[Proposal] Item Exchange

[KarinsDad]

And as for karinsdad's insane leaps of maniacal troll logic for future proposals based on this one, I specifically state its one more option to retrain a single minor feature of a character that is not unreasonable to be able to change.

It's called hyperbole sport. It's used to emphasize a point.

You call my comments insane and trolling again and I'll ask the moderators to talk to you.

Out of curiosity, how is this handled in the RL games you play? I know that both in the game I ran and the games I play in, this is just what happens. You outgrow your old items and either disenchant them or sell them. I don't see this as a flaw in the system.

Ditto.

As is, the DMs in LEB put in a lot of time and effort on their games. The power of the DM with regard to magic items acquisition should not be lessened because the players want to be more entitled. Maybe the DM doesn't want the PCs to trade up for restful bedrolls so that the first encounter of the day starts out with PCs having 5 extra temporary hit points.

Maybe we should be making proposals that make the game more equitable for the DMs running the LEB games instead of for the players playing them. DMs here have no control over what powers, feats, items, classes, etc. are allowed into their games, but they still put in as much effort to run the game as a DM who does have the higher level of control of a tabletop game.

The DM is a player in these games too. His concerns about item acquisition should be as important as those of the players.


If a player wants a better item, they should put it on their wish list. IMO.

 

[stonegod]

First, slippery slope arguments will never persuade me one way or the other. I'm sympathetic to "more fun" arguments, but balance is my concern.

Second, the LEB parcel system is pretty darn close to what the DMG gives out: Over 5 levels, you get 4 items and 1 item's level in gold in addition to 1/5 of an item in "walking around money" each level. Its less bursty than in an RL game (you tend to get larger lumps of money but fewer of them in RL as opposed to this system in my experience). So I do not feel the system is robbing PCs of anything per se.

In the RL games I'm in, we just sell older items (things that have been replaced; effectively a parcel form a previous half-tier). To trade directly would not generally affect a PCs super-mechanically (for items such as weapons/armor/implements/neck-slots) but trading one of those for those of another slot of can have a good impact: Swapping a lvl 6 Amulet of Protection +1 for Iron Armbands of Power (esp when one now has a +2 neck item) just netted a +2 to melee rolls at no cost.

Now, is this totally unbalancing? Retraining a feat could net a similar bonus depending on the feat traded. Of course, in that case, you are losing something (the previous feat) where in this case you are generally not losing something (as the item you are likely "retraining" you already have a replacement for). That is the crux: Retraining a feat/power is a swap of same for same; this is not a swap of same for same.

I'll think on this more.

 

[Kalidrev]

With as many times as I have seen (and wanted) to change an aspect of my own characters after new material has come out, I think this is a fantastic option. However, (and this is an edit of my vote), SG brings up a very good point about power creep for no cost. I think that if this proposal should pass, it should have a modification that says that items can only be exchanged for other items of equal level or lower in the same slot.

As for KD's argument... it is what we, in the logic world, would call a Slippery Slope, and is, unfortunately, an informal fallacy of logic. There is nothing specifically and logically connecting the pieces of the puzzle that KD was putting together that would result in a conclusion stating that "If this proposal is passed...then a proposal to allow the player to change the race of the PC at a revision will occur." However, even with that stated... KD was simply trying to make and emphasize a point (and that point is dually noted )

EDIT: Ahh! I was logic ninja'd by SG! Nice one oh mighty god of stone!

I can, and will, however, counter KD's logical argument by saying that even if KD's logical assumption was realized, and the passing of this proposal were to cause others to create more proposals, it does not logically follow that those proposals will necessarily pass. I do not believe that any of the judges here would vote yes to a proposal that would allow a player to change his class or race on any/every level up revision. I think small changes like a single power, a feat, etc are perfectly balanced within the system, however, SG's comments are making me think that the exchange of magic items may not be a great idea. I'm going to think on this a bit more...

