Magic Items that lost their magic

[Hereticus]

Have you seen cloak of invisibility then?

Originally Posted by Storminator

23rd level. Plenty of value wrung from your skill monkey by then...

If you've seen it, then it can't be very good.

[Hereticus]

Originally Posted by LostSoul

Gauntlets of Ogre Power that raise your Strength to 20 are just fine, I think, as long as PCs don't have access to them whenever they want (ie, they are in the DM's hands).

Unfortunately to get magic items in 4.0E, you just imagine that item, stick it in a microwave, add gold, an Viola... instant magic item!

[CubeKnight]

Originally Posted by Runestar

How is that any different from not having the option to take the glasses of int at all, thus staying an "idiot"? You weren't stupid to begin with, the glasses simply make you smarter than you were (and as a wizard, you would likely start out with a high int score and max it out every chance you get).

You don't want your PC to be a drooling idiot, then don't dump int to begin with. Don't start off with a 6 int, rely on a headband of int to get back up to average int, then complain that stat buffers are a crutch because you are not as smart without it.

That's not what I mean (and this is the reason why I mostly stay a lurker, people always seem to misunderstand you).

I mean, thinking that no matter how Strong/Intelligent/whatever you are, that you'd be simply worse off if you didn't have [insert-item-here]. I want to be the strong/intelligent/whatever one. Because of what I am, not because of what I own.

I'm not sure how to explain it, truly. That's why I said it may very well be a purely psychological effect.

[billd91]

Originally Posted by CubeKnight

I mean, thinking that no matter how Strong/Intelligent/whatever you are, that you'd be simply worse off if you didn't have [insert-item-here]. I want to be the strong/intelligent/whatever one. Because of what I am, not because of what I own.

But it is, and has always been, a mix of the two. Gear is important, but so are the other developments in a character - fighters included. A poorly equipped character may not be able to fight at the same level as he would were he fully equipped, but there's still a big difference between a well-equipped commoner and a character several levels higher. Always has been.

[LostSoul]

Originally Posted by Hereticus

Unfortunately to get magic items in 4.0E, you just imagine that item, stick it in a microwave, add gold, an Viola... instant magic item!

4E still has a DM.

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by gizmo33

Really? I missed the "Sacred Cows" chapter in the 4E DMG. Are you just making this up?

When trying to be snarky, make sure you do not look foolish . The devs have indeed stated on two seperate occasions that the + items where left in the game for bovine reasons. One of the places was an online article, the other a post iirc.

Originally Posted by Stormtalon

Except, it divorces those mathematically-required bonuses from the items themselves, letting you focus on items that do things rather than merely provide bonuses.

Me, if I were to take the numerical bonuses off of items and put them on characters, I'd probably put them at 3/8, 13/18 & 23/28, to spread the boosts out a bit. I might do that on my next campaign, even.

This is what I will be doing for my next campaign. I did it for 3.5, and worked great.

Regarding making magic item rare things, making signature weapons. Simply toss the player a weapon, and then proceed to upgrade it as the player gets to higher level (for example at 3rd, 8th, 13th, 18th, 23rd and 28th level).

@Rechan - I agree with your premise, maybe we should remedy that?

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by lostsoul

4e still has a dm.

Lies!

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Rechan

I also consider that a flavor choice.

Well, I would try to avoid conflating utility and flavor. They can coincide, but they don't have to. Flavor for example might be that your magic missiles look like skulls. But that doesn't give you any utility.

Here's a quick and dirty example of what I'd like to see:

Sword of the Icy Field (Level 6)
Property: Gain resist 5 cold.
Proeprty: Gain Ice Walk.
Power (At-Will): As a move action, freeze all non-magical, non-animated liquid in a close burst 2. Anyone in the liquid are pushed back 2 squares. The frozen liquid can be walked on, but is treated as challenging terrain (wielder of Sword is immune).
Power (Encounter): Attack: Level+2 vs. Reflex; Anyone in the liquid when the At-Will power is used are immobilized (save ends) instead.
Power (Daily): Standard action. Create an ice wall 5 with 8 until end of your next turn. Wall has 40 HP, vulnerability fire 5. Wielder is treated as having Phasing with regards to the created wall. Sustain minor: wall persists.


Shield of the Abating Flame (Level 11)
Property: Resist fire 10.
Property: All enemies that use the Fire keyword are treated as marked by the Shield's wielder.
Power (Encounter): Immediate reaction, when missed by a melee attack. Target takes 1d8+con fire damage.
Power (Daily): Immediate reaction, when hit by an attack that deals fire damage. Gain hit points equal to half the damage dealt by the attack, before applying the shield's fire resistance.
Power (Daily): Minor action. The wielder of the shield may transfer any benefit of this shield's abilities to any non-combatant ally he is carrying/holding hands with.

