General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I agree with Jack7, for the most part. It has been my observation that magical items have become very "blah." Most of them have lost versatility and flavor in exchange for steady mechanics. I really wish the creators would have taken a bit more time and developed magic items that contained solid mechanics as well as flavor.
I mostly agree with Jack7 as well. Magic in 4e lost something in the balancing act. I'm particularly displeased with spellcasting, but his post was focused mainly on magic items themselves so i'll stick with that.
Granted, although magic items in 2e did seem more "magical" it might be nostaligia tainting my opinion.
The Bag of Tricks in the AV really bothered me and some of my players when we first read it. That was our favorite magic item from 2nd edition (along with the Deck of Many Things). The 4e BoT is so bland and balanced that none of them would actually enjoy using it. So i made up my own with my own rules and my own animals. After some playtesting i'll post it here eventually if anyone wants to use it. It does not follow the 4e magic item paradigm at all and should probably be considered a Minor Artifact, OR, just take up multiple parcels because anyone in the group can use it.
4e seems to have made a clearer distinction between magic items that are basic tools, and magic items that are clearly meant to be complex and mysterious. The former are the magic items that you find in the PH and AV (although you will find a few relatively complex and multifunctional items there, too). The latter are the artifacts in the DMG and sourcebooks such as Draconomicon.
This.
Once you start making magic items creatable and/or available for purchase, they start crying out for balance and predictability.
It's the kind that players can't (easily) make for themselves or purchase anywhere that need, and can have, "wacky" functionality. These are the things that should be added to taste by an experienced DM.
__________________ "I gave her an egg, and some flowers, but she still won't marry me!"
The Inclusion Hypothesis: For every x, the statement "x does not belong in D&D" is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol
I didn't sign up to play this game so that I could spend all my time doing clerical work.
I never played 2E, but the Deck of Many Things was the geschnizzle-snazzle.
Now there was magic, opportunity, and danger, all rolled into one.
Oh, i'm reintroducing the DoMT to the group eventually. It's internally balanced by offering you glorious riches or eternal damnation. god, i love that deck of cards.
Anyway, the bag of tricks i made uses the same check and balance system: every time you pull is a gamble, get a rabbit or get a lion, and there's a healing surge cost associated with it. Making this thing too me forever, but hopefully it's an item the group will cherish.
In past editions, pulling a bear from the Bag of Tricks to save your butt in a fight was a definitive game moment that no one ever forgot. That "gamble" is lost in 4e with every animal you pull being a (mostly) identical minion. And you only do it once per day. I can't see how the Bag of Tricks in an 8th level item as good as a +2 sword.
I feel that magic was more mystical and mysterious when it was a supernatural force. In the current editions, magic is an applied science.
This, I think, maybe part of the problem here. 3rd and especially 4th editions makes the powers, rituals, and magical items derivatives (I think that's what they are for the most part) are more or less utilitarian tools. I think it's also the nature of having such a gaming system with a long and evolved history: everyone grows more sophisticated and thus the systems may seem like it now.
I think the solution for me will be to amend or ignore most of the intricacy of the various abilities that the magical items will give you, like how often they can be used, and some of the secondary effects.
As someone who never found a whole lot of magic in the D&D magic item lists --though I am partial to the Decanter of Endless Water Cannons and things with borderline brilliant/stupid names like the Sword of Wounding-- I find that the magic is exactly where it always was; in the fertile --or is that febrile?-- imaginations of the people playing the game.
I can't be alone in having friends who pawed through the 1e DMG magic item section treating it like a proto-Amazon Wish List, can I? Players have been busy robbing the game of "wonder" since 1974. And it's hard to blame them. Their characters have problems to solve, frequently problems that are trying to eat them. It's no wonder that the wondrous items of their fantasylands get treated like the tools the players need them to be.
