PDA

View Full Version : Redundancies within Essentials (4e)



Shatteredtower
2010-11-07, 03:11 PM
Never mind how much is just recycled 4th edition with errata. We knew that going in.

What annoys me is the number of times whole sections of rules are repeated over the Essentials series. The skill list and rules take up over 20 pages in each of the RC, HotFL, and HotFK. The latter two also repeat another 20+ pages for equipment, deviating only on magic equipment lists, and over 15 pages for feats, though HotFK has a few unique ones. The glossary (another 10 pages) is also duplicated, though I don't mind this one.

I dislike paying for the same content multiple times. especially in the range of 20% in two books. It doesn't help when you see what didn't get space, such as barbarians, monster scaling, and gnomes or deva.

(But ^&%$#@!, @#$@%^!& drow? They had room for those.)

Kurald Galain
2010-11-07, 04:01 PM
"Sometimes when you're in battle, you will want to swing your sword in an impressive and convoluted way, knowing that this will befuddle your foes and will make it easier for you to hit them quickly afterwards in the same combat.

Impressively Befuddling Sword Swing (utility level 2)
You swing your sword in an impressive and convoluted way, to befuddle your enemies.
Free action, melee range, one target.
Trigger: you swing your sword.
Effect: you befuddle your enemy, and it grants combat advantage until the end of your next turn."

See also: department of redundancy department.

Shatteredtower
2010-11-07, 06:28 PM
As Bob is made witless, I had not antipated such an answer. Well played.

Blackfang108
2010-11-07, 08:25 PM
"Sometimes when you're in battle, you will want to swing your sword in an impressive and convoluted way, knowing that this will befuddle your foes and will make it easier for you to hit them quickly afterwards in the same combat.

Impressively Befuddling Sword Swing (utility level 2)
You swing your sword in an impressive and convoluted way, to befuddle your enemies.
Free action, melee range, one target.
Trigger: you swing your sword.
Effect: you befuddle your enemy, and it grants combat advantage until the end of your next turn."

See also: department of redundancy department.

Not having Essentials, is this an actual power?

Shatteredtower
2010-11-08, 12:57 AM
Not having Essentials, is this an actual power?

No, not really.

I kind of like the new druid and the new half-elf option, but did humans need a full entry in both books?

Mordokai
2010-11-08, 01:14 AM
Out of idle curiosity, what did half elves got?

DragonOfUndeath
2010-11-08, 01:16 AM
I kind of like the new druid and the new half-elf option, but did humans need a full entry in both books?

obviously cause humans are TEH ROXXORZ :smalltongue:

Shatteredtower
2010-11-08, 02:03 AM
Out of idle curiosity, what did half elves got?

In lieu of dilettante, they get an encounter power that affects either them or a nearby ally for one of four options: a saving throw, a free shift movement, or a bonus to an attack roll or skill check.

As for humans, I wonder if it's because the designers think they're not being played enough, considering how often most civilizations they players tend to move through are human. Who knows?

Felhammer
2010-11-08, 02:22 AM
WotC has stated they decided to repeat some of the material across the books because they want to make sure everyone at the table has equal access to the rules. If a new player picks up Heroes of the Fallen Lands, they want to make sure he doesn't have to buy Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms to get the basic rules.

The Rules Compendium was designed for everyone, including DMs who wouldn't necessarily have purchased HotFL or HotFK.

It's the price one has to pay when WotC decided to break up and disseminate the PHB material amongst 3 books. :(

Kurald Galain
2010-11-08, 03:43 AM
Not having Essentials, is this an actual power?
No :smallbiggrin: The point I was making is that instead of one block of power text, all 4.4 powers have two blocks, and that for several powers both of these flavor blocks simply restate what the power's rules text does. It feels to me like artificially inflated page count.


WotC has stated they decided to repeat some of the material across the books because they want to make sure everyone at the table has equal access to the rules.
Yes, but I find it annoying that almost all of the items from HOFK are already in HOFL. They have so many thousands of items they could have picked...

Blackfang108
2010-11-08, 10:09 AM
No :smallbiggrin: The point I was making is that instead of one block of power text, all 4.4 powers have two blocks, and that for several powers both of these flavor blocks simply restate what the power's rules text does. It feels to me like artificially inflated page count.


Yes, but I find it annoying that almost all of the items from HOFK are already in HOFL. They have so many thousands of items they could have picked...

I find it annoying that they marked items "Common, Uncommon, Rare"

Felhammer
2010-11-08, 12:04 PM
I find it annoying that they marked items "Common, Uncommon, Rare"

I actually like that the concept but I *hate* how they gave us a list of 50 common items and said 'everything else is uncommon!' :smallfurious:

It just smacks of laziness and ensured the issue would be quite divisive.

Jaidu
2010-11-08, 12:23 PM
No :smallbiggrin: The point I was making is that instead of one block of power text, all 4.4 powers have two blocks, and that for several powers both of these flavor blocks simply restate what the power's rules text does. It feels to me like artificially inflated page count.
I think this was done in part to counter the criticism that 4e products are all crunch and no fluff. This is one of the major reasons for the existence of the Monster Vault. There's certainly a lot of fluff in the Essentials books compared to a lot of the previous 4e material out there. Still, some of it is very forced and unnatural. I don't really need a description of what power strike looks like. "You hit something, much in the way you normally would, but harder."


Yes, but I find it annoying that almost all of the items from HOFK are already in HOFL. They have so many thousands of items they could have picked...
I agree entirely.

dsmiles
2010-11-08, 12:28 PM
I find it annoying that they marked items "Common, Uncommon, Rare"

:smallfurious: I unconditionally hate that. I hate that with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. Who are they to tell me what items are common in my campaign world? Or tell me what items I can give out to characters at what levels?
[/nerdrage]

Kurald Galain
2010-11-08, 12:32 PM
I think this was done in part to counter the criticism that 4e products are all crunch and no fluff. This is one of the major reasons for the existence of the Monster Vault. There's certainly a lot of fluff in the Essentials books compared to a lot of the previous 4e material out there. Still, some of it is very forced and unnatural. I don't really need a description of what power strike looks like. "You hit something, much in the way you normally would, but harder."
Yeah, that's a good point. I wish they would have added some fluff about elf society, or the Dark Cult Of Ebon Night, or one of those fallen empires that every race seems to have: fluff you can actually base a story on. In my opinion, meaningless fluff is worse than no fluff.


I actually like that the concept but I *hate* how they gave us a list of 50 common items and said 'everything else is uncommon!' :smallfurious:
(edit) This, too. I'm don't care either way about the concept, but this implementation is really bad. Interestingly, several of the game developers have publically stated that they, themselves, don't use the rarity system.

Reverent-One
2010-11-08, 12:33 PM
:smallfurious: I unconditionally hate that. I hate that with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. Who are they to tell me what items are common in my campaign world? Or tell me what items I can give out to characters at what levels?
[/nerdrage]

They're suggestions for DMs to use as a default if they don't want to put any more thought into it, they're not saying "you have to do this or you're doing it wrong".

Blackfang108
2010-11-08, 12:48 PM
They're suggestions for DMs to use as a default if they don't want to put any more thought into it, they're not saying "you have to do this or you're doing it wrong".

Um...

Then why can't I figure out how to turn it off in my copy of Character builder?

Reverent-One
2010-11-08, 12:52 PM
Um...

Then why can't I figure out how to turn it off in my copy of Character builder?

What do the item rarities actually do in the character builder? Does it limit which rarities your character can have? That wouldn't make sense for the CB to do, since even with the default rules, you'll still get the higher rarity items.

Felhammer
2010-11-08, 12:52 PM
Um...

Then why can't I figure out how to turn it off in my copy of Character builder?

Because the character builder you (and everyone else) are using is going to be replaced very soon.

Kurald Galain
2010-11-08, 01:08 PM
It is clear in the errata, rules compendium and DM kit that rarity is not "an option" but the official rule - the only official rule now on magic item distribution both in 4.0 and 4.4.

