New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

The Little Raven · Jan 24, 2008

Voss said:
So in addition to rings randomly not working if you aren't 11th level+,

What part of "It's too powerful for you to master" is so difficult to grasp? Rings are not trifles that give you a simple +5 bonus to your Jump check. They're powerful items, as based on their archetype presented in mythology and fantasy. Now, unless you have some kind rationale derived from the influence/source material that inspires this game, you're just talking out of your ass by calling it random. I've yet to see any examples of mythology or literature that show rings to be as trivial and mundane as 3e made them.

now magic items don't function outside of a PCs hands?

I'm telling you that you don't have to explain your NPC's +4 attack bonus being the result of his +3 normal bonus and a +1 from his sword because it's completely irrelevant to how and why his stats work in the game. You can choose to do that, just like you can choose to stat every NPC out like a PC, but it's not worth it because the end result is the same, but with more work involved.

Who gives a flying frak if the orc chieftain's stat block doesn't directly state that his axe attack is explicitly using the +2 axe you can loot from him, if the end result is exactly the same? Only someone who cares so much about semantics and nitpicking.

Really, thats what you're telling me?

No, that's what you're trying to reframe my words as, because you have this marvelous talent for deriving the most negative view from any piece of information regardless of how little sense it makes or evidence you possess.

The Little Raven · Jan 24, 2008

Rechan said:
I think that the game should be balanced for PCs having as many magical items as DMs choose, but requires none for the math to work.

That just appears to reverse things. Instead of requiring the "no item" DM to rebalance numbers to make sure his PCs aren't being steamrolled for being underequipped, the "magic item" DM has to rebalance numbers to make sure his monsters aren't being steamrolled because his players are above the power curve.

Eldorian · Jan 24, 2008

Isn't it obvious why rings and Ioun stones are now tier dependent? They wanted some item creation feats to be high level feats. I figured that was obvious, but I'm pretty sure I've read most of the thread and no one has mentioned it. They're not just changing flavor for the sake of flavor, they are making a game design decision for item creation. And, if you don't like it, you can make the high level feat "craft ring of power" or something, and it makes the big guns, and have wimpy rings for heroic tier stuff made by the feat you use to make amulets or whatever.

Btw, I love the idea of implements. I was going to add these to the next campaign I ran (I play more than DM), in the form of a hand held object that increases the save DCs of your spells. (I was thinking of holy symbol, book, rod, staff, wand, and, like in D2, shrunken heads, but any object, such as the classic tankard from EQ). If the current game I'm in survives until conversion to 4e, my wizard is definitely calling his implement an "Implement of Destruction." Though it looks like it's form is fixed by rules, I might try to weasel it out as a mean looking iron claw or something.

As for the basic change of having 3 items do fundamental math stuff, and the rest of the stuff be the fun stuff you often don't wear in favor of your buff gear, it sounds OK to me. And no stat increasing item makes me happy from a rules standpoint (they broke the game) but unhappy from a literary standpoint (bye bye Thor's Belt of Giant Strength).

The Little Raven · Jan 24, 2008

Bishmon said:
but you don't think a carpet of flying is going to increase a character's power?

Nope, because at the levels (late teens) you would be gaining that flying capability, you'll be facing foes that can deal with it, through flight of their own or ranged attacks. Being able to fly doesn't increase your ability to strike others or avoid damage, so it would merely give you more options for movement (still limited by the one action per round limitation, just like a gestalt character).

Or that there's a rogue who's walking around with plain boots on thinking, "Slippers that let me walk on ceilings? Meh, I can't imagine how those would make me more powerful."

Same thing. Wow, you're on the ceiling, where my gnoll archers can still pepper you with arrows, but you're unable to fill your role, because you're a melee striker who is too far away from his target.

Or a ranger thinking, "Bracers of the perfect shot? Nuts to those, I enjoy my less-than-perfect shots."

What exactly does this do? If it provides an enhancement bonus to rolls (like attack, for example), then it breaks the rules. Without any real knowledge of what it can do, arguing about it either way is useless.

