Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Nods it also allows for certain instances of forced movement wouldnt have the effect and others would without coming up with artificial names for the types.
D&D 4E Throwing ideas, seeing what sticks (and what stinks)
Nods it also allows for certain instances of forced movement wouldnt have the effect and others would without coming up with artificial names for the types.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Honestly, I'm mostly a fan of just applying a standard condition and having the power describe the fluff. Not that you shouldn't ever have anything else, but I really disliked the multiplication of different ways of translating something like 'got a knock on the head' into mechanics. There must be literally 40 different incarnations of that in 4e powers. Its silly.
MoutonRustique
Explorer
Magic for inherence
So, as always, I've been tinkering with stuff and my latest craze has become magic items, residuum and the in-game economy. (You know, the easy stuff.
)
So a few points for context :
So, here are my random ideas about this :
(A) Most items are now temporary in terms of either duration or usage (or both).
Methods available (i.e. that I like) for this concept:
in-game time duration
I don't especially like this one as I don't like to keep track of time all that rigorously. Plus, for some games, a week can mean the whole damn campaign! While for others, we're not even past 1/2 the first quest-line...
On the flip side, when you time things in terms of weeks, there seems to be an easy consensus that the item is of immediate use and to be considered dead once you exit the round or hour -based time pace. So, that's not so bad.
usage limits (or its usual name: charges)
I don't mind keeping track of charges, when they get used. But I've found charged items (much like single use) tend to have the "last cookie on the plate" effect : everyone was more than willing to take 2 or 3 cookies, but that last cookie... no one seems to be willing to be "the guy that took the last cookie". So that stuff just lingers on... 13 levels later, you've still got that last charge of "spark" that deals 1d6+4 fire damage with a +4 to hit. Why? "Just in case." Argghh. Hate that.
random usage limit
The simplest (and possibly best) of which is : use item, make a save. Failed save = dead item.
Another one is : use item, roll die. If die is less than # of uses, dead item. (All variants of this approach included.)
I love this one most as it really expresses what I want to convey : the goblin hexer's rod does hold power. It just does so very poorly.
(B) Most monster items must be maintained. These rituals are not trivial, and most involve very un-heroic undertakings (though not necessarily evil), significant prep time and resources.
An example of this would be for the same goblin hexer's rod : empowering it for a few days requires a week long "soup" creation composed of disgusting stuff. It's not evil, but your neighbors will not be happy that you have a feces ratatouille bubbling 24/7 in the yard...
So yeah. That's that. Thoughts?
So, as always, I've been tinkering with stuff and my latest craze has become magic items, residuum and the in-game economy. (You know, the easy stuff.
)So a few points for context :
- I liked the 3.x thing of enemies having PC-equivalent levels of magic available to them when appropriate
- I feel 4e has many items that feel bland
- the goal of "Character over items" was important
- the above point wasn't actually achieved
- when using inherent bonuses (which should really be the default IMO), many (if not most) items, especially weapons and implements, become very dull
- I want pretty much all enemy casters to have magical implements
- I want many enemy weapon users to have magical weapons (when they have plausible sources for them)
- I want all these considerations to not break the game into a thousand pieces
So, here are my random ideas about this :
(A) Most items are now temporary in terms of either duration or usage (or both).
Methods available (i.e. that I like) for this concept:
in-game time duration
I don't especially like this one as I don't like to keep track of time all that rigorously. Plus, for some games, a week can mean the whole damn campaign! While for others, we're not even past 1/2 the first quest-line...
On the flip side, when you time things in terms of weeks, there seems to be an easy consensus that the item is of immediate use and to be considered dead once you exit the round or hour -based time pace. So, that's not so bad.
usage limits (or its usual name: charges)
I don't mind keeping track of charges, when they get used. But I've found charged items (much like single use) tend to have the "last cookie on the plate" effect : everyone was more than willing to take 2 or 3 cookies, but that last cookie... no one seems to be willing to be "the guy that took the last cookie". So that stuff just lingers on... 13 levels later, you've still got that last charge of "spark" that deals 1d6+4 fire damage with a +4 to hit. Why? "Just in case." Argghh. Hate that.
random usage limit
The simplest (and possibly best) of which is : use item, make a save. Failed save = dead item.
Another one is : use item, roll die. If die is less than # of uses, dead item. (All variants of this approach included.)
I love this one most as it really expresses what I want to convey : the goblin hexer's rod does hold power. It just does so very poorly.
(B) Most monster items must be maintained. These rituals are not trivial, and most involve very un-heroic undertakings (though not necessarily evil), significant prep time and resources.
An example of this would be for the same goblin hexer's rod : empowering it for a few days requires a week long "soup" creation composed of disgusting stuff. It's not evil, but your neighbors will not be happy that you have a feces ratatouille bubbling 24/7 in the yard...
So yeah. That's that. Thoughts?
MoutonRustique
Explorer
Magic for inheritence (suite)
What I actually want to talk about - specific items that would work within the context of players having inherent bonuses, and that allow for enemies to have items frequently.
I've settled on two approaches : (1) see above post, (2) significant drawbacks (NOTE: numbers are usually with heroic tier in mind.)
Foulspawn Seer staff - Peer Into the Maelstrom - minor action, you are dazed until eont, +2d6 extra damage on your next attack before eont.
variant : you are blinded instead of dazed - I think I like this one better.
The idea here is that you take your turn normally, and then, as your last action, you activate the staff, you hobble yourself significantly, but you get a significant damage boost.
Goblin Hexer's rod - Vexing Cloud - standard action, Area burst 3 within 10; enemies within zone take a -2 penalty to attack rolls. The zone grants concