Item Request Discussion Thread v2

[aprogressivist]

The point of Spellslot stuff that gives combat penalties isn't so much about expecting people to endure them -- of course people are going to play the item shuffle mini-game -- but that the item shuffle mini-game comes with consequences of its own.

[Iridni Ren]

The point of Spellslot stuff that gives combat penalties isn't so much about expecting people to endure them -- of course people are going to play the item shuffle mini-game -- but that the item shuffle mini-game comes with consequences of its own.

I disagree, at least in this instance. The point here was to give the items such deceptively severe maluses as to bring their item cost down. Note that each amulet has an original cost stated of 0.

No front-liner (and how many paladins aren't front liners?) is going to keep a -3 AC / -3 universal saves item equipped.

The only "consequence" is the minor irritation of quick-slotting the item and re-adding the spell before each rest.

It's too much of a no-brainer to be considered even a "mini-game."

[MAB77]

Speaking for myself only. I do not see a necessity to balance paladin's spell slots, nor even paladins vs other classes. But I would consider spell slot items to bolster the weaker prestige classes.

[Dante101]

Speaking for myself only. I do not see a necessity to balance paladin's spell slots, nor even paladins vs other classes. But I would consider spell slot items to bolster the weaker prestige classes.

This seems a bit... Alarming coming from a dev. No need to balance spell slot items for full BAB, high HP classes where those spell slots give them drastic power boosts over other classes?

Or maybe I just flat out misunderstand the statement. Is it that you don't see a need to add spell slot items?

[aprogressivist]

It's too much of a no-brainer to be considered even a "mini-game."

It creates a PvP vulnerability that can be exploited by a clever assassin while offering the Paladin a PvE power boost that they don't really need, but is tempting enough to actually take.

It's an incredibly appropriate item for Ravenloft.

[PrimetheGrime]

It's too much of a no-brainer to be considered even a "mini-game."

It creates a PvP vulnerability that can be exploited by a clever assassin while offering the Paladin a PvE power boost that they don't really need, but is tempting enough to actually take.

It's an incredibly appropriate item for Ravenloft.

Exactly! We should all be in agreement right now that PvE wise Paladins are doing just fine, but that spellslot access for the risk of -3 AC has positives and negatives to it that I personally would both like to see and would use myself. Anything that also makes a big boy frontliner be vulnerable for a short time is A ok in my book.

Speaking for myself only. I do not see a necessity to balance paladin's spell slots, nor even paladins vs other classes. But I would consider spell slot items to bolster the weaker prestige classes.

I wouldn't mind seeing some PrC items, especially for Monster Hunters 😛

[MAB77]

This seems a bit... Alarming coming from a dev. No need to balance spell slot items for full BAB, high HP classes where those spell slots give them drastic power boosts over other classes?

Or maybe I just flat out misunderstand the statement. Is it that you don't see a need to add spell slot items?

You indeed read too much into what I wrote. I am not against balancing classes, but I do believe the paladin is in a fine position as is. It is actually a good thing that not all races and classes be on equal footing in D&D. It provides a range of different challenges. Take Calibans or Half-Orcs, no one will deny they are the races with the least advantages and worse, they are even forced away from civilized areas, chased and attack by NPCs. Yet we see them often. Why? Because they are lovingly fun to play! Who cares that it doesn't have half the abilities of an elf?

It is no different for classes. It is not that important that a given class be more or less powerful than another. What matters to me is: A) That the class be interesting to play, with unique and helpful abilities of its own. B) That it can develop into a character that can be reasonably efficient and able to face the challenges of the module as part of a well rounded party.

Paladins more than fulfill those two criteria. Remember that a balance swing both ways too, adding that slot item might lessen the gap slightly between the paladin and a strong spellcasting class, but you would also accentuate it between the paladin and say a grimetrekker. That is why I'd rather remove spell slot items from the strongest classes & add some to the weaker ones (of which the paladin is certainly not part of).

