How I Stopped Worrying and Learned To Love Standard Plusses

rkanodia · Jan 24, 2008

Anthtriel said:
I think the naysayers have a point here: You can rule the +x boni of items away and instead give all characters the same enhancements, sure, but you could do the same thing in a 3E campaign, so where is the major improvement?

Now I realize that the system has been streamlined considerably, and house-ruling it, from what we know, will be a lot easier, there are a lot expected items to compensate for. But it's also not the holy grail that some expected.

Others are only critizing it out of spite of course, but that isn't new and won't change.

In my mind, it's about quantity and clarity.

Quantity: there are only three +X slots in 4E, as opposed to basically all of them in 3E.

Clarity: the 4E rules prescribe (supposedly) exactly what +X a character 'deserves' at each level. Also, there are no questions about which +X's a character 'should' have: they should have all three. In 3E, trying to do this would have raised a lot of questions, at least for me. Do all characters get the +X to all six stats, or is it just to their primary stat? If I pick the former, I'm buffing Monks and Paladins like crazy, but if I pick the latter, I'm penalizing them because they no longer have a way to boost up their secondary stats, whereas a Wizard or Cleric really just needs one stat to be effective. What about the million ways to boost your AC? Do I grant them all to every character? If I don't, what do I do when the Fighter complains that he needs a ring of deflection and an amulet of natural armor to be competitive (since the whole point of this exercise was to get rid of +X items)? If I do, how are my monsters ever going to hit anybody? If I dole them out on a per-class basis, what is the Wizard getting to compensate for this free +15 to AC that the Fighter got?

Ruin Explorer · Jan 24, 2008

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
Without slots, these people would just say "get item x, y z". "hey, that are all cloaks. Doesn't that look goofy" "Doesn't matter, there are now item slots like in WoW or Diablo!"*

As long as powergamers (like me) or munchkins (like every powergamers whose style I don't like) exist, you will end up with this discussions about which feat, skill, class, prestige class, or magical items will make your character more awesome then ever.

Bolded for the bit that's only true if they're all cloaks

AS I SAID THOUGH I don't mind the cloaks. It's the "all belts do this!" stuff that melts my brain slightly. Oh well, it's really an aesthetic/intuitive thing, not a deeply logical/rational thing.

That and the ring deal is just really irritating and unecessary (or, it is necessary, WotC decided to stupidly write an article that utterly failed to convey WHY they did it, and didn't convey it in any other source, either!).

Dragonblade · Jan 24, 2008

comrade raoul said:
My first reaction to the new Design & Development article on magic item slots and traditional plusses was common: I thought the expectation was really lame. Here's the quote for context:But, after thinking for a moment I'm really happy with it, because the transparency of the system, and the logic behind it, provides a VERY straightforward workaround for people who don't like the "enhancement bonus treadmill" (getting increasing enhancement bonuses but having the game systematically expect you to) while preserving the fun for people who do.

Here's how: just give PCs steadily increasing, additional bonuses to their AC, saving throws, and attack and damage, directly proportionate to the enhancement bonus they're "expected" to get, and eliminate the enhancement bonus those items provide. Since we know 4e provides a standardized, level-based bonus to (presumably) all of those parameters already, you can just increase the rate. For example, if characters standardly gain bonuses equal to half their level, but are assumed to have enhancement bonuses equal to 1/4 of their level, just increase the standard bonuses to 3/4 of their level. (Thus, an 8th-level character who gets a +4 level-based bonus to attack rolls but who is assumed to have a +2 implement just gets a +6 level-based bonus to attack rolls instead.)

On this view, implements just just provide special effects, just like all the other 4e magic items. In effect, you're extending the paradigm for the "supplementary" items, like helms and belts, to everything else. A 10th-level fighter might just have a flaming longsword, not a +2 flaming longsword. Having a +1 longsword would just mean you have a sword with an enhancement bonus one better than you're expected to have for your level--which means that such a sword could be useful throughout a character's career. (A +3 longsword might be rare and precious for anyone!)

So you get an easy-to-implement, slightly-lower magic, high-flavor system--if you want it. Everybody wins!

(Obvious caveat: I'm not sure the rules will support this sort of thing, of course, but everything we know about them strongly suggests they will, doesn't it?)

Excellent post and good analysis. I agree completely. As long as WotC clearly outlines the expected rate of magic item bonus acquisition and explains how it interacts with the underlying math of the system then I think this will be an excellent system. And will much easier to adjust to the desired level of Christmas Tree for any given game.

Hopefully WotC will explain all this in the DMG.

PeterWeller · Jan 24, 2008

Ruin Explorer said:
That's not what winds me up about the new system. It's the assumption of nine "slots" (which they even call "slots" I believe), all with their specific range of effects, and the fact that I am inevitably, puke-inducingly, going to see people whinging on about how for this "build" to work you need this specific item in that specific slot and so on and so forth until I finally start wondering why, if this sort of shiz is what D&D is about, I'm not just playing WoW.
I

While the secondary slots do come across as pretty "gamist," the items themselves add new effects instead of modifying core values, so I doubt changing the number of secondary item slots or getting rid of the system altogether will have as great of an impact on character power as it did in 3E.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Jan 24, 2008

Ruin Explorer said:
Bolded for the bit that's only true if they're all cloaks

AS I SAID THOUGH I don't mind the cloaks. It's the "all belts do this!" stuff that melts my brain slightly. Oh well, it's really an aesthetic/intuitive thing, not a deeply logical/rational thing.

That and the ring deal is just really irritating and unecessary (or, it is necessary, WotC decided to stupidly write an article that utterly failed to convey WHY they did it, and didn't convey it in any other source, either!).

I found this quote very enlightening, especially in regard to your issue.

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4011230&postcount=24

D.Shaffer said:
You can get something similar to what you want by just divorcing the description from the effect. All they're really doing with the various slots is siloing the abilities and marrying those silos to specific fluff text. All Movement based items are Feet based slots, for example.

If you want to keep the silos, just rename the 'item' based silos to effect based silos. Movement Item slots instead of Foot item slots, for example.

If you dont want silos AT ALL, you have other issues.

In 3e, stacking was common. It was limited, but there was still a lot of room for it. You just needed different bonus types and an empty slot to fit it.
In 4e, stacking is a lot more limited. Not just the bonus types are limited, the source is also limited. YOu can get only one magical item bonus/benefit per "area of improvement".
Fluff explaination can be two things:
- Magic needs an item related to what it is supposed to do. Arms of Walking realy fast don't make sense for magic.
- Multiple magical effects interact negatively with each other. Only one magical effect can be active, the other is supressed.

I wonder how this "bonus/benefit"-siloing will influence buff spells?

mearls · Jan 24, 2008

comrade raoul said:
Here's how: just give PCs steadily increasing, additional bonuses to their AC, saving throws, and attack and damage, directly proportionate to the enhancement bonus they're "expected" to get, and eliminate the enhancement bonus those items provide.

Yup, that's pretty much the intent. We went out of our way to embrace transparency in the rules, to better help DMs understand how magic items interact with PCs, how they interact with the system math, and what happens when you start to change things.

It's also why items have a level as a guide for their power, rather than a gp cost. It's a lot easier to look at an item's level and determine how powerful it is compared to a character, rather than look at its price, compare that price to expected wealth, and then try to figure out the impact of an item that's worth 10% of a PC's total treasure compared to one worth 20% of a PC's treasure.

When I designed Iron Heroes, it took a TON of work to rip out magic items and work in new mechanics to replace them.

With 4e, it'll take even a newbie DM maybe a half hour once he has learned the rules. Heck, you've already done the meat of the work in this post.

Aristotle · Jan 24, 2008

I love this idea, until you go and add plusses back in as additional supplementation above and beyond what is expected. If I use it, I'll leave that step out. I'd really like to see some variation of it added to the DMG as an optional play style.

I'll have to wait and see the finished product before I make a call as to how I'll run it (as I want to see how plusses interact with other enchantment options (i.e. fiery weapon) for body, neck, and implement slots. I want to keep those sorts of enchanted arms and armor an option, rather than just eliminating the slots completely... I just want the generic plusses gone.

Dragonblade · Jan 24, 2008

mearls said:
Yup, that's pretty much the intent. We went out of our way to embrace transparency in the rules, to better help DMs understand how magic items interact with PCs, how they interact with the system math, and what happens when you start to change things.

It's also why items have a level as a guide for their power, rather than a gp cost. It's a lot easier to look at an item's level and determine how powerful it is compared to a character, rather than look at its price, compare that price to expected wealth, and then try to figure out the impact of an item that's worth 10% of a PC's total treasure compared to one worth 20% of a PC's treasure.

When I designed Iron Heroes, it took a TON of work to rip out magic items and work in new mechanics to replace them.

With 4e, it'll take even a newbie DM maybe a half hour once he has learned the rules. Heck, you've already done the meat of the work in this post.

Indeed, its why I think the magic item article is great! It really is the best of both worlds. Thanks for stopping by, Mike!

Irda Ranger · Jan 24, 2008

double post

Irda Ranger · Jan 24, 2008

mearls said:
With 4e, it'll take even a newbie DM maybe a half hour once he has learned the rules. Heck, you've already done the meat of the work in this post.

CHA-CHING!!!

Mearls, thanks so much for stopping by and shedding a little light here! I'm really looking forward to the "transparent" DMG, so I can tinker in an informed manner.

How I Stopped Worrying and Learned To Love Standard Plusses

rkanodia

First Post

Ruin Explorer

Legend

Dragonblade

Adventurer

PeterWeller

First Post

Mustrum_Ridcully

Legend

mearls

Legend

Aristotle

First Post

Dragonblade

Adventurer

Irda Ranger

First Post

Irda Ranger

First Post

Similar Threads