Of course, that won't stop DMs from doing it differently anyway, but as Oberoni said, just because you can ignore a bad rule doesn't make it any less a bad rule. For instance, Sure Strike is a crappy power, and just because I can houserule it to do +10 damage or because I can take another at-will instead doesn't magically make it less crappy. And of course, compliance is mandatory for LFR and DDE players.

Reverent-One
2010-11-08, 01:20 PM
It is clear in the errata, rules compendium and DM kit that rarity is not "an option" but the official rule - the only official rule now on magic item distribution both in 4.0 and 4.4.

My use of the term "suggestion" was a slight miswording as you are correct it's an official rule, though at the same time, it's an official rule the developers don't really think you have to use to make the game work, as they've said it's not a problem if the DM just ignores the rule for their own games (and as you've pointed out they do the same themselves). It really just seems to be there for the "official play" campaigns like the LFR and Encounters to limit players minmaxing their item selection.

Blackfang108
2010-11-08, 02:19 PM
It makes buying items more time-consuming, especially for individuals who may be math-weak.

And it's just stupid in the first place.

Jaidu
2010-11-08, 02:35 PM
I despise the rarity system for magic items. Rather, I don't mind the idea of some magic items being more rare than others, but I think it really needs to be a DM decision for their own campaign, not RAW. But I guess that's what homebrew is for.

Reverent-One
2010-11-08, 02:57 PM
It makes buying items more time-consuming, especially for individuals who may be math-weak.

How so? Did it change the pricing of the items? I hadn't heard about anything about that, though I might have missed something.


I despise the rarity system for magic items. Rather, I don't mind the idea of some magic items being more rare than others, but I think it really needs to be a DM decision for their own campaign, not RAW. But I guess that's what homebrew is for.

What about DMs that don't want to have to wade through books of items to decide which one are rarer than others? For them, having a default classification system for that is useful.

tcrudisi
2010-11-08, 03:34 PM
And of course, compliance is mandatory for LFR and DDE players.

This confuses me. How are they changing LFR to instill the new item rarity rules? Considering how they do loot.

I'm about to go to a LFR convention this weekend; are all my characters suddenly illegal because they have 0 common items and 15 uncommon items?

Jaidu
2010-11-08, 03:53 PM
How so? Did it change the pricing of the items? I hadn't heard about anything about that, though I might have missed something.
It changes the amount gained from selling items, and by RAW you can't purchase rare items. I don't believe you can purchase uncommon items either, but I don't remember.

Anyway, I believe the original poster was referring to the character builder, which does not allow you to purchase rare items. To work around this, one can add the item, then subtract the cost of the item from their total gold.


What about DMs that don't want to have to wade through books of items to decide which one are rarer than others? For them, having a default classification system for that is useful.
This would be fine, except that the list of common and rare items is very short, and everything else is considered uncommon. If the list was more comprehensive, it might be useful in the situation you suggest, but right now, the DMs who don't want to wade through those books will find that nearly every item is uncommon.

Blackfang108
2010-11-08, 04:03 PM
How so? Did it change the pricing of the items? I hadn't heard about anything about that, though I might have missed something.

You can't use the "buy" option on Uncommon and rare items.

This means that you have to "add" the item and then subtract the gold if you are going to purchase a non-common item.

It's an unnecessary addition of steps when there could just as easily be a check-box for the rule under "campaign settings."

This is an unnecessarily Draconian way for WotC to have gone about implementing this "feature."

Reverent-One
2010-11-08, 04:11 PM
Anyway, I believe the original poster was referring to the character builder, which does not allow you to purchase rare items. To work around this, one can add the item, then subtract the cost of the item from their total gold.

Oh yeah, the CB can be used to track gold, can't it? I may have forgotten about that since I've never used it for that purpose. *whistles innocently*

In that case, I do see how the rules could be an annoyance to someone who does track their gold in CB. And do agree the CB should allow that to be setting to be changed, as it already allows a number of "houserules".