[Relapse]

The point of Spellslot stuff that gives combat penalties isn't so much about expecting people to endure them -- of course people are going to play the item shuffle mini-game -- but that the item shuffle mini-game comes with consequences of its own.

I disagree, at least in this instance. The point here was to give the items such deceptively severe maluses as to bring their item cost down. Note that each amulet has an original cost stated of 0.

No front-liner (and how many paladins aren't front liners?) is going to keep a -3 AC / -3 universal saves item equipped.

The only "consequence" is the minor irritation of quick-slotting the item and re-adding the spell before each rest.

It's too much of a no-brainer to be considered even a "mini-game."

I'd personally like to see the end of this sort of culture in the game and the enabling of it through circumstantial items, i might be alone in this but I hate watching people pack on appraise gear before approaching a seller, spell slot items before rest etc. or items with superficial skill negatives to bring the item value down.

[Dante101]

Spoiler: show

This seems a bit... Alarming coming from a dev. No need to balance spell slot items for full BAB, high HP classes where those spell slots give them drastic power boosts over other classes?

Or maybe I just flat out misunderstand the statement. Is it that you don't see a need to add spell slot items?

You indeed read too much into what I wrote. I am not against balancing classes, but I do believe the paladin is in a fine position as is. It is actually a good thing that not all races and classes be on equal footing in D&D. It provides a range of different challenges. Take Calibans or Half-Orcs, no one will deny they are the races with the least advantages and worse, they are even forced away from civilized areas, chased and attack by NPCs. Yet we see them often. Why? Because they are lovingly fun to play! Who cares that it doesn't have half the abilities of an elf?

It is no different for classes. It is not that important that a given class be more or less powerful than another. What matters to me is: A) That the class be interesting to play, with unique and helpful abilities of its own. B) That it can develop into a character that can be reasonably efficient and able to face the challenges of the module as part of a well rounded party.

Paladins more than fulfill those two criteria. Remember that a balance swing both ways too, adding that slot item might lessen the gap slightly between the paladin and a strong spellcasting class, but you would also accentuate it between the paladin and say a grimetrekker. That is why I'd rather remove spell slot items from the strongest classes & add some to the weaker ones (of which the paladin is certainly not part of).

This stance makes more sense to me, thanks for the clarification. I agree - paladins are in a good spot mechanically, overall. When I read "I do not see a necessity to balance paladin's spell slots" I assumed, in context of this item thread: "no need to put negative stats on the proposed items." Which was concerning, considering the power gap that already exists. Apologies for misunderstanding.

I do think more spell slot items would be a quality of life improvement, if the item is balanced properly with meaningful tradeoff stats as suggested in this thread. I'd even suggest taking a more drastic approach and consider adding damage vulnerability to the proposed items as well.

[Iridni Ren]

To be frank, those Charisma cloaks are paladin-spell-slot items as well, providing the staples of Aura of Glory and Eagle's Splendor, which clearly benefit paladins the most. In theory a paladin with the better cloak and best amulet is going to have extra 1st, 2nd (x2), and 3rd level spells.

But at least the cloaks are not class restricted and have limited charges.

[Relapse]

I do think more spell slot items would be a quality of life improvement, if the item is balanced properly with meaningful tradeoff stats as suggested in this thread. I'd even suggest taking a more drastic approach and consider adding damage vulnerability to the proposed items as well.

I think the point is that the items aren't actually worn, they're switched in prior to rest, spells cast, then switched out so the negative stats have no real impact. 

The only time negative stats have an impact is if they apply in the same context as the positive. E.g. A sword with a both a combat positive and negative (+1 cold damage, +10% cold vulnerability).

[aprogressivist]

To be frank, those Charisma cloaks are paladin-spell-slot items as well, providing the staples of Aura of Glory and Eagle's Splendor, which clearly benefit paladins the most. In theory a paladin with the better cloak and best amulet is going to have extra 1st, 2nd (x2), and 3rd level spells.

No, that's completely upside down thinking.

Eagle's Splendor potions are common enough anyway. So the big deal with the cloaks is the Aura of Glory spell.  That's a Paladin-only spell.

And opening up a Paladin-only spell to every other class is not going to benefit Paladins especially; they can cast Aura of Glory from their own spell slots.  It's really to the advantage of Charisma Cleric builds, Sorcerers, Blackguards, and Bards (especially Bard/Blackguard builds that use Divine Might/Shield).

[Dante101]

I do think more spell slot items would be a quality of life improvement, if the item is balanced properly with meaningful tradeoff stats as suggested in this thread. I'd even suggest taking a more drastic approach and consider adding damage vulnerability to the proposed items as well.

I think the point is that the items aren't actually worn, they're switched in prior to rest, spells cast, then switched out so the negative stats have no real impact. 

The only time negative stats have an impact is if they apply in the same context as the positive. E.g. A sword with a both a combat positive and negative (+1 cold damage, +10% cold vulnerability).

I think an argument made earlier was that the negatives would impact people from a PvP perspective (being attacked while preparing to rest). Though I do agree; it'd be best if the downsides were sustained, but I'm not sure if there's really a way to do so with spellslot items in general.

[Iridni Ren]

I do think more spell slot items would be a quality of life improvement, if the item is balanced properly with meaningful tradeoff stats as suggested in this thread. I'd even suggest taking a more drastic approach and consider adding damage vulnerability to the proposed items as well.

I think the point is that the items aren't actually worn, they're switched in prior to rest, spells cast, then switched out so the negative stats have no real impact. 

The only time negative stats have an impact is if they apply in the same context as the positive. E.g. A sword with a both a combat positive and negative (+1 cold damage, +10% cold vulnerability).

I think an argument made earlier was that the negatives would impact people from a PvP perspective (being attacked while preparing to rest). Though I do agree; it'd be best if the downsides were sustained, but I'm not sure if there's really a way to do so with spellslot items in general.

The argument doesn't hold water anyway. An enemy *knows* you put on the -3 AC amulet to rest? And if it's quick-slotted, how long does that vulnerability last?

Yet the item value is calculated as though this malus is something you actually have to live with to enjoy the item's benefits, rather than something that is unlikely ever to have an impact...other than being annoying.

[Chabxxu]

There is no way to make a spell slot item balanced unless the character is forced to keep the item on the cast their spells during combat. A spellslot item for rangers and paladins are extremely strong because they use these slots to buff up, then they can take off the amulet and dont care about the malus. If you give spellslots item to classes that use those spells to fight, its an entirely different story. As much as people complained about the wizard rings(yes they are strong, im not trying to say they aren’t good), they still had a -10 concentration on each ring. Meaning you’d had a -20 concentration for your character if you wanted to use those spells in combat. Having -20 concentration means if someone touches you while you cast, you are going to fail your spell, 100% of the time. My character who had those rings was walking around at -14 concentration at some point, and its a very big disadvantage.

Tldr: dont make spellslot items for class who will use them for buffing, as negative on them are useless. Negatives will work on classes who will keep them on during the fights, where negatives will impact them.

[aprogressivist]

The argument doesn't hold water anyway. An enemy *knows* you put on the -3 AC amulet to rest? And if it's quick-slotted, how long does that vulnerability last?

An assassin can stalk their prey and try to guess when they'll use the amulet.

And all this focus on the meaningfulness on the value of the penalty is kinda funny given how little a Paladin needs that level 3 spell slot, when you actually get down to it; a level 20 Paladin will usually have their 3rd slot to spare anyway. If you could force a Paladin to wear it even during combat, the item simply wouldn't be worth it. It would be vendor junk. -3 AC and -3 saves is crippling for a slot item that's only really useful to mid-level Paladins.

[Nemesis 24]

With regards to the assassination issue of the strongest amulet.   Thats precisely what its designed around.

