Our group, when starting a new campaign, get to choose 3 magic items. One at, one above, and one below, or at least the money to buy those level items if you decided to trade down.
Our DM has dictated that "cloak of walking wounded", "cloak of distortion", "summoning armor", and "armor of repulsion" are broken items and that we cant use them, or he gives us his own discription of how the items will function in play.
What is so broken with these items?
How exactly iis repulsion armor suppose to work? Does it push an enemy away when it comes to attack you, ending their move action, or does it just take them an extra 5ft to move into the adjacent square?
(I'm adding references so people can more easily find these items if they lack DDI).
Cloak of Walking Wounded: AV, page 151. I don't know why the DM sees this item as overpowered. Powerful, yes, but overpowered? Nah. I guess you should ask him why he thinks so if you want to find out.
Cloak of Distortion: AV, Page 151, I can kind of see why your DM might not like this item, but it has siginificant restrictions - and since it only protects against ranged attacks, it is useless against Close and Area attacks - which in my experience make up a decent chunk of attacks that come from afar.You may want to point out the limitations of this cloak to him - he may be lumping "Area" attacks in with Ranged.
Summoned Armor (AV, pg 51) is overpowered, yes. It's the same level as a piece of armor with no enchantment, thus there is absolutely no reason anyone, anywhere, would ever get, say, +3 Scale when they can get +3 Summoned Scale. However, is it broken? Well...that depends on your definition of "broken." In a way, since it completely supersedes another armor type with no drawbacks, it is broken. On the other hand, it is unlikely to affect an adventure or campaign in any significant way, so from a more over-arching general view, it's not broken. Exceptions may occur if you're playing a political intrigue game. This armor becomes more powerful in games where you have to hide the fact that you're armored.
Repulsion Armor: (AV 49) Situationally useful, but this is actually a pretty underpowered armor in my opinion. The armor doesn't stop further movement, so unless the enemy used his last square of movement to get adjacent to you, he can move right back in. Also, you only get one immediate reaction per turn, so it's not like you can keep bouncing the same enemy away in the same round - and if multiple enemies surround you, you can only "repel" one of them. This power's main use is probably against enemies that shift to end adjacent to you - since shifting is usually one square, that would effectively negate their movement. Still, the armor is so corner-case useful I can't see how it would be viewed as overpowered. I'm guessing your DM doesn't know that it doesn't stop further movement, and/or only one immediate action per turn.
Your DM seems rather inexperienced to have chosen these items as "broken," but hey, to each their own. There are plenty of other enchantments to choose from - hopefully your DM doesn't get around to decrying them all as "broken." :P
Our group, when starting a new campaign, get to choose 3 magic items. One at, one above, and one below, or at least the money to buy those level items if you decided to trade down.
Except for that part about the money for trading down, that's the normal rules for starting characters above first level.
Our DM has dictated that "cloak of walking wounded", "cloak of distortion", "summoning armor", and "armor of repulsion" are broken items and that we cant use them, or he gives us his own discription of how the items will function in play.What is so broken with these items?
I only agree that the Cloak of Distortion is overpowered.
Walking Wounded is very very potent, but unless you're a dwarf wouldn't necessarily by overpowered. Plus you are still spending both of those surges. It can be a good thing to have if your party is low on healers.
Summoned Armor is pretty much crap. Seriously, when is this important that you take your armor off? Exactly: The one time a campaign that the DM wants to ambush the PCs while they sleep.
Keeping in mind though that 4th edition doesn't impose "Oh you get sore" limitations, you don't actually have to take off your full plate to sleep.
Otherwise, all it does is help a bit with fluff roleplaying like being at a party where full plate isn't necessarily the height of fashion.
There is a reason that it is "superior" to the plain +2 magic armor you might otherwise have at level 6: This was done intentionally, because nobody likes plain old "+X" items.
So the designers rightly decided that for some items above level 1, that those otherwise undesirable generic +X items can have dinky little benefits as well. Those benefits barely affect anything mechanically -- seriously, what great help is taking your armor off and on except for an occasional skill check?
How exactly iis repulsion armor suppose to work? Does it push an enemy away when it comes to attack you, ending their move action, or does it just take them an extra 5ft to move into the adjacent square?
Repulsion armor is not broken, the DM is likely just reading its effects incorrectly. Actually, it's not that impressive of an item.
It does just what it says: As an Immediate Reaction, you can push an enemy away. If they still have movement, guess what? They can continue and get right back next to you.