 

[ScorpiusRisk]

To speak of the necessity of this proposal for a moment. Is this needed? No. Should this not pass I imagine people will move on quickly.

Just because something isn't needed does not mean it won't make the game better. I think the big difference between treasure here and in RL games, is one of time. It takes a much large amount of time to get things done here than in RL.

That means that when we think of 'fun' treasure here, we tend to lean towards things that will be useful more often. Players in my RL game are far more likely to hang on to something that isn't being useful right now, just in case it is useful later. There's so much for them to do right now that it hardly matters. If something is starting to bother them enough, they know it won't be too long before they can get rid of it.

And yet as a RL DM is something was really bothering one of my players. If they felt like they made a bad or misinformed choice I do let them swap things that are not normally swappable. It doesn't happen very often, but I think thats mainly because time moves more quickly for them and things are less likely to make the game less fun for very long.

I think the example of Valahad is a good one. I would bring up that Shava's Challenge Seeking Dagger is a mistake I certainly made. Given the choice to swap if for a plain magic dagger I would. But I would have to think very carefully if choosing between that and retraining a feat or skill or power.

This again falls into the idea of time. We only get one retraining per level, and we spend allot of time at each level. So when Stonegod asks what do we loose? We loose that opportunity. If Shava chooses to swap out her dagger, then she's stuck with Sure climber for another level. I assure you that's a loss. Especially when we start talking about all the new options that come out between level ups.

 

[renau1g]

As is, the DMs in LEB put in a lot of time and effort on their games. The power of the DM with regard to magic items acquisition should not be lessened because the players want to be more entitled. Maybe the DM doesn't want the PCs to trade up for restful bedrolls so that the first encounter of the day starts out with PCs having 5 extra temporary hit points.

Maybe we should be making proposals that make the game more equitable for the DMs running the LEB games instead of for the players playing them. DMs here have no control over what powers, feats, items, classes, etc. are allowed into their games, but they still put in as much effort to run the game as a DM who does have the higher level of control of a tabletop game.

The DM is a player in these games too. His concerns about item acquisition should be as important as those of the players.


If a player wants a better item, they should put it on their wish list. IMO.

DM's are free to make any proposals they wish. If a DM has a problem with say Iron ARmbands of Power (I chose this because it is such a no-brainer for melee PCs), then they have the option to propose it be removed, nerfed, whatever. Same as a player.

A DM has control over who he lets in his/her game, therefore, if a PC has something they don't like, don't include them.

SR has the right of it, opportunity cost for this suggestion is huge! We've leveled up about twice in 9 months of gaming (I can only speak for my DM'd game and Evo's) and so if you had chosen to "retrain" an item for another you lost 1/2 of your opportunities so far.

Also, I believe that someone here made an item swap after a nerf and had no issue with their PC swapping something out as they felt it was less useful now.

 

[Vertexx69]

You call my comments insane and trolling again and I'll ask the moderators to talk to you.

"Insane troll logic" is a quote from buffy the vampire slayer that I borrowed/modified to illustrate the giant missing steps in between what you and I are saying, not a comment on your mental state.

 

[stonegod]

Ah, but troll has a different meaning on forums, thus the confusion.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think the example of Valahad is a good one. I would bring up that Shava's Challenge Seeking Dagger is a mistake I certainly made. Given the choice to swap if for a plain magic dagger I would. But I would have to think very carefully if choosing between that and retraining a feat or skill or power.

I think the example of Valahad is a good one.

He would want to have a different item, but he currently doesn't.

He would want to have a "Let me trade this 1000 GP item for an equal value 1000GP item" with a vendor, but vendors don't do that. They give you 200 GP for your item because that's the economic rules.

I dislike the concept of metagaming player desires into the economics of the game system.

Once per level, you get to trade up an item even AND you get to trade it for the exact item you need, regardless of the fact that the town he is in, doesn't have a magic shop in this DM's adventure. Why is this allowed? Because a player has an old +1 item that the PC no longer has use for.

