New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[rkanodia]

I never saw the "Christmas Tree Effect" as a big problem in 3rd edition, because to be honest, I was never totally clear what it was. It seems to me that it's more of a very loosely defined buzzword than an specific phenomenon. There's been like 4-5 competing definitions in this thread already, ranging from "PCs have an item in every slot", to "PCs need +X items to be viable" to just "magic items should be rarer and more special... Christmas Tree!"

I'd like to propose a few more specific buzzwords:

"Layer Cake": The individual layers of a layer cake aren't all that high, but when you keep stacking them up, you can build something ridiculously tall. Similarly, you might not have a problem with a suit of +5 armor, or with a +5 amulet of natural armor, or with a +5 ring of deflection. However, when a PC uses all of them together, it can cause problems, because, like the layer cake, it builds up to an unreasonable height.

"Sega CD 32X": There were a few games released for Sega Genesis that required both the Sega CD and Sega 32X expansions in order to play. The resulting system was a ridiculous behemoth with more things plugged into it (32X sticking out of the top of the Genesis, SegaCD on the side, extra power cords, extra video cords) than a person on life support. Thus, I propose the 'Sega CD 32X' effect to be the one where PCs feel the need to put an item in every slot just to stay competitive.

"The Incredibles"*: One line from the villain of the Incredibles was that "when everyone is special, no one is". If encounters assume that the PCs all have a certain level of +X items, then the DM finds himself in the position of having to choose between letting his PCs be severely underpowered, or hacking his way around the rules, or just letting them have the items - and then players don't feel like a +5 longsword is 'special' at all, because everybody has one.


*I don't mean to claim that this idea is something new to the Incredibles; quite the contrary. However, this iteration of the basic idea is recent, succinct, and pop culture.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This will work if, and only if, players can't acquire items through crafting or trade. If they can get their gear independent of what the GM provides, then it's out of his hands and he will have to deal with properly-geared PCs.

Only if the GM provides a setting and a campaign where
- Trading magical items is possible
- Time for creating magical item exists.

Furthermore, just house-ruling that these things are simply _not_ possible is a lot easier if you know that the core assumptions only require 3 items. You can even replace these items with a slight adjustment to the advancement table for attack and defenses!

Yes, I know, some people don't want to start a new edition of D&D and begin house-ruling in the first minute. But that's unavoidable, if there is more than one type of player attracted by the same game. At least you will know what you're doing and how to do it in 4E.

 

[Irda Ranger]

This post really cleared up what I was missing in the article. I agree now the new system will rock, especially since you can house rule that the slot/silo is not connected to a body part.

I'm not sure jester47 really did enough to stress the importance of this link. Please see the comments by MIKE MEARLS in the other thread on this topic. He clearly states that the assumptions that are built in will be clearly outlined in the DMG and that "even a newbie" DM will be able to adjust his campaign's "Christmas Tree" to taste.

Really. Everyone should read it before continuing to post here.

 

[Bishmon]

Please see the comments by MIKE MEARLS in the other thread on this topic. He clearly states that the assumptions that are built in will be clearly outlined in the DMG and that "even a newbie" DM will be able to adjust his campaign's "Christmas Tree" to taste.

That sounds promising. Can you post his comments? I just don't want to have to wade through another thread on the subject, especially if you already know where the comments are. Thanks.

 

[grimslade]

A few thoughts/opinions:

The whole 'no ring until you are this tall' thing is actually kind of neat. I like the synergy with the tiers. A magic item that means something. A 9th level PC is on top of the world until he sees the BBEG whip out two rings.

I am annoyed with the incorporation of certain magic items into the math. (i.e. +2 armor at level 10). My expectations may have been exaggerated for the deforestation of the CTE, but I really wanted to be able to have Conan/Fafhrd/Grey Mouser like heroes, who spent all of their coin and equipment on ale and entertainment and could still be effective with whatever equipment was handy. Maybe in 5E.

:EDIT: Read the Mearl's retorts. Still miffed the baseline isn't at 0 necessary magic items, but that's my issue, I guess.

 

[Corinth]

Only if the GM provides a setting and a campaign where
- Trading magical items is possible
- Time for creating magical item exists.

Players control time. All that needs be said is "I'm (We're) going over here, to this secured space, and taking the time needed to make this stuff.", where "here" is someplace proofed against hostile NPCs and plausible deleterious events, and the GM gets to sit there trying to figure out what to do next. Furthermore, players expect trade because--especially as your game moves into 5th level spells--the setting expands large enough to make trade in goods or services of any sort inevitable regardless of the GM's intentions. ("We can teleport to any spot in the world, and none will trade with us? No, it doesn't work that way.")

Furthermore, just house-ruling that these things are simply _not_ possible is a lot easier if you know that the core assumptions only require 3 items. You can even replace these items with a slight adjustment to the advancement table for attack and defenses!

Yes, I know, some people don't want to start a new edition of D&D and begin house-ruling in the first minute. But that's unavoidable, if there is more than one type of player attracted by the same game. At least you will know what you're doing and how to do it in 4E.

You make rules all you like. If the players don't accept your house rules, then they mean nothing; they are in control, not you, because you have no means to enforce your decisions. This is part of the reasoning behind the Oberoni Fallacy, which you just asserted. The rules as-written, and their emergent properties, are all that matter.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The whole 'no ring until you are this tall' thing is actually kind of neat. I like the synergy with the tiers. A magic item that means something. A 9th level PC is on top of the world until he sees the BBEG whip out two rings.

That's puke-inducing, frankly. What, you can "con" an NPC's level by using Detect Magic and checking out his hands? God I hope not.

 

[Nebulous]

I don't get the "ring at 10th level thing." How is a Ring of Warmth unsuitable for a low level character? What STOPS him from slipping it on his finger aside from the DM not introducing rings into his campaign? Or do rings have an inherent sense of how many XP their users possess and don't work until they meet the required skill level?

 

[Dragonblade]

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4011654&postcount=16

See Mike Mearls post here.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Only if the GM provides a setting and a campaign where
- Trading magical items is possible
- Time for creating magical item exists.

What M_R said, plus the design articles mention that rituals are expensive, so the DM can also contain magic item creation by not compensating low magic with high gold.

Also, it seems the intent is that the effects of the optional slot items are not constant-buff effects like those of the "main three." They will allow your character to do "cool things" not just add +X to a stat, attack or defense. This was a problem for DMs such as myself that allowed free trade of magic items. The players would sell any item that didn't provide a stat, attack or defense boost so they could buy another item that did. And just about every slot had items that did so. They even provided guidelines for making non-standard-slot items so you could have a +2 mask of protection. Now the players will only have three slots to fill the need for combat-boosters, leaving the rest for hopefully "cooler" effects. The proof of this will have to wait, but the design article shows their intent to achieve this.