This in no way makes you "immune" to melee attacks, because each PC gets a SINGLE Immediate action per round. This means even though it's an encounter-long (Daily) power, a PC can only do that once a round. If he pushes back one monster great -- but he can't push back the second one who comes to him in the same round, or even the same monster if it spends actions to get next to him again.
What it's good for is movement such as when an enemy Shifts next to you, because that's a specific unit of movement that usually takes his whole action. If it Shifts next to you, and you push it back, that move action is wasted. If it Walks next to you, it might be able to continue though. (A keen eye on determining the extent of their movement can be helpful though, for instance if you know an enemy used all his movement just to get adjacent to you, you can Push to effect.
Cloak of Distortion I definitely agree is broken though. I think your DM is 100% right on that one, and I ban it in my games as well.
For a very cheap item, you can get effectively +5 defenses versus Ranged attacks. Now while this isn't all attacks you might suffer at range, such as Area -- it is quite a damn lot of attacks that are being taken out of commission. Especially considering that this item will be chosen by primarily ranged PCs, who rarely are in melee anyhow, it can make them relatively untouchable by monsters. Area attacks are very infrequent on enemy monsters compared to simple Ranged attacks.
If a monster runs up to the Wizard wearing this Cloak, maybe he can claw him or something -- but then the Wizard's just going to get back out of 5 squares and become invisible again.
The wizard isn't going to be able to "back out and become invisable". Not if you are playing right as a DM. Esspecially when its YOUR campain.
To me, Unless you are one of those sort of **** DMs who don't want the cloak simply because nearlly all the battles will be ranged, with the PCs having to jump across roof tops to get into combat. (The monsters keep hiding behing things to avoid ever getting hit or even targetable.) You should instead adjust and redevelop.
Put up brute-type monsters that have the ability to mark just like a fighter. If the wizard shifts, you get an attack. put in more AoE nukers. Look for monsters that say "burst/Blast" but are still single target type of attacks. Develop and evolve.
I've had DMs do this sort of stuff to me, esspecially with my assassin. Its a very new class, and i'm learning how to play it, but they tried limiting how i could use shades form. So i redeveloped, figured out a new stratagy. It should not be beneath the DM (granted if its his campain) to figure out more on how to actually do new things.
As for summoned armor, I only see it being it because its a headache trying to figure if you are in or out of armor. The "I casted the spell of Mordikia's Faithful Watchdog" sort of effect.
He should also target the shapechanging heavy as well.
Yes, there's always the option of going "cold war" to combat the one item the PC has -- being extra careful with monster choice to challenge him, thinking up terrain specifically so as to negate it -- or, we could just leave out the blatantly problematic item.
I've seen the item (Cloak of Distortion) in play for several sessions. This is not a hyperbolic statement to say that it removes 80% of normal threat from the PC who has it, if that PC happens to prefer to stay at range anyway. Even melee characters love it, so they don't have to worry about archers and the like (what's to fear from an archer that's within a single move action?). A Class Feature is one thing -- a level 4 item that half the party wants to have is another.
The party defender, combined with marginally intelligent PC actions, can keep non teleporting monsters firmly in place and out of 5 squares.
Here's a comparison for level 4: Periapt of Proof Against Poison: Resist 5 Poison, gain even more resist 1/day. Cloak of the Walking Wounded: Use 2 surges at the same time when bloodied. Cloak of Distortion: Never fear the majority of Ranged attacks, permanently.
It doesn't take a DM out to ruin your fun to ban a particular item, feat, or power you want. It's preserving the table's fun. Call me crazy, but it gets old as both a player and as a DM for a PC to be untouchable to 1/4 of the methods available to attack him.
EDIT: The best way to deal with any items under question, is to present to your DM why you think it is not problematic, and compare against the DM's thoughts on the matter, in a rational discussion. Ultimately the DM is tasked with trying to maintain the group's sense of fun; sometimes the DM is mistaken, sometimes the player is.
Asking on these boards is a good way to find arguments for or against particular rules element, if you are looking for reasoning. My particular opinion is that Cloak of Distortion is certainly too powerful as written currently.
Having seen Cloak of Distortion in play on several characters, I can say that it is very difficult to deal with. Having used a Robe of Repulsion on my own Wizard, I can also confidently say that Repulsion is not an inherently problematic item -- quite the opposite, because I found so little use from it that I traded it out for a different Robe not too long after.
A Rogue with Repulsion Leather would get more use out of it though, especially if it's a melee Rogue.
EDIT 2: And along the lines of Repulsion: Aside from the 1/round nature and the Daily power usage, it is almost wholly ineffective against creatures with Reach or Move>Attack>Move abilities, and of limited use in a melee consisting of several enemy combatants.
