How I Stopped Worrying and Learned To Love Standard Plusses

[vagabundo]

A lot is explained in Races and Classes and Worlds and Monsters. No magic items will boost ability scores, period.

A belt of strength will NOT boost your strength attribute. What they hinted it will do is boost your strength in terms of carrying capacity, lifting, perhaps bonuses to strength based skill checks, etc. In other words you gain "strength" but not the combat bonuses that would ordinarily come from having a higher strength score.

This is fantastic. It makes items cool without making them broken, and conveniently eliminates the stacking problem since there is nothing to stack and no way a character can get multiple attribute boosts from different items, etc.

It also means my mind flayer wizard can give all this thralls belts of strength when they are clearing out large stones from his new lair and not worry about them turning on him.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

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.

thanks, thanks to all of you

the more I read of 4th edition the more it souds like

Ultimate Dungeons & Dragons

something to be happy about

 

[Bluenose]

I had really hoped that +X magic items would have died off. Nothing is more boring than a +1 sword. I had hoped that after Earthdawn and Diablo, D&D would realize that +X magic was just tiresome and "unmagical" in any way.

Give me a Crimson Sword of the Tiger any day over a +X item.

Conceptually it's a great idea, making magic items special by giving them specific names and abilities. The problem is with executing it in a way that's practical at the table. I tried it, for a six-month series of adventures, amd dropped the idea afterwards with no complaints from my players.

The problem comes when you have to remember what things do at the table. Your Crimson Sword of the Tiger doesn't give much indication of what it actually does. It's a sword, but the player and DM need extra notes to define what it's particular abilities are, in a way which isn't true of a Flaming Longsword +1. An item like my Lucretia's Sash is even more vague. In the end what you end up doing is increasing book-keeping and people's need to look things up without adding much to the enjoyment of the game.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Heh... well, we'll see soon enough if they do or not.

No. We'll see soon enough whether you do or not. I already know the answer in my case, thanks.

 

[Lizard]

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.

This is cool. It's the part where the article goes on to say "But we don't trust you as a DM, so we'll make some rules which won't let you give an 11th level item to a 10th level character -- if it's shaped like a ring, that is." which bug me. As is becoming all too typical with 4e infodumps, everything seems good, or at least tolerable, until the inevitable 10d6 Sneak Attack to the...gut.

And, PLEASE, do not respond with "Well, you can ignore that rule!" Sure. You can ignore ANY rule. (At least until 5e ships with the neural implant monitors) The problem is, if the rule is so trivial that any DM can safely ignore it at no risk, why is it there at all? And if it serves a Vital Balance Purpose, why only rings?

Since the idea of magic item level was introduced in late 3x (and I use it, and like it -- as a *guideline*), and is part and parcel of 4e, why not just leave it at that? Why special case rules for rings?

 

[A'koss]

No. We'll see soon enough whether you do or not. I already know the answer in my case, thanks.

You're missing the point of the discussion. I'm speaking in terms of what I think WotC will do given what we know (and why), not what I would do myself. Bottom line: I expect to see PC Wealth Guidelines in the DMG, that's it. The larger issue for me being the consequences for the game at large when all magic items are purchasable (running a game "by the book"). Your own campaigns are your own campaigns, as always.

 

[Lizard]

Conceptually it's a great idea, making magic items special by giving them specific names and abilities. The problem is with executing it in a way that's practical at the table. I tried it, for a six-month series of adventures, amd dropped the idea afterwards with no complaints from my players.

The problem comes when you have to remember what things do at the table. Your Crimson Sword of the Tiger doesn't give much indication of what it actually does. It's a sword, but the player and DM need extra notes to define what it's particular abilities are, in a way which isn't true of a Flaming Longsword +1. An item like my Lucretia's Sash is even more vague. In the end what you end up doing is increasing book-keeping and people's need to look things up without adding much to the enjoyment of the game.

I agree, on both counts.

I just gave a player a dagger called Melkish's Knife Of Revelations.

What will she write on her character sheet when she's done casting Identify?
"+1 small dagger, Int 11, Faerie Fire 3/day".

I always give items Cool Names; the players always forget them. A DM is never appreciated...

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I always give items Cool Names; the players always forget them. A DM is never appreciated...

I used the DMGII rules for letting players create magic items through rituals.
The Brb defeated a monster of CR 2 higher than his level, using his greathammer (greatsword stats). This let him use the Ritual of the Blood.

He needed the +1, liked the Flaming ability, and liked when I pointed out the Brutal Surge ability from DMGII. So that's what he went with.

Another player quickly named this hammer the "Hot Throbber."

He later had an enchantment added to make it shrink and grow. (To let it switch between warhammer size and greathammer size.)

Despite my best efforts, I could not get rid of this name.

 

[TwoSix]

You're missing the point of the discussion. I'm speaking in terms of what I think WotC will do given what we know (and why), not what I would do myself. Bottom line: I expect to see PC Wealth Guidelines in the DMG, that's it. The larger issue for me being the consequences for the game at large when all magic items are purchasable (running a game "by the book"). Your own campaigns are your own campaigns, as always.

True, but we have no proof that ALL magic items are purchasable. It's just as possible that items above a certain level have no listed cost, and must be obtained via adventure.

 

[TwoSix]

This is cool. It's the part where the article goes on to say "But we don't trust you as a DM, so we'll make some rules which won't let you give an 11th level item to a 10th level character -- if it's shaped like a ring, that is." which bug me. As is becoming all too typical with 4e infodumps, everything seems good, or at least tolerable, until the inevitable 10d6 Sneak Attack to the...gut.

And, PLEASE, do not respond with "Well, you can ignore that rule!" Sure. You can ignore ANY rule. (At least until 5e ships with the neural implant monitors) The problem is, if the rule is so trivial that any DM can safely ignore it at no risk, why is it there at all? And if it serves a Vital Balance Purpose, why only rings?

Since the idea of magic item level was introduced in late 3x (and I use it, and like it -- as a *guideline*), and is part and parcel of 4e, why not just leave it at that? Why special case rules for rings?

Why NOT special case rules for rings? I just don't understand the hostility to making one item different from the others. It's flavor.