The Little Raven · Jan 24, 2008

Eldorian said:
They wanted some item creation feats to be high level feats.

There are no item creation feats in 4th edition.

(bye bye Thor's Belt of Giant Strength).

Waist: Items you wear around your waist are usually about protection, healing, or increasing your Strength temporarily.

pemerton · Jan 24, 2008

Doug McCrae said:
Seems very similar to 3e. I was expecting much more of a change based on the 'Xmas tree is gone' and 'Charlie Brown Xmas tree' comments. Only four slots have been removed - face, torso, back and one ring - reducing the 3e total of 12 to 8 in 4e.

I think it's a bit more than this. For example, it allows wealth by level to be replaced by a different system, of item-cap-by-level (ie none of an item better than +X until at least level Z). As I noted in another post, the classification of items by level allows getting rid of wealth by level if a couple of restrictions in place:

1) no +X items that stack;

2) a limit on the number of character stats boostable by +X items (in order to ensure that after the first one or two such items no cumulative benefit is gained by owning more, but only a substitutable benefit) - maybe this could be done instead by hosing item slots;

3) some way of restricting trade in magic items that makes sense in game, so that a 3rd level character can't just sell all their +1 items to buy a +2 one.

By getting rid of all the typed bonuses, they satisfy (1) above.

By reducing slots and allowing only 3 tightly-defined stat bonuses in 3 slots, they satisfy (2).

The new rule for rings suggests that they are also looking at ways of satisfying (3), and I expect to hear more about this in future previews.

Ultimately, from the point of view of action resolution it doesn't matter how many +1 weapons a 3rd level character has (after all, they can only use one of them at a time). What is important is to stop stacking, and stop that character getting a +2 one until they are 7th (or whatever). And by implementing (1) to (3) above, WoTC have done this.

Eldorian · Jan 24, 2008

Mourn said:
There are no item creation feats in 4th edition.

Whatever the equivalent. Rings are something that makes high level item creation a goal. Something to make the next tier sound interesting without breaking the basic system from the previous tier. I can almost guarantee it's an option you have to pick somewhere in the development of your character.

Waist: Items you wear around your waist are usually about protection, healing, or increasing your Strength temporarily.

Temporarily? I don't recall Thor only sometimes being twice as strong as normal due to his belt. Now, twice as strong is extreme, but a lesser version of that belt is a classic DnD item that I'll miss, 'cause it was inspired by mythology.

Speaking of inspiration, can anyone recall an example of a magic ring from some source unrelated to DnD which was weak? I'm sure there are some, but the main one that springs to mind is a ring of invisibility, whether it be in Frodo's hand, or on Gyges', both of which I consider a bit above "heroic"

Bishmon · Jan 24, 2008

Mourn said:
Nope, because at the levels (late teens) you would be gaining that flying capability, you'll be facing foes that can deal with it, through flight of their own or ranged attacks. Being able to fly doesn't increase your ability to strike others or avoid damage, so it would merely give you more options for movement (still limited by the one action per round limitation, just like a gestalt character).

How many breath weapon attacks would a flying dragon have to deliver to a fighter before the fighter started thinking, "You know, maybe I should have brought that carpet of flying"?

And besides that, what if you're not facing a foe that can deal with it? What if you're facing a purple worm? Is the 4E purple worm going to start flying now? Or is he going to pull out a bow and lay waste to a flying ranger?

I understand you really want to make an argument, but when you minimize the effect that flight has on an average game, you're probably going too far.

pemerton · Jan 24, 2008

Cadfan said:
1: I predicted everything except the combination of item slots. Everyone should heap praise and adoration upon me, for truly I am an awesome person for that accomplishment.

I'm claiming that praise for myself - in a much overlooked post I not only predicted it, but explained how it eliminates the need for wealth per level!

Cadfan said:
5: I'm ok with the ring level restriction as long as they give an in-game reason. If they just say "no rings until level 11," I'll be mad. If they say, "here are the consequences of wearing a ring below level 11," and those consequences are prohibitive enough to basically ban rings below level 11, then I'll be ok with it.