This would be fine, except that the list of common and rare items is very short, and everything else is considered uncommon. If the list was more comprehensive, it might be useful in the situation you suggest, but right now, the DMs who don't want to wade through those books will find that nearly every item is uncommon.

Which is still more than having no classification for the items at all. Also, who's the say that the majority of the items being uncommon is a bad thing? Different DMs will have preferences on how to split up any item rarity.

Kurald Galain
2010-11-08, 06:49 PM
This confuses me. How are they changing LFR to instill the new item rarity rules? Considering how they do loot.
Check the forums. You are allowed one rare per tier (but there isn't any way to get one), as many commons as you want (but there likely aren't any), and one uncommon per level. Most high-level characters will probably have to drop about one-quarter of their items, and all their consumables except for healing potions.

Bear in mind that this was the lenient option: an actual 4.4 campaign would give you one uncommon per two levels, and this rule was a close contender for the RPGA as well.

kyoryu
2010-11-08, 07:22 PM
(edit) This, too. I'm don't care either way about the concept, but this implementation is really bad. Interestingly, several of the game developers have publically stated that they, themselves, don't use the rarity system.

It's always smelled to me like it's really for LFR, with their "magic morphing magic item" rules and the way they seem to try to insulate the game from the actual impact of DMs.

Kurald Galain
2010-11-08, 07:39 PM
It's always smelled to me like it's really for LFR, with their "magic morphing magic item" rules and the way they seem to try to insulate the game from the actual impact of DMs.
I don't think it is: WOTC has basically disowned LFR to focus on DDE instead, and LFR is now run by volunteers, except that WOTC still has certain demands of them, such as using the rarity system.

Rather: 4E has certain design flaws; and I mean "flaw" here in the literal sense, as something that doesn't work the way it was intended (not something that makes your game unplayable). One such flaw is the item pricing, which allows any moderate level character to buy a boatload of low-level items for pocket change. Another such flaw is that, while WOTC likes to pretend that low-level (e.g. heroic) items aren't useful to a higher-level (e.g. paragon) character, this is completely untrue. Combined, this means that any moderately leveled character can take a level-3 item with a good daily power, buy a dozen copies of the item, and use that power at will.

This is a problem. Print a good heroic consumable (such as whetstones or potion of clarity) and paragon characters can use it for every single attack. Of course, any competent DM can compensate for such flaws. However, in RPGA play, this is explicitly not allowed.

The limit on magic item dailies is a kludge to prevent this, that didn't work too well (you can still use the daily you like best in every fight). Rarity is another kludge to prevent this: you can't buy twenty copies of an uncommon item any more. However, it has some issues, (1) many DMs ignore it including the main game designers for 4.4; (2) there is already at least one cheap common item with a useful daily power; (3) several uncommons printed since the rarity system was introduced are overpowered; and (4) since they can no longer buy uncommons, suddenly there are many rich PCs with nothing to spend their money on.

Weird, huh? There have been several other solutions proposed (and indeed, used by many DMs), the most obvious one being that buying five copies of the same item does not let you use its daily power more than once. For whatever reason, WOTC has not implemented it. But out of necessity, RPGA finally has, as of last month.

$.2, of course.

kyoryu
2010-11-08, 08:01 PM
Of course, any competent DM can compensate for such flaws. However, in RPGA play, this is explicitly not allowed.

Well, the motivator (DDE/LFR) may be different (and I'm probably wrong about!), but I think this quote is the biggest issue. Wizards knows how to run M:tG, and for M:tG you need clear, unambiguous rules that are not subject to interpretation.

D&D does not work like that, never has worked like that, and never will work like that. You can't insulate the game from the DM, without it becoming something that isn't really D&D.

Reverent-One
2010-11-08, 08:29 PM
D&D does not work like that, never has worked like that, and never will work like that. You can't insulate the game from the DM, without it becoming something that isn't really D&D.