If you're shooting for "real wonder" in your game, especially of the item/consumer goods variety, it's been my experience that you have to add that to the campaign yourself. It's hard to impress your players with off-the-rack items of magical mystery (seeing as they probably have the same rule books you do). You pretty much have to custom-tailor. All of the most memorable items I remember from gaming-days past were custom DM creations.
edit: except for Daern's Instant Fortress. That was just too damn cool.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Lots of good comments here - I'm still playing 3.5 and I think that 4E did some nifty things with magic items. I'm surprised that not everyone loved the Magic Item Compendium, 'cause everyone in my gaming groups thinks its the best thing ever. It reintroduced a lot of items that could do lots of little things, and made them inexpensive enough to buy a few of them.
As Plane Sailing and El-Remmen have also noted, the wealth guidelines changed the character of games - at least mine. I'm planning on junking the guidelines and going back to the way I did things in 2E and 1E for my next campaign. Fewer items overall, but more interesting ones when you get them. I also want to reintroduce magic with the occasional drawback into my games. This has been something I've noted since the early 3E days, and its always been one of my (relatively few) complaints about the 3E philosophy.
__________________ "I hurt Firewing." is not something a huge number of people can say. "He dropped a parking garage on me," on the other hand, a lot of people can say. -Kazan, my Champions GM.
I found that the Weapons of Legacy book in 3.5 was the most interesting book of the bunch, and I used that often to improve the coolness of most magical items. I'm not completely satisfied how those concepts have been carried out into 4th edition, but I still think it's really good.
I feel like what's missing from 4th edition are magical backfire from use or perhaps more importantly overuse of an magical weapon, item, or whatever. It's probably how most of the intelligent magical items come into being.
If you're shooting for "real wonder" in your game, especially of the item/consumer goods variety, it's been my experience that you have to add that to the campaign yourself. It's hard to impress your players with off-the-rack items of magical mystery (seeing as they probably have the same rule books you do). You pretty much have to custom-tailor. All of the most memorable items I remember from gaming-days past were custom DM creations.
Agreed. And that's what i'm shooting for, to bend the "safe" rules of 4e and interject a healthy dose of "WTF just happened?"
I'm hoping that the "group magic item" will be something i can continue using, i just don't know who to balance it within the existing magic infrastructre. As much as i love adding new stuff, there's always the potential to give them too much of a good thing.
I'm planning on junking the guidelines and going back to the way I did things in 2E and 1E for my next campaign. Fewer items overall, but more interesting ones when you get them. I also want to reintroduce magic with the occasional drawback into my games. This has been something I've noted since the early 3E days, and its always been one of my (relatively few) complaints about the 3E philosophy.
As much as i'd LIKE to do this, it would totally screw up the player's 4e expectations and disrupt the game we've been running for months now. And it would be a lot of work for me. What i'll probably do is keeping playing as we have been, get as much enjoyment as i can from D&D 4e, and then switch to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and run it any way i want because magic is wild and crazy in that system. The way i like it!
Since I'm running both 1e and 4e games nowadays, I've definitely noticed this, to a large extent.
First off, although 4e streamlined magic items and put them in a dry, less-interesting-to-read block format, it took a page from the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium and made it so that items with effects other than simple plusses are the rule rather than the exception. I think this enriches magic items pretty significantly from 3.5's default assumptions.
Second, AD&D 1e magic items are awesome. I love reading through all the bizarre, organic descriptions that make it plain there were no simple formulae at work. No hint of balance, either, by and large - which is part of the charm. There's nothing quite like figuring out bizarre uses for crazy items you looted from a hill giant, and determining what that weird cloak does through trial and error.
What could happen in 1e/2e, though, was that magic item abilities could overshadow a character's own abilities. For example, elven cloaks make everyone better at hiding than a thief. Elven boots make everyone better at sneaking. Girdles of Giant Strength are the meanest stat-boosting items in history. And so on. I remember characters with pages of magic items in my B/X/AD&D/etc games, back in the day, since they were littered all around published modules like candy.
