Response to recent article by James Wyatt on DMG

[erik_the_guy]

I can't find where that is stated. I see that shields have a shield bonus and armor and armor bonus and normally they stack. Why wouldn't enchanted versions stack?

Tellerve

I didn't state it clearly, but what I meant was that unlike previous editions, the enhancement bonuses on shields and armors do not stack (actually shields do not have an enhancement bonus, but you know what I mean). The point is that you no longer have to worry about the fighter having a +3 armor and +3 shield making his AC unusually high for his level.

 

[Hambot]

Oh no, letting players get what they want in a game of make believe... must be a bad philosophy.

Honestly, just play it the way you want to. Have fun. But please don't abuse the guy who wrote the DMG for trying to increase the overall level of new PC satisfaction at the table as the default. As others have said, the whole thing has been rebalanced for 4e. I think it's a great book for new DM's and players who don't know what they want from a campaign yet.

In 3rd edition, I agree with you about game balance issues - letting people make a mirror of opposition is bad news. But a 4e Item of their level or lower?

Just try it. It aint gonna be that special. It just adds the flavour they seek.

 

[IanB]

Also remember if you're not giving out enough magic weapons, armor, and neck slot items to keep their enhancement bonuses around the baseline the rules specify, you're going to be screwing up the game balance at higher levels, as the monster ACs, defenses, attack bonuses, etc., are all set with those baselines in mind.

 

[jrz069]

I for one was totally relieved that in 3.x, characters were finally able to create magic items. Magic items went a long way toward defining what a character was like and what he could do, and I prefer that to be in the PC's hands. As the DM I still control what they're capable of creating, since I control the cash flow.

Not to be offensive, but I think a DM who worries about players creating their own items just has control issues. I never found it a problem creating challenging encounters, regardless of what items the players created for their characters.

 

[Warbringer]

Not to be offensive, but I think a DM who worries about players creating their own items just has control issues. I never found it a problem creating challenging encounters, regardless of what items the players created for their characters.

Really? Never played in an Eberron setting with artificers then

 

[Spatula]

Really? Never played in an Eberron setting with artificers then

The really powerful aspects of 3e artificers IME has nothing to do with their ability to make permanent magic items and everthing to do with being able to slap on-the-fly weapon/armor enchants on already enchanted weapons & armor, for minimal cost. Like putting the bane property on everyone's weapon for 10 min/lvl, keyed to whatever you plan on facing.

 

[NilesB]

I'm not sure Wyatt was saying letting them get any item they want is "essential" to the game. I recall his point being that choice of magic items is another way for players to customize their characters to their liking. Therefore, the DM usually shouldn't restrict access to them any more than he should usually restrict access to feats or powers.

Magic items have always been a major part of D&D's character customization. This is just the last part of random chargen going the way of the Dodo.

 

[Ganders]

Personally, I think the RPGA, and the Living campaigns in particular, influenced a number of 4e design choices. Letting characters have whichever magic items they want will simplify record keeping, make character sheets easier to check, and even improve the power balance between characters. Especially at conventions, or at pick-up games on the internet (WotC's own website, of course, not just anywhere we want).

There's also the 22-point buy, retraining, and a few other things that just scream 'Living FR' to me... I just can't shake the notion that it was all quite intentional.

The rest of us (DMs at least) will just have to remember that if we aren't playing at conventions, we can feel free to alter any and all rules as often as we want. Our 'houserules' just might be obviously and undeniably 'better' for the game as a whole, but simply less convenient for playing at conventions... and thus will never be official.

 

[SDOgre]

What I think people are missing is that D&D is a fantasy game. Magic items are... well... MAGIC! Magic is supposed to be mysterious, surprising, exciting...

What's mysterious about a list of weapons to choose from.. or God forbid, to make a wish list from and give to your DM. Holy crap.

This isn't Shadowrun where you buy books full of cool gear you can buy. Magic items are supposed to be special, rare, mysterious, exciting to get and figure out what they do.

4E PHB killed that.

I've always listened to my players and tried to insert items they wanted or liked. But now they're going to be disappointed if they don't get exactly what they want sooner or later.

And don't give me the "Do what you want with your campaign" crap. I know I can do whatever I want with my campaign. But I can't erase that list from the PHB.

I really like 4E overall. Lots of improvements. Lots of things I'm still holding judgment out on. But putting that list in the PHB just made a huge paradigm switch in the game. It made it very different.

And in this case, different is not good.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Now if you read the 1st edition DMG, and dragon articles of the time, controlling magic items was one of the most important jobs any DM had.

If you read the dragon articles of the time, then female characters needed different stats and character classes to male characters...