Insulating the game from the DM isn't supposed to be the point, the (stated) goal to put the control over the items firmly in the DMs hands, so players don't feel entitled to easily buying/making whatever item they want.

kyoryu
2010-11-08, 08:38 PM
Insulating the game from the DM isn't supposed to be the point, the (stated) goal to put the control over the items firmly in the DMs hands, so players don't feel entitled to easily buying/making whatever item they want.

That may be the stated goal, but I don't buy it.

Player: "I want to buy 100 Items of Magic"
DM: "There's only two in the store."
Player: "But, the book says..."
DM: "There's two in the store."

OTOH, if you look at LFR at least (don't know about DDE, haven't played or read much about it), there seems to be a lot of emphasis on letting players choose their items, etc., regardless of what happens with the DM. Which I guess makes sense if you're worried about rogue DMs completely borking the system for everyone.

Even the skill challenge system seems based on the idea of making those types of scenarios as mechanical as possible, and not really subject to individual rulings.

Of course, with everyone talking about how MMOs were the inspiration for 4e, I've always seen it as being far more inspired by M:tG. But I could be wrong.

Reverent-One
2010-11-08, 08:45 PM
That may be the stated goal, but I don't buy it.

Player: "I want to buy 100 Items of Magic"
DM: "There's only two in the store."
Player: "But, the book says..."
DM: "There's two in the store."

And then when they just craft those items?

Esser-Z
2010-11-08, 08:56 PM
"Sometimes when you're in battle, you will want to swing your sword in an impressive and convoluted way, knowing that this will befuddle your foes and will make it easier for you to hit them quickly afterwards in the same combat.

Impressively Befuddling Sword Swing (utility level 2)
You swing your sword in an impressive and convoluted way, to befuddle your enemies.
Free action, melee range, one target.
Trigger: you swing your sword.
Effect: you befuddle your enemy, and it grants combat advantage until the end of your next turn."

See also: department of redundancy department.
This is the best.

tcrudisi
2010-11-08, 10:46 PM
You are allowed one rare per tier (but there isn't any way to get one), as many commons as you want (but there likely aren't any), and one uncommon per level.

Previously you could only accept one magic item per level anyway, so getting above that seems hard to do (except for what you purchase with gold). I don't really see this being an issue for any of my characters... at all. I don't really see it being an issue for most characters, even, considering the magic item bundle rules.

Then again, I haven't looked to see what rares there are, but from what I've read on the char-op forums, anyway, there are not many, so I doubt I will find any of my items on that list. I expect them to all be uncommon. Is there an easy-to-reference source out there for all the common and rare items that have been published to date? I know I could use the character builder or the compendium, but I prefer not to wade through thousands of items to find 50ish commons and a handful of rares.

Kurald Galain
2010-11-09, 04:34 AM
OTOH, if you look at LFR at least (don't know about DDE, haven't played or read much about it), there seems to be a lot of emphasis on letting players choose their items, etc., regardless of what happens with the DM.
That is correct. The RPGA rules go out of their way to try and create "consistent play experience". Although to be fair, a large part thereof is simply in the 4.0 rules: players are supposed to be able to buy whatever they like (at least until recent errata), and characters are supposed to be able to use any skill they want in a skill challenge.

The difference, again, is that a competent DM can ignore such rules when they interfere with his campaign, and that RPGA repeatedly states that their DMs can't.


Previously you could only accept one magic item per level anyway, so getting above that seems hard to do (except for what you purchase with gold).
The key difference here is "what you purchase with gold". A level-10 character could easily have bought 5-10 items with his gold. And since, like I said above, low-level items are very useful to higher-level characters, many of them have done precisely that.

That said, I agree with you that this isn't that big a deal. However, it has caused quite a lot of "nerd rage" on the WOTC forums.


Then again, I haven't looked to see what rares there are, but from what I've read on the char-op forums, anyway, there are not many, so I doubt I will find any of my items on that list.
There exist, I believe, precisely two rare items below level 15, neither of which is found in a Player Resource book. So no, I don't think you'll have any rares on your item list.

Loren
2010-11-09, 08:08 AM
If you're interested in redundancies check this out
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/343580000