Summoned Armor is pretty much crap. Seriously, when is this important that you take your armor off? Exactly: The one time a campaign that the DM wants to ambush the PCs while they sleep.
Keeping in mind though that 4th edition doesn't impose "Oh you get sore" limitations, you don't actually have to take off your full plate to sleep.
Depending on the campaign, summoned armor is useful in two situations:
1) When you have to hide the fact that you are armored, or you are stripped of your armor for some reason. These are pretty much corner cases. If they are happening a lot, then having summoned armor is just being prepared like a good little Boy Scout. That's something PCs should be rewarded for, not punished by having their tools removed. That's like saying, "There will be a lot of locked doors in this campaign, so nobody is allowed to train the thievery skill."
2) When you are a character who relies on a lot of skills that take armor penalties. Basically it amounts to a more flavorful way of saying "You do not take armor penalties to speed or skills outside of a combat encounter while wearing this armor." Overpowered? Absolutely not. Useful? Definitely, but only for a few types of characters (rangers in heavy armor, for example), and in most cases not as useful as other enchanted armors of the same level.
Of the other items, your DM is probably misreading the effects. I have no idea why he would think summoned armor is overpowered.
> there is absolutely no reason anyone, anywhere, would
> ever get, say, +3 Scale when they can get +3 Summoned
> Scale.
If they ever want to upgrade that +3 scale to be +3 something else scale, putting Summoned on it will typically block that.
Repulsion is excellent to push your attacker next to the Fighter.
If he keeps up his move, he's going to get a (hefty) OA, and then he can't move anymore and has a mark on him.
It's situationally useful on its own but if you add in a party, you can do some really neat things with it. Also nice to push someone back into the Zone he just came out of, for some extra damage.
I doubt it's broken, but I don't think it's useless either.
I don't think any of those items are broken, per se, but I do agree that the Cloak of Distortion can come close.
At one point in my game, both of the defenders in the party had such a cloak. I pointed out to them that any ranged attacker is going to ignore targets they have a hard time aiming at, and would therefore likely be targeting the other characters. When the defenders realized this was making it harder for them to do their job of protecting the party, they both swapped out for other neck-slot items.
Now, if the ranged strikers and controllers thought to use them... well, then we'd have to see.
Right now, the only two items I have banned are the iron armbands of power and the bracers of archery. These two arm slot items grant a significant, mechanical advantage that is simultaneously better than anything else anywhere near their level (for the right characters) and utterly boring.
I had several magic weapons and implements banned in the past, but I have since realized that there are a lot of interesting weapon/implement enchantments, so I got over it. Most importantly, I realized that I had a strong degree of control over what weapons the party actually used, since I tend to give out weapons as the higher-level magic items the party finds (because who doesn't want a better weapon?). This, combined with a personal rule of never giving out the same magic weapon twice, means I'm no longer concerned about it. However, YMMV.
-The Bastard DM (Reformed)
Yes, there's always the option of going "cold war" to combat the one item the PC has -- being extra careful with monster choice to challenge him, thinking up terrain specifically so as to negate it -- or, we could just leave out the blatantly problematic item.
I've seen the item (Cloak of Distortion) in play for several sessions. This is not a hyperbolic statement to say that it removes 80% of normal threat from the PC who has it, if that PC happens to prefer to stay at range anyway. Even melee characters love it, so they don't have to worry about archers and the like (what's to fear from an archer that's within a single move action?). A Class Feature is one thing -- a level 4 item that half the party wants to have is another.
The party defender, combined with marginally intelligent PC actions, can keep non teleporting monsters firmly in place and out of 5 squares.
Here's a comparison for level 4: Periapt of Proof Against Poison: Resist 5 Poison, gain even more resist 1/day. Cloak of the Walking Wounded: Use 2 surges at the same time when bloodied. Cloak of Distortion: Never fear the majority of Ranged attacks, permanently.
I still think you are hyperboling the cloak of distortion personally.
Throw in more AoE enemies. Or do the plain and simple obvious route. (At least to me..) Its quite obvious that Cloak of Distoration is Supirior Concealment with out being it. Set a certian DC per +1 on the cloak for your archers to make. If they beat it (Or if thier passive beats it to lower rolls) then they don't take the -5 penalty.