I had a point, but I lost it somewhere along the way. Uhm... Well, I love 1e magic items in 1e-style games. I like 4e (and, by extension, 3.5 MIC) magic items better in 3e/4e-style games.
And that's what i'm shooting for, to bend the "safe" rules of 4e and interject a healthy dose of "WTF just happened?
Same here. My groups 4e campaign is still quite new, we're still clearly in the "learning the system" phase. But once we get more comfortable, I'm sure the DM will begin deviating more from the written rules to produce the desired level of "WTF just happened?".
I mean, the seeds are already sown. My PC is running around his home city with an unbreakable wooden box containing a very small god stuffed into his codpiece.
I'm sure something odd will come of that, mechanically and otherwise.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
I'm hoping that the "group magic item" will be something i can continue using, i just don't know who to balance it within the existing magic infrastructre. As much as i love adding new stuff, there's always the potential to give them too much of a good thing.
Don't let the players know exactly how the thing works. For example, your Bag of Tricks pulls out a random critter - don't let the players see the chart (or if you do, make sure they know it's subject to change). If the thing starts disrupting the balance of your game, make the really good animals less likely (or even run out entirely!), or give a chance of the animal attacking the party. If the PCs never use it, beef it up a bit or reduce any drawbacks.
Alternatively, it's make something really, really good with the caveat that it might disappear after a while (like an Artifact). If you don't tell your players how many charges something has, they'll be careful about using it.
As long as you don't give out too many of these kinds of items until you have a pretty good handle on the ones you've already placed, I don't think there's much reason you can't just add these on top of the normal magic items your players are expecting within the system.
__________________ "I gave her an egg, and some flowers, but she still won't marry me!"
The Inclusion Hypothesis: For every x, the statement "x does not belong in D&D" is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol
I didn't sign up to play this game so that I could spend all my time doing clerical work.
As much as i'd LIKE to do this, it would totally screw up the player's 4e expectations and disrupt the game we've been running for months now. And it would be a lot of work for me.
Would it really be that hard? In the Preview for December Article there's already a example of drawbacks with the Von Zarovich Family Sword: vulnerable 10 radiant, no reflection and stunned a turn after defeating a living foe (as the sword feeds).
Seems fairly simple to add drawbacks such as these to 4E items, which would lower the items level as well. For inspiration, one only really need to look at the powers of existing items and think "what if that happened to the wielder instead of the target", or "how could that benefit for the wielder be flipped into a drawback?"
__________________ "Sometimes we buy books because we think we're buying the time to read them." - Warren Zevon
Would it really be that hard? In the Preview for December Article there's already a example of drawbacks with the Von Zarovich Family Sword: vulnerable 10 radiant, no reflection and stunned a turn after defeating a living foe (as the sword feeds).
Seems fairly simple to add drawbacks such as these to 4E items, which would lower the items level as well. For inspiration, one only really need to look at the powers of existing items and think "what if that happened to the wielder instead of the target", or "how could that benefit for the wielder be flipped into a drawback?"
Well, that's a good idea, adding drawbacks to the magic items. I hadn't seen that example of the Family Sword. I might need to start doing that.
No, when I said "screw up the player's expectations" I meant that some of the players really dig the balance scheme built into 4e and want me to hand out parcels and magic items "per the book." Scrapping the rules (as much as i would like to) might not settle well with them. I actually did give a player a new (homebrew) magic item and he talked amost immediately about selling it for something from the AV.
Or, when they see how fun the game can still be freeform, they might not care. Maybe i'll do it anyway.
On a related note, I'd like to see a poll on how close DMs follow the parcel rules.
Don't let the players know exactly how the thing works. For example, your Bag of Tricks pulls out a random critter - don't let the players see the chart (or if you do, make sure they know it's subject to change). If the thing starts disrupting the balance of your game, make the really good animals less likely (or even run out entirely!), or give a chance of the animal attacking the party. If the PCs never use it, beef it up a bit or reduce any drawbacks.
