinking they were perfectly fine, only to come back with questions as to why you set them up for these accusations.
Yep, understood. I was just asking, because it was a question that came up during character creation.
Hmm...glad to see you actually read the part where a +1 wand would be substituted with a +1 tome. I never said "substitute a +1 wand with a +2 item."
I did read it, and you never actually suggested any limitations on anything. You simply asked why you couldn't swap a +1 tome for a +1 wand as a suggestion long after you led off with "Why can't we substitute magic items?"
There was never anything along the lines of "Why can't we have a rule allowing a DM to swap equal level magic items?" So yes, while your suggestion seems reasonable, the original line of questioning left me skeptical of intentions and throwing up red flags at how it could be abused. (and it would)
There was never anything along the lines of "Why can't we have a rule allowing a DM to swap equal level magic items?" So yes, while your suggestion seems reasonable, the original line of questioning left me skeptical of intentions and throwing up red flags at how it could be abused. (and it would)
Again, you assume that it would be. In our group, no it wouldn't be. Perhaps in your gaming group(s)/circle(s), but not in ours.
Please don't generalize, because not everyone thinks along the same lines you do.
Abusability is one of the reasons behind this.
You can't make rules based on just one group. You need to make them for all groups.
Just because you won't abuse something doesn't mean there aren't folks that will.
-karma
Treasure distribution needs to be fairly tightly controlled in a living campaign.
Abusability is one of the reasons behind this.
You can't make rules based on just one group. You need to make them for all groups.
Just because you won't abuse something doesn't mean there aren't folks that will.
-karma
You are absolutely correct, and I understand that. I just don't appreciate the insinuations that all groups would "cheat" and abuse it.
I thank everyone for their input.
Again, you assume that it would be. In our group, no it wouldn't be. Perhaps in your gaming group(s)/circle(s), but not in ours.
Please don't generalize, because not everyone thinks along the same lines you do.
You obviously have never had to write rules for a living campaign. You have to generalize.
A PC wish list for magic items for a home DM would be pretty easy to deal with if he so desired. It is an interesting concept for a Living campaign, perhaps tricky to implement. I think too much of the open ended, pick something approach dilutes the excitement as well as a bit of randomness in the world of adventuring that I think WotC wants to be there.
Keith
I think too much of the open ended, pick something approach dilutes the excitement as well as a bit of randomness in the world of adventuring that I think WotC wants to be there.
The DMG would indicate that WOTC doesn't actually want any randomness there. Indeed, I don't see a single word even implying that randomness is a good thing. Rather, the treasure section is all about the DM deliberately selecting magic items that match the PCs, with an explicit warning not to put in items that are just going to be sold or disenchanted.
3e (and previous editions) had a table to randomly generate magic items.
4e suggests that DMs ask players for a wish list.
This is a fundamental change in paradigm as to how treasure is to be distributed, and LFR is unfortunately still stuck in the old mindset.
With the last two editions, we've grown to have a greater appreciation for how rules are interconnected, that changes to one system can have unintended consequences elsewhere.
4e's change to specific and limited-appeal magic items (implements used by only one class or even just one build of one class; race/class combinations that might not be perfectly optimized, but with magic items usable just for them) is part and parcel of a treasure system where DMs pick the magic items they're giving out with the PCs in mind.
Getting rid of DM oversight of treasure distribution, and then leaving everything else alone on the grounds that you must abide strictly by the core rules, is like eliminating healing surges from the game, but then claiming that it's an orthodox core rules campaign because you didn't change anything else.
You can't change something that basic and expect the rest of the system to work as designed.
The DMG would indicate that WOTC doesn't actually want any randomness there. Indeed, I don't see a single word even implying that randomness is a good thing. Rather, the treasure section is all about the DM deliberately selecting magic items that match the PCs, with an explicit warning not to put in items that are just going to be sold or disenchanted.
[snip]
This is a fundamental change in paradigm as to how treasure is to be distributed, and LFR is unfortunately still stuck in the old mindset.
Not entirely. First off, the treasure distribution guidelines for the RPGA were given to them by WotC's D&D team. That was explained way back when the campaign first started. So it's not like it was an arbitrary decision by the campaign staff to make that rule, so yes, they do want some randomness. Secondly, that approach works great in a home game, but is more difficult to do in a Living campaign. A steady DM with the same 6 players is in a much better position to do a lot of things than a DM who sees different players every time he runs a game. Thirdly, it's also breaking with the DMG's guidelines by allowing PCs to buy whatever they want. So while you can't have a wishlist (which was attempted when the campaign first started... the ill-fated 5/tier wishlist) that you will be given treasure from, you can have a wishlist that you buy from if you don't get the items you want in treasure bundles.
4e's change to specific and limited-appeal magic items (implements used by only one class or even just one build of one class; race/class combinations that might not be perfectly optimized, but with magic items usable just for them) is part and parcel of a treasure system where DMs pick the magic items they're giving out with the PCs in mind.
Yeah, the implement situation is one that needs to be addressed (and I'm sure they're mulling it over). There have been some good suggestions in threads on how to address that.
The DMG would indicate that WOTC doesn't actually want any randomness there. Indeed, I don't see a single word even implying that randomness is a good thing.