The metagame need is to get rid of the much-hated wealth by level.

As for the ingame explanation, Irda Ranger already gave it:

Irda Ranger said:
Rings are special. They are endless, without beginning or end. And their shape, a bound circle, allows them to contain magic far beyond any simple spell embedded in your common "magic" sword or item made of cloth. Where any other item or weapon would warped and destroyed by the restless force that is magic, the magics within a ring swirl silently, falling back upon themselves ... contained. Although less than an artifact, they are more than anything else you will encounter (other than perhaps the legendary Stones of Ioun).

Sauron knew this. It is no coincidence that he chose the form of the Ring when making his weapon. Nothing else would have contained his terrible power, or serve his terrible purpose.

But Rings cannot be worn lightly. Not just any soul has the wherewithal to withstand them; to command them. Only souls that have been tested, and proved themselves victorious again and again, have a hope of commanding the magic of a Ring. It is not a question of magical power, or command over vast sums of magical lore, but of personal strength. That resilient strength that can only be learned in overcoming adversity; in surviving the crucible. That strength that so few possess.

A few foolish men wear magical Rings that they inherited from their greater forefathers. They can not summon forth its power, and if they live even a year it is at the Ring's forebearance. They would do well to put the Ring in a safe place, where no can harm themselves attempting what should not be attempted.

Rings are true power given form. Only those with an even greater power inside them have a chance of commanding them.

And if you ever meet a man who commands the might of two Rings simultaneously, tread carefully, for you stand in the presence of greatness; such greatness as legends are made of.

QFT

Voss · Jan 24, 2008

Mourn said:
What part of "It's too powerful for you to master" is so difficult to grasp? Rings are not trifles that give you a simple +5 bonus to your Jump check. They're powerful items, as based on their archetype presented in mythology and fantasy. Now, unless you have some kind rationale derived from the influence/source material that inspires this game, you're just talking out of your ass by calling it random. I've yet to see any examples of mythology or literature that show rings to be as trivial and mundane as 3e made them.

Ok, so you don't want to discuss rings. You just want them to be the way you see them. Fine. Feel free to stop discussing them.

I'm telling you that you don't have to explain your NPC's +4 attack bonus being the result of his +3 normal bonus and a +1 from his sword because it's completely irrelevant to how and why his stats work in the game. You can choose to do that, just like you can choose to stat every NPC out like a PC, but it's not worth it because the end result is the same, but with more work involved.

Who gives a flying frak if the orc chieftain's stat block doesn't directly state that his axe attack is explicitly using the +2 axe you can loot from him, if the end result is exactly the same? Only someone who cares so much about semantics and nitpicking.

Why would it exactly the same? He's using a +2 axe instead of a normal axe. That would go on top of his normal bonuses. Having internally consistency in the game world is not
semantics and nitpicking. Its really part of the difference between playing a role-playing game and board game- a setting with arbitrary rules is just as bad as novel or setting with plot holes. 85% of the people I've played with would pick up on a DM fudging away a magic item. They'd wonder why. For a good portion, including myself, trying to figure out what was going on would actually disrupt the game.

No, that's what you're trying to reframe my words as, because you have this marvelous talent for deriving the most negative view from any piece of information regardless of how little sense it makes or evidence you possess.

... nope. Not going to respond to personal attacks.

@Bishmon. Very true. Bracers give some sort offensive effect, gauntlets help attacks in some way, strength boosting belts, even some of the potions and wonderous items give aid in combat. Thats going to be a big pile of awesome if you have it all. And that leaves out the advantages that indirect things have, including the movement things you mentioned. If that 'of acuity' (sigh) item boosts perception rolls, you've got less chance of being surprised. So many things can stack up in those secondary and 'other' items, its like the christmas tree isn't really gone at all.

New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

The Little Raven

First Post

The Little Raven

First Post

Eldorian

First Post

The Little Raven

First Post

The Little Raven

First Post

pemerton

Legend

Eldorian

First Post

Bishmon

First Post

pemerton

Legend

Voss

First Post

Similar Threads