Then don't stack it with concealment or super concealment.
actually repulsion armor is pretty useful. even if a creature didn't use its last of 6 squares to get you and you push him back, he still can't attack you when he moves back in. why? because the dmn creature was ending its first move when it entered the square adjacent to you anyway so he would have to use a separate move action to come adjacent to you once more. so 2 move actions spent leaves him with only a minor.
i always find it weird when i see other DMs ban stuff. hell a lot of the stuff i see getting banned around here is what i will show my players. sometimes they follow my recommendation and sometimes they don't. at any rate I have never found my games being broken by any items. I am the Dm, I have infinite resources so letting the players have an advantage or two where magic tiems are concerned shouldn't disrupt the challenges I have for them unless I am too slow at adapting.
> get you and you push him back, he still can't attack you
> when he moves back in. why? because the dmn creature was
> ending its first move when it entered the square adjacent
> to you anyway so he would have to use a separate move
> action to come adjacent to you once more.
Every 'step' of movement is counted individually for interrupt/reaction purposes, so it does not 'end his first move' when he first moves adjacent - interrupts/reactions are resolved and then the creature continues moving (if it has movement left and still wants to move).
> even if a creature didn't use its last of 6 squares to > get you and you push him back, he still can't attack you > when he moves back in. why? because the dmn creature was > ending its first move when it entered the square adjacent > to you anyway so he would have to use a separate move > action to come adjacent to you once more. Every 'step' of movement is counted individually for interrupt/reaction purposes, so it does not 'end his first move' when he first moves adjacent - interrupts/reactions are resolved and then the creature continues moving (if it has movement left and still wants to move).
true but the way i see this when you interrupt his move you end it. the guy isn't on some rocket powered roller skate that gives him 30ft of movement no matter what. he isn't knocked back with those skates still powering away and forcing him back into place. no, you knock this guy back and he has make another decision which is do i stay here or do i try to approach again?
For me the point at which a character is forced to make a new decision is where one action begins and where another ends.
> even if a creature didn't use its last of 6 squares to > get you and you push him back, he still can't attack you > when he moves back in. why? because the dmn creature was > ending its first move when it entered the square adjacent > to you anyway so he would have to use a separate move > action to come adjacent to you once more. Every 'step' of movement is counted individually for interrupt/reaction purposes, so it does not 'end his first move' when he first moves adjacent - interrupts/reactions are resolved and then the creature continues moving (if it has movement left and still wants to move).
true but the way i see this when you interrupt his move you end it. the guy isn't on some rocket powered roller skate that gives him 30ft of movement no matter what. he isn't knocked back with those skates still powering away and forcing him back into place. no, you knock this guy back and he has make another decision which is do i stay here or do i try to approach again?For me the point at which a character is forced to make a new decision is where one action begins and where another ends.
That's and interesting approach you have... that is completely not based on anything in the books.
But, so long as you and your players know that it is, in fact, a house rule you are using (meaning they won't be assuming that's just how the book says it works) then you are just fine in my book.
Here are my thoughts
"cloak of walking wounded"- Very powerful, makes the PC harder to kill, but it's not too overpowered as it does burn 2 healing surges.
"cloak of distortion" - as stated by many others- it's situational, close blast/burst and melee don't stop this cloak from working, creatures with reach aren't affected either.
"summoning armor"- As a DM you can limit free actions, it really would only affect skill checks, aside from situations where you need to be able to hide the fact that you're armored.
"armor of repulsion"- 1/day and it's an immediate interrupt, therefore, only 1 monsters can be pushed, send 2 at him and he'll still have to deal with 1, minions work really good against players with this.
Now here's some items that I've banned:
Timeless Locket-1/day minor action to a standard action? *almost* as good as using a second action point in the same combat? That's a bit much for me.
Ring of free time- resist 5 all damage (maybe not that good compared to some other static properties), but the ability to gain a minor action at will once per turn makes this really powerful with some builds: Demigods with encounter powers that are minor attacks, such as Fury's Advance, Off hand Strike, you can lay some nasty hurt, as with this, if you're not moving, you can attack three times with it. Sure 1[w] won't do much, but the static modifiers will add up.
Banning items is not a practice I condone (never once in myDMing career have I stated that a given item was "not allowed" in my campaigns). If you ask me, it ruins the versimilitude of the game. Saying that a certain item doesn't exist within a world strips the setting of its frealism. Granted, the items in question might never have been created within the campaign world, but that doesn't mean that fact should be pointed out; it would suffice to simply have the Players never hear of or encounter the items in question.
Of course, when it comes down to the bottom line, the DM -who put the time and effort into creating and establishing the campaign- gets the final say on what will and will not appear in his or her game. That's one of the benefits of being the big cheese.
Take care, friends.
>>
>> you knock this guy back and he has make another decision
>> which is do i stay here or do i try to approach again?