Yes, that's how I would imagine it, too. Maybe someone else gives you some XP for it, I am not allowed to.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Stormtalon

Heck, Adventurer's Vault even has a ritual to transfer an enchantment from one item to another, which means you can use that +3 sword to upgrade your +1 w/power to a +3 w/power.

Nope. The +x and the properties/powers are one enchantment. You can't upgrade, you can just change. If you find a +3 Flaming Longsword but prefer Greataxes, the ritual is good for you. If you have a +1 Flaming Longsword and a +3 Greataxe, you can't combine them to a +3 Greataxe. You'll either get a +3 Longsword or a +1 Flaming Greataxe.

[GnomeWorks]

Originally Posted by billd91

But it is, and has always been, a mix of the two. Gear is important, but so are the other developments in a character - fighters included. A poorly equipped character may not be able to fight at the same level as he would were he fully equipped, but there's still a big difference between a well-equipped commoner and a character several levels higher. Always has been.

The problem with any amount of the necessary functionality of the character being based on gear is that you have to replace the gear with better gear as you progress, or else you fall behind.

This creates problems for some folks, since it means that you have to toss less-powerful items in exchange for higher-powered items, regardless of the utility or significance of the less-powerful items, in order to keep up with the encounters you face.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by GnomeWorks

The problem with any amount of the necessary functionality of the character being based on gear is that you have to replace the gear with better gear as you progress, or else you fall behind.

This creates problems for some folks, since it means that you have to toss less-powerful items in exchange for higher-powered items, regardless of the utility or significance of the less-powerful items, in order to keep up with the encounters you face.

The alternative, not calculating in magical items in monster/PC comparision (CR, XP budgets and so on) systems doesn't work well either. As long as you get a bonus, it's better to have if then not to have it. And having more magic items than strictly necessary still makes an encounter easier.

If magical items gain numerical bonuses, you can dance around and provide ways to account for them (expected values by level, XP modifiers), but it's almost impossible to make the bonus irrelevant and at some point force to make a choice that improves that bonus.

Well, maybe there is one thing you could do - magical items costXP when used. You fought that human guards with your +4 Longsword? Well, that reduces your XP gain from this encounter by 20 %. (assuming that due to some yet to be determined system, 20 % loss is a "fair" for this encounter and weaponry used.)
But at that point, nobody might want magical items anymore.

Of course, it might explain why some fictional characters don't use their magical items all the time - they are powergamers in hunt for XP.

[GnomeWorks]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

The alternative, not calculating in magical items in monster/PC comparision (CR, XP budgets and so on) systems doesn't work well either. As long as you get a bonus, it's better to have if then not to have it. And having more magic items than strictly necessary still makes an encounter easier.

I'd argue that the alternative is to not use a system that uses boring +X items, with more interesting magic items.

But if we're going to stick with 4e, I'd go with the idea of just giving players a random bonus at whatever levels are appropriate and ditching +X items entirely; however it was Mearls said to do it, or whatever. Keep the properties around, because they're what make magic items nifty, but drop the bonuses.

Not sure what to do about properties that improve with level; I'd probably just say the items level with the user, to avoid getting rid of items in favor of new ones that are just mechanically better.

If magical items gain numerical bonuses, you can dance around and provide ways to account for them (expected values by level, XP modifiers), but it's almost impossible to make the bonus irrelevant and at some point force to make a choice that improves that bonus.

Right, so the best thing to do would seem to be to get rid of the numerical bonuses.

Well, maybe there is one thing you could do - magical items costXP when used. You fought that human guards with your +4 Longsword? Well, that reduces your XP gain from this encounter by 20 %. (assuming that due to some yet to be determined system, 20 % loss is a "fair" for this encounter and weaponry used.)
But at that point, nobody might want magical items anymore.

In the game system I'm working on, this is the route we're going to go if we go with +X items (which we may or may not; I keep waffling on the topic). If you use an item that provides a straight bonus to something, you can't earn XP towards whatever it is (so if you have a ring of jumping, you can't earn XP towards jumping).

It seems to be a sensible solution; the idea behind it, so far as my system is concerned, is that the item is doing most of the work for you, so you don't actually get better at what it is you're doing, because it's hard to learn from success or failure when you're not sure what's going on because the item figured it out for you.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by GnomeWorks

I'd argue that the alternative is to not use a system that uses boring +X items, with more interesting magic items.