The weaker ones make less of a difference.  A lvl 1 and a lvl 2 slot wont change much.  The lvl 3 one  ould however.  And now note what it does - on top of its effects it creates a red light.  Light items go by last equipped.  In other words, every time this amulet is put on, it is signalled to observers.  And if those observers are stealthers, the paladin is all but certainly unable to detect them.  Against such foes they are lethally vulnerable.

Also no paladin is going to use the aura of glory cloak.  Its a shorter duration than self cast.  Its there for others to take advantage of.

[zDark Shadowz]

Kind of not worth worrying or arguing about assassination anyway, as soon as someone clicks hostile on the paladin, the paladin clicks their amulet quickslot. Not allowed to attack if you arent hostiled first. There's no timer to switch items.

[SardineTheAncestor]

Agreed with above post, unless combat logs show people quickslotting as soon as they've been hostiled. Also agreed with the sentiment that people would sacrifice full duration spells in favour of spamming consumable items, especially ones that have many charges to expend. That's optimal play, and people who expect to gank with buffs are probably going for optimal play.

[aprogressivist]

Kind of not worth worrying or arguing about assassination anyway, as soon as someone clicks hostile on the paladin, the paladin clicks their amulet quickslot. Not allowed to attack if you arent hostiled first. There's no timer to switch items.

First, it's an oversimplification to assume perfect defensive play. Even a quick slot button is one more thing to press, and one more thing that can go wrong in a critical moment.

Even then, the button press is still an opportunity cost. You could be pressing another button, a potion, whatever.

Lastly, the PvP rules don't have a timer, either -- the 10 second countdown in the Dislike toggle is a courtesy, not a hard rule.

[Iridni Ren]

Kind of not worth worrying or arguing about assassination anyway, as soon as someone clicks hostile on the paladin, the paladin clicks their amulet quickslot. Not allowed to attack if you arent hostiled first. There's no timer to switch items.

First, it's an oversimplification to assume perfect defensive play. Even a quick slot button is one more thing to press, and one more thing that can go wrong in a critical moment.

Even then, the button press is still an opportunity cost. You could be pressing another button, a potion, whatever.

It's an over-complication to niggle on and on about the tiniest of circumstances--the vanishingly small split-second when one button might be pressed instead of another in that hardly ever circumstance of an attempted assassination on a PC who happens to be resting and has a bad amulet equipped--versus all the almost infinitely more common times when that same PC is walking around with extra buffing.

It is an adage on the server that  the fight you lose is when you fight on the other person's terms. Hence, in this narrow circumstance that the attacker has watched and learned the paladin's pattern down to the second when her wards are down, when she swaps her equipment, and catches her right as she is about to nap...odds are she was going to lose any way. No matter what button she pressed.

When she is prepared, however, and fighting on her own terms, both PvP and PvE, you have succeeded in making a class (paladin) that is already over-whelming in that circumstance, even more powerful.

[SardineTheAncestor]

Lastly, the PvP rules don't have a timer, either -- the 10 second countdown in the Dislike toggle is a courtesy, not a hard rule.

But it is metagaming and a rulebreak to cancel your rest and put on a combat amulet the moment you see 'hostile' pop up and you think a stealther is near. It's just very easy to excuse without a recording and a perfect log of who detected who when.

[aprogressivist]

It's an over-complication to niggle on and on about the tiniest of circumstances--the vanishingly small split-second when one button might be pressed instead of another in that hardly ever circumstance of an attempted assassination on a PC who happens to be resting and has a bad amulet equipped--versus all the almost infinitely more common times when that same PC is walking around with extra buffing.

I'd like to point out that I am responding to the idea that there is nothing to talk about with the amulet's penalty; that this penalty is meaningless or trivial. That is what some of you are trying to assert.

Ours is the much lighter task of simply finding meaningful scenarios where the penalty matters, and if we find these, we've disproved your assertion. These "niggles" are counter-points over blanket assertions.