>>
>> For me the point at which a character is forced to make
>> a new decision is where one action begins and where
>> another ends.
>
> That's and interesting approach you have... that is
> completely not based on anything in the books.
Exactly. An interrupt does not negate the action from occurring or continuing (at least not inherently), it simply resolves before the trigger does - if you're thinking that "interrupt" actually cancels the triggering action then you're applying a non-game definition of the word. Once the interrupt has resolved, the triggering action continues and resolves.
The robe's power is also an immediate reaction, not an immediate interrupt, so even if you want to apply a non-game definition to interrupt, it's not relevant here.
Movement specifically is handled on a step-by-step basis rather than an all-at-once basis - the PHB spells this out directly. An interrupt or reaction triggers in response to a specific step (entering a square, leaving a square), not to the move as a whole. Hence, they don't suddenly cause the target's remaining squares of movement to vanish, and the target's decision point is now how to spend its remaining squares of movement. (It may not even have been trying to move up to the character wearing the armor - the power doesn't care about what the target's intended destination was.)
On a side note, just for my edification.
Do you DM's allow the characters to purchase any items they want from the books assuming they have the money? They walk into a magic shop and everything is available?
On a side note, just for my edification.
Do you DM's allow the characters to purchase any items they want from the books assuming they have the money? They walk into a magic shop and everything is available?
That's how I do it, and I imagine that is how the OP does it (otherwise there would be no need to "ban" anything, instead you could just not make it available, which is effectively the same thing).
But there have been threads about this before that you could dig up in te what's a dm to do forum, and you will find there is great variation, from people who make everything available, to only allowing PCs to find totally random loot the DM determines by die roll.
But, so long as you and your players know that it is, in fact, a house rule you are using (meaning they won't be assuming that's just how the book says it works) then you are just fine in my book.
i did some reading and i don't think I'm wrong at all. the armor's power is a reaaction which means it triggers when the triggering action gets resolved. if a creature enters a square adjacent to me to attck me, I am pretty sure that he already chose to end his move there. so when that move gets resolved and the armor triggers, he is gonna need another move action to move again.
I ban doubleaxes and doubleflails. Not because they're overpowered, but because they're ridiculous. I used to ban doubleswords too, until I saw an episode of Stargate SG1 that made them look practical. I do nerf them though.
But, so long as you and your players know that it is, in fact, a house rule you are using (meaning they won't be assuming that's just how the book says it works) then you are just fine in my book.
i did some reading and i don't think I'm wrong at all. the armor's power is a reaaction which means it triggers when the triggering action gets resolved. if a creature enters a square adjacent to me to attck me, I am pretty sure that he already chose to end his move there. so when that move gets resolved and the armor triggers, he is gonna need another move action to move again.
The item's power does not trigger when an opponent ends their move adjacent to you. It triggers when he moves next to you.
You are making a houserule.
The item's power does not trigger when an opponent ends their move adjacent to you. It triggers when he moves next to you.
You are making a houserule.
If the power was an interrupt, I would agree with you.
I read "reaction" as "after the triggering action is resolved."
Because, quite frankly, what in hades is the use of repulsion armor otherwise?
Preventing shifts, soaking up movement, and preventing moves that barely reach you.
It's only a level +1 item (7, 12, 17, etc). It's not supposed to be terribly powerful. The houserule slots it at least +3 levels (9, 14, 19, etc).
Preventing shifts, soaking up movement, and preventing moves that barely reach you.
It's only a level +1 item (7, 12, 17, etc). It's not supposed to be terribly powerful. The houserule slots it at least +3 levels (9, 14, 19, etc).
And as someone mentioned earlier, a sticky Fighter in the party nearby would be very complementary.
Preventing shifts, soaking up movement, and preventing moves that barely reach you.
It's only a level +1 item (7, 12, 17, etc). It's not supposed to be terribly powerful. The houserule slots it at least +3 levels (9, 14, 19, etc).
And as someone mentioned earlier, a sticky Fighter in the party nearby would be very complementary.
Heh. "I don't want him, YOU take him!" *pushes monster at Fighter*
I've decided that all magical items are OP and must be banned!
I've decided that all magical items are OP and must be banned!
I have decided that ALL metal armor and weapons ore over pwoered and should be banned.
leather armor ,clubs and stone axes etc for everyone
I've decided that all magical items are OP and must be banned!
I have decided that ALL metal armor and weapons ore over pwoered and should be banned.leather armor ,clubs and stone axes etc for everyone
Is Glassteel allowed?
yes.... yes it is.