Brian,
I think you might want to rereading the DMG on page 125. If you check their great idea about a wish list, it is to ask each player to write down 3-5 items that they are intrigued by, which are no more than 4 levels above their own level. From that list, you pick one item, and do that for 4 of the 5 players. The 5th player, whether random or rotating, gets no item that level. Between the pick of one of 3-5 items, and the whose sits out, yes, I think that has a certain random aspect to it. Items may be on your wish list, but that does not mean you will get them.
That is a bit different than an exact list, level by level, which must be followed by the DM, which was my point.
Keith
And no Dragon9, I have never had to write for a living game. Does that make my point that the older adventures do not fit with the state of the game as it is now any less valid?
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy playing/DMing LFR, but the dynamics of character classes and builds has changed greatly. While I haven't looked at any of the higher level adventures from the last few, I do know that I have seen a lot of the 1 - 4 adventures (since we are trying to get everyone to 4 - 7 since we have had player loss lately), and I do notice that there is a lot of repetition of the same items. That is why I was asking if it was ok to swap out items of same level (as in my original post a basic +1 magic wand for a basic +1 magic tome), but again, as has been reiterated several times, that is not allowable in a sanctioned LFR game.
And here is another "interesting" situation. Our next session is going to to be Impilitur 1-1, and I don't believe that there is an item listed that any of the players (a dwarven warden, human storm sorcerer, eladrin swordmage, 1/2 orc barbarian, human bard, a shaman) would take.
Honestly, even tables of PHB characters run into adventures in which no one takes any treasure bundles, because there's nothing that appeals or fits well. I've seen it quite often; even with the most basic classes, not every module is going to have appropriate treasure.
Of the classes you listed, only the shaman is really facing a problem with "modules not offering him items he can use", due to using a totem as his implement. All those other classes use "standard" PHB magic weapons or implements (though the bard could also use songblades), and they all use standard armor types.
Implement users, in general, tend to have problems with treasure bundles, because, unlike weapons, implements are almost always type-specific. Your bard or sorcerer are going to have the same kind of struggles finding the "right" implement in bundles that a wizard has had from the start.
The +2 amulet is "not useful"? Even if they can't use it at this moment, it might still be a very worthwhile item to take, and start using when they hit 2nd level.
Honestly, even tables of PHB characters run into adventures in which no one takes any treasure bundles, because there's nothing that appeals or fits well. I've seen it quite often; even with the most basic classes, not every module is going to have appropriate treasure.
Of the classes you listed, only the shaman is really facing a problem with "modules not offering him items he can use", due to using a totem as his implement. All those other classes use "standard" PHB magic weapons or implements (though the bard could also use songblades), and they all use standard armor types.
Implement users, in general, tend to have problems with treasure bundles, because, unlike weapons, implements are almost always type-specific. Your bard or sorcerer are going to have the same kind of struggles finding the "right" implement in bundles that a wizard has had from the start.
The +2 amulet is "not useful"? Even if they can't use it at this moment, it might still be a very worthwhile item to take, and start using when they hit 2nd level.
Implements aren't that much of a problem anymore. There is a feat called "Arcane Implement Proficiency" that lets you use an implement usable by another arcane class, such as a weapon for swordmages, as an implement you can use. Thus you can use a Scimitar +2 or an Orb +2 as an implement even if you are a bard or warlock. There are other ways to increase the number of items your character can use. You may need to research to find those ways.
Implements aren't that much of a problem anymore. There is a feat called "Arcane Implement Proficiency" that lets you use an implement usable by another arcane class, such as a weapon for swordmages, as an implement you can use.
That's handy if you're an arcane class, but for a Shaman or other non-Arcane class, you're up the proverbial creek.
Aaron, does it make it any less valid? No, not really. Although I would say that it's not that the older adventures don't fit the current state of the game as much as it is they don't fit some of the newer classes. As others have pointed out, there can still be useful items.
For example: Personally, I would have taken the +2 amulet and sat on it until I was 2nd level and could use it. Maybe they didn't know they could still take the item even if they weren't high enough of a level to use it? My barbarian took a +2 Vicious Execution Axe in one of the first games he played and sat on it until he was 3rd level. It was worth the wait. (haven't scored a crit yet, but the +2 is very nice)
Also the Rod, if the someone can use it, it's still useful, even if the property doesn't do anything for them. It's still a magic implement. (although I know none of your players are rod proficient)
Newer adventures will address this.
That's handy if you're an arcane class, but for a Shaman or other non-Arcane class, you're up the proverbial creek.
Aaron, does it make it any less valid? No, not really. Although I would say that it's not that the older adventures don't fit the current state of the game as much as it is they don't fit some of the newer classes. As others have pointed out, there can still be useful items.
For example: Personally, I would have taken the +2 amulet and sat on it until I was 2nd level and could use it. Maybe they didn't know they could still take the item even if they weren't high enough of a level to use it? My barbarian took a +2 Vicious Execution Axe in one of the first games he played and sat on it until he was 3rd level. It was worth the wait. (haven't scored a crit yet, but the +2 is very nice)
Also the Rod, if the someone can use it, it's still useful, even if the property doesn't do anything for them. It's still a magic implement. (although I know none of your players are rod proficient)
Newer adventures will address this.
That's what happened, most of them took the amulet, and are going to wait on it.
That's the only, real decent item out of that adventure, IMHO.