Yes, of course. That's what I prefer, too.

But if we're going to stick with 4e, I'd go with the idea of just giving players a random bonus at whatever levels are appropriate and ditching +X items entirely; however it was Mearls said to do it, or whatever. Keep the properties around, because they're what make magic items nifty, but drop the bonuses.

Not sure what to do about properties that improve with level; I'd probably just say the items level with the user, to avoid getting rid of items in favor of new ones that are just mechanically better.

I think Rechan example and the Artifact rules give a pretty good idea how to handle this.

[CubeKnight]

Originally Posted by billd91

But it is, and has always been, a mix of the two. Gear is important, but so are the other developments in a character - fighters included. A poorly equipped character may not be able to fight at the same level as he would were he fully equipped, but there's still a big difference between a well-equipped commoner and a character several levels higher. Always has been.

I know. But, just like other posters in this thread, I'd prefer it if the items weren't a straight up +N bonus to a stat (be it an ability score, defense, attack, damage, whatever) and instead were purely properties.

So, even if I don't have a Magic Sword, I can still deal as much damage and hit as reliably as if I had one.

[Stoat]

Originally Posted by GnomeWorks

I'd argue that the alternative is to not use a system that uses boring +X items, with more interesting magic items.

I'm not sure that this would solve the problem. Presumably, interesting magic weapons and armor would give a PC some advantage in combat, even if not a straight +X. That advantage, whatever it might be, would still make the encounter easier in some way or another, and would lead back to the question "do you account for magic items in monster design/CR/level, and if so, how?"

[C_M2008]

Originally Posted by Stoat

I'm not sure that this would solve the problem. Presumably, interesting magic weapons and armor would give a PC some advantage in combat, even if not a straight +X. That advantage, whatever it might be, would still make the encounter easier in some way or another, and would lead back to the question "do you account for magic items in monster design/CR/level, and if so, how?"

I think the easiest way is to either not make the leveling/XP chart OR the XP encounter budgets linear (depsite the "breaks" every 5 levels it's still a mostly linear progression), instead they "jump" in value as the PCs are expected to gain more gear. Toss in some advice for changes to make if DMs like to add more/less gear and done.

[GnomeWorks]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

I think Rechan example and the Artifact rules give a pretty good idea how to handle this.

Rechan's examples were pretty spiffy, I'll concur.

Not being familiar with 4e's artifact rules, I have no comment.

Originally Posted by Stoat

Presumably, interesting magic weapons and armor would give a PC some advantage in combat, even if not a straight +X.

Eh... I don't know. Utility is not necessarily advantage, and even if it is, there is an opportunity cost.

If your sword can burst into flame, turning any damage it deals into fire damage, then it can't sheathe itself in ice, turning any damage it deals into cold damage (presumably).

So while you're more effective at killing things that fear fire, you don't have the same effect on things that fear cold. One is not strictly better than the other (all else being equal, anyway).

That advantage, whatever it might be, would still make the encounter easier in some way or another, and would lead back to the question "do you account for magic items in monster design/CR/level, and if so, how?"

I find the whole concept of designing encounters with the PCs in mind rather flawed, anyway, so I'm probably not the best person to pose this question to.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by GnomeWorks

Rechan's examples were pretty spiffy, I'll concur.

Not being familiar with 4e's artifact rules, I have no comment.

Artifacts also have multiple properties and powers, simply said, and they get better the more you are "in tune" with the artifact. (But artifacts disappear once they feel their mission is finished or the guy using them just sucks for their goals. Regular items only disappear because you disenchant them or sell them. )

I find the whole concept of designing encounters with the PCs in mind rather flawed, anyway, so I'm probably not the best person to pose this question to.

In that case, I am not sure if it's even relevant to have something like level comparability between PC and monsters. (Though you might still want them for comparing PCs? But is player character balance relevant when monster/PC "balance" isn't?

[AllisterH]

There's another way to make magic items feel more magical...

1. Use the "+1 to character stats at 3/8/13/18/23/28"
2. Get rid of the stat bump items.
3. The treasure parcels that actually contain magical items should be randomized a.k.a, make up a random treasure table.

(4. OPTIONAL - Get rid of the magic item economy)

This would mean that the items would be at least used by the characters for a few levels and chances are they would less likely sell them off. Given that selling off a item only gives you enough money for a level-5 item, players are encouraged to hang on to what they find...

[Rechan]

Though here's a question: if you take out the magical item economy, what would gold be used for? That's pretty much the only thing that you can buy, outside of alchemical items.