It is an adage on the server that  the fight you lose is when you fight on the other person's terms. Hence, in this narrow circumstance that the attacker has watched and learned the paladin's pattern down to the second when her wards are down, when she swaps her equipment, and catches her right as she is about to nap...odds are she was going to lose any way. No matter what button she pressed.

And yet a -3 AC and -3 saves could make a difference. For one it might be the difference between an Assassin succeeding or failing his Death Attack. It may make the difference with secondary or tertiary attacks in a flurry.

I've had a Wizard survive a Time Stop gank, back when Time Stop victims could still be damaged, while she was unbuffed.  She was lucky: secondary and tertiary flurry attacks missed.  If she had been suffering -3 AC and -3 saves, the gank might have killed her. If I'd had to remember to press one more button to get rid of -3 AC and -3 saves, the gank might have killed her.

The real argument here should be about whether the penalty is proportionate to the advantage gained... and I've already pointed out, it is easy to exaggerate how useful this amulet actually is. The most powerful spells that a Paladin gets at level 3 is Righteous Fury, but you only ever need one spell slot for that, since you can only cast it on yourself.  After that, further spell slots merely cast spells that can be matched by potion or alchemy buffs, or enchantments.

When she is prepared, however, and fighting on her own terms, both PvP and PvE, you have succeeded in making a class (paladin) that is already over-whelming in that circumstance, even more powerful.

This is mere vague hyperbole.  This argument could be made against adding any item for any strong class.

The facts of the matter are, if you don't trivialise the gank scenario or overstate the advantage of a level 3 Paladin spell slot, the item is not that big of a deal. If my level 20 Paladin had it, the only real use he'd have for it is to give someone else a Greater Magic Weapon buff, which is what a Wizard or Cleric can do -- and I doubt we'd be having this level of exaggeration and hullabaloo about an item granting a Wizard one level 3 slot.

If anything, this item is great for low/mid levels but not that useful for high levels, so precisely the kind of content some people have been clamouring for.

[Relapse]

I'd like to point out that I am responding to the idea that there is nothing to talk about with the amulet's penalty; that this penalty is meaningless or trivial. That is what some of you are trying to assert.

Ours is the much lighter task of simply finding meaningful scenarios where the penalty matters, and if we find these, we've disproved your assertion. These "niggles" are counter-points over blanket assertions.

So you're asserting because one rare day the paladin may be vulnerable to an assassination attempt it's valid? That a 0.01% case scenario makes the 99.99% case unsubstantiated? ...  ... The negative value on the items to bring the editor cost down dont represent the actual IG negatives, it's superficial.

I just find switch in and out items tacky, I understand it's already well established culture but i'd rather see +spell slot items that people just want to keep on.

[aprogressivist]

Again, those numbers aim to trivialise.

If you create a vulnerability, you help to create the opportunity to exploit it.  If I were an assassin going after a Paladin, I'd try to manipulate someone into giving the Paladin that item, just so that maybe I could stalk that Paladin and have a greater chance of killing them in a gank.

So yes. One meaningful scenario counters the assertion of meaningless ness. You may disagree, but it seems pretty meaningful to me.

And, again: this is a mere level 3 slot. Not that big of a deal. Not even a level 4 slot, which would give a Holy Sword spell -- something that is always valuable and desirable. The way people are reacting, you'd think we were talking about something that actually addressed a Paladin's weaknesses or greatly expanded their strength.

The whole topic of the place of "poisoned" items is also a greater discussion, and unfortunately the NWN engine doesn't help us there, but they do fit Ravenloft thematically. A Paladin lured to his doom because he wanted to punch above his weight is the sort of story we should want to tell here, and I think that item enables that sort of stories.

It's not perfect, sure, but if you made the penalties for using it last, then you'd have to up the power considerably to tempt people to use it. Because there is no way in hell a level 3 spell slot is worth -3 saves and AC. Heck, a level 3 slot is barely worth -1 AC and saves once you're high level.