I've briefly discussed it with one of them just to get some feedback on how it might work. It's already been established that the Bag can change the animals without warning, and the magical nature of the bag means it might function differently from time to time.
So basically, as we figure out the pros and cons we have a built in reason for it to behave differently. It's a wild and whacky bag.
Oh yeah, i can just see the Ornery Rhino turning on the guy who pulled it!
"Sorry, man. That rule was included in the 2.65 version of the Bag of Tricks. Didn't you get the memo?"
No, when I said "screw up the player's expectations" I meant that some of the players really dig the balance scheme built into 4e and want me to hand out parcels and magic items "per the book." Scrapping the rules (as much as i would like to) might not settle well with them. I actually did give a player a new (homebrew) magic item and he talked amost immediately about selling it for something from the AV.
Eek.
As I mentioned above, I think you can give out the "balanced" treasure parcels and these wacky things without having a giant balance impact. But that doesn't help if the PCs want to sell off the wacky for more balance.
However, given that the thing is wacky, it might help to point out to them that people aren't as willing to buy the item as they would be to buy something predictable - so it's not worth much in the way of cash. (You may also have to reduce the amount of residuum it's worth when broken down). If you let them know that this is bonus instead of taking away from the treasure they'll get otherwise, they should accept that.
__________________ "I gave her an egg, and some flowers, but she still won't marry me!"
The Inclusion Hypothesis: For every x, the statement "x does not belong in D&D" is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol
I didn't sign up to play this game so that I could spend all my time doing clerical work.
(You may also have to reduce the amount of residuum it's worth when broken down). If you let them know that this is bonus instead of taking away from the treasure they'll get otherwise, they should accept that.
Well, our Bag of Tricks cannot be broken down into residuum. I'd just have it vanish if they tried. But the balance issue is something i'm trying to work out. It's a pretty damn powerful bag. Potentially pulling a lion and bear to fight at your side (and they're not minions) in the same encounter is a pretty big deal (although they're not as powerful as a real lion or bear)
The drawbacks are fourfold:
1) That lion just cost you 3 healing surges.
2) You still use your minor actions to control it.
3) The bag has a weekly quota of animals that can be pulled.
4) Animals cannot be used to flank or opportunity attack. They're magical
conjurations that do just what it says on their card and nothing else (I
made a laminated card for each animal that details its abilities; they're
stuffed in Crown Royal bag)
So the bag is not tied to the 4e daily rules at all, but exists wholly outside of them as something above and beyond what the PCs would normally be able to do. To me, that feels like magic.
Your really can't just pin it all on 4e. It was very much a problem in 3e as well, and they BOTH stem from the same idea of regulating things. 3e killed a lot with it's "Ever wand must have a spell, and every spell must have a wand" rule. I think part of that was due to the emphasis on quantity of magical items; instead of maybe one or two really awesome or creative items, you'd have your standard magic sword, your standard magic item, your Heal Stick, etc, etc. 4e is still very much regulated; a little less in some areas, a little more in others.
The problem with items actually being really mysterious and magical is that, as someone else said, it breaks the game balance wise. Good lord does it break the game balance wise. For some people, that really isn't a problem. For others, it can be.
I disagree with the gist of what you're saying. It was never about quantity in 3e. That all came about because magic items suddenly became easy to make.
No, the changes in 3e items were to support a regular structure for making magic items. That's why the Wand of Wonder became a Rod of Wonder and all wands were reduced to single-spell varieties, and all multispell wands became staves. Ultimately, most of these were cosmetic changes alone, but they served to break down the structure into easily understandable chunks for the item creation feats.
Though I have to say that the realistic differences between a rod, a wondrous item, and a ring are minor and could all have been covered by a single feat with ease.
Other changes with 3e were made to foster an easier reference scheme. Hence all girdles became belts so they'd sort properly with other belts and so on.
But aside from the structural changes for item crafting, 3e worked pretty hard to preserve the general feel of the 1e-2e magic items. And largely succeeded in doing.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
