How I Stopped Worrying and Learned To Love Standard Plusses

[rkanodia]

Since you stopped by... thats all well and good for the primary items.
But what about the secondary items? The article mentions that bracers give offensive 'abilities', but not direct bonuses, gloves have attack properties, belts have things like strength boosting, and various 'other' items like potions and items will have a few, but not many combat functions.

If you take all those separate items together, in all their different slots where they don't overlap, how does that not accumulate into a giant pile of combat-related awesome, even if it doesn't give a single enhancement bonus?

It won't be on a mathematical curve, but it seems like these things still affect the game...significantly. In the sense that a 10th level fighter who has them will always be significantly, mechanically better than a 10th level fighter that doesn't.

My guess would be that this is one of the benefits of adding at-will and per-encounter powers. For instance, if your gloves give you some new attack ability, you aren't comparing it to a vanilla attack - you're comparing it to Careful Strike (an at-will Ranger ability, granting an attack at +4 to hit) or whatever other powers your character has.

I would assume that secondary items are a net benefit - sometimes those extra options will fit the circumstances better than the ones they have built-in, and if they don't, you can just stick to your defaults. However, it seems to me that those benefits will accumulate in the way of 'covering more scenarios', not 'make you better at covering all scenarios'. Personally, that sounds fine to me. If magical items DON'T make a character who uses them 'significantly, mechanically better', why would anyone bother?

 

[Agamon]

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.

Sweet. Thanks for clarifiying, Mike. Keep up the good work.

 

[Nine Hands]

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 less 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.

With 3.x you MUST account for stat boosters, which are a PITA to manage IMHO. If I want to ditch magic items completely, I just have to have an attack, damage, and AC or Defense boost. That is much simpler than adjusting 6 ability scores, cascading those changes down, then adding in Deflection bonuses, Resistance bonuses, etc.

I've tried no magic D&D before and ended up going to Iron Heroes for that type of game, it was just easier.

 

[Nymrohd]

Some random ramblings on magic items

How exactly can the secondary slot items be created in a way that they are concurrently interesting and appealing to players, without providing significant, even if temporary and circumstantial, combat bonuses?

Many of the nay-sayers (and they have every right to their opinion), provide the argument that if secondary slot items are there, even if their abilities are circumstantial and temporary, their usefulness in combat will make players demand said items, on the classic and human concept of if I can have something then I must have it.

We can easily infer from the article that encounters will be designed with only the primary slots in mind, so magic items will simply make encounters easier, or at least provide another way to extricate yourself from a potential TPK (just as the new healing rules and the action point inclusion seem to intent).

Is anything being done to openly discourage the Ye Olde Magic Shop Inc. concept? Also is that action taken in the DMG, or is it ingrained in the PHB so that players begin with the concept in mind?

How simple is item creation and item creation rules? The rules in 3.x for item creation were in large part the reason why characters justified the trade of encounter loot into gold to buy stat booster items, on the premise that item creation was defined, with items being directly priced, and the demographics of the DMG directly stating that anything below the GP limit of a city was buyable.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Rings aren't cool so we'll force them to be cool by making them overpowered? Pffft. Then apparently they've made them SO overpowering that it's impossible to have a balanced game if you wear two? Seems a bit "out of whack" to me.

But without the level limits you can't allow items that powerful in the game. Too easy to abuse. You can complain about it if you want, but personally I am glad to have a mechanic that allows me to introduce items of this nature. I want some powerful item options without having to go all the way to Artifact status.

Flavor text link

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.

 

[Irda Ranger]

How exactly can the secondary slot items be created in a way that they are concurrently interesting and appealing to players, without providing significant, even if temporary and circumstantial, combat bonuses?

Opportunity costs. They're not better than your normal, non-item-dependent attacks - just different. They give you more options, but they don't push out the power curve.

Imagine if Whirlwind Attack was an at-will Fighter class ability (not at 1st level, obviously). Pretty good, right? Well, if you have to choose between Whirlwind Attack and whatever power your Bracers grant you, that might be a hard choice. It surely won't be a power boost; just an options boost.

Think of it as adding tools to your Swiss Army knife, not trading in the knife for a Bowie.

Is anything being done to openly discourage the Ye Olde Magic Shop Inc. concept? Also is that action taken in the DMG, or is it ingrained in the PHB so that players begin with the concept in mind?

I must assume so. This has been specifically identified as a problem to be solved.

 

[Nymrohd]

I guess a lot will come up to how easy it will be for players to create magic items (standard or custom). What we know is that they are rituals, they don't cost XP and that rituals are costly. Would love to have some more information on that.

P.S. Personally I support the magic item system because it is simpler and I know full well that item glut is tied to the DM and nothing else. And I trust myself to know what my players like.

 

[kennew142]

I'll be particularly peeved, actually, if, for some unfathomable reason, you can only have on "miscellaneous" item or whatever it's called (the example given was a bag of holding). Oh well.

It would seem that you have no reason to be peeved.

According to the article, miscellaneous items do not take up any space on the body. You may also note that this 'slot' is listed in the plural - miscellaneous items.

 

[Raduin711]

I think so long as they keep their promise to not have any stat-boosting items, and they keep the standard stat bonuses on the neck, chest, and implement slots, I think we will be in the clear. I think this makes it possible now to run low-magic/low-money campaigns.

 

[Voss]

I think so long as they keep their promise to not have any stat-boosting items, and they keep the standard stat bonuses on the neck, chest, and implement slots, I think we will be in the clear. I think this makes it possible now to run low-magic/low-money campaigns.

Belts are listed as temporarily boosting strength. Promise: already broken.