Not because it makes consistent sense In Character, but because someone wants to modify their magic items Out of Character.

I just see this, again, as the "bigger, better, badder" syndrome. My +1 item isn't helpful and I don't want to sell it for gold, I want to replace it with an equal value item that is helpful.

This proposal is both a fluff consistency issue (why exactly would a merchant trade an item straight up?) and a balance issue. When a 10th level PC has:

+3 weapon, +3 armor, +3 neck item, and 5 other useful items, that PC is more powerful than one that has:

+3 weapon, +3 armor, +3 neck item, and a +2 weapon, +1 armor, a +2 neck item and 2 other useful items.

This is unnecessary power creep.

Players will less often put other "not the big 3" items on their wish lists because they can get some of the boots and waist items and hand items via trade ins instead of getting them via wish list.

And, a higher percentage of their wish lists will become the big 3, with a less common (typically potent) not the big 3 item on occasion. Why? Because they can acquire equal level useful secondary items using this technique.


Today, there is a some reasonable incentive (both crunch and fluff) to put secondary items on wish lists. With this proposal, that incentive will lessen somewhat.


There is a game balance reason why items get sold for 20%. If someone can reacquire the equivalent of that other 80% for a single item every level, they are gaining.


I go back to "just because someone can think of something and it sounds good on the surface does not make it really a good and balanced idea".

 

[ScorpiusRisk]

I think several people have already agreed with the idea that this should only happen either between adventures or at the DM's discretion.

We already metagame player desire's into the economics. We have restructured the parcel system in the interest of fairness. This has caused almost all LEB Players to construct a wishlist and heavily encourages DMs to choose from that list. Which means most of the time, a player is going to get treasure the player picked out. This has become standard.

I think everyone agrees that this would give the player a benefit. I think you over value that benefit KD. I've already made an argument to what I think the player would loose in choosing this option, there by balancing the benefit a bit.

In far as IC vs OOC is concerned. The set economics are already horribly skewed in favor of OOC but we make it work IC. With our parcel system the DM assigns treasure to individuals most of the time, including uneven amounts of gold instead of the players making those choices. Yet we try and find IC reason to make it work.

This, I find far more believable in comparison. Adventurers are renowned, charming and/or scary. The idea that every once in a while they might convince someone to exchange an item for an item of roughly equal worth (the idea of these items being so easily valued to the gp is another thing we have to justify IC) is easy to grasp. Perhaps that individual recognizes that an adventurer might make better use for it. A shop owner might like the prestige from having a well known adventurer as a customer. The individual might not have valued things properly. They may have been tricked or intimidated or charmed.

It's not a power creep because everyone has the same options.

That same player from your example might easily use his retrain to swap a feat or power, making himself more optimized. If he doesn't, that's his choice, but we all have the same options. This is not something that would only apply to some people, unless you intend to stop leveling.

 

[Vertexx69]

I already conceded the point that if this option is allowed, it would have have DM approval for location/timing. And in my original post I said bartering wouldn't be dealing with the vendors at all, but a person on the street who has an item they might not have a use for anymore as well. Think of it as PC to PC trading.

Taking balance into consideration for those who see everything from a potentially abusive standpoint, how about limiting the option further then? Make the option available once per tier or even once period. This would limit the "milking" of the option, while leaving a way to fix a limited number of mistakes ie: 3 times or even just once?

[sblock=My 2 Cents]This is my 1st experience with 4ED, as I live in the middle of the desert where there are no RL games. Saying "just start over with a new character" after I've invested the last 10 months in this one is both unrealistic and illogical considering how much time the PbP arena involves. I got my 1st parcel before I even knew what a wish list was, and would have done a couple things differently if I knew what I know now. I believe item selection is one of those facets of the game that involve a learning curve, and therefore should have a little leeway. I think is the best way to include that little bit of forgiveness. And that's my 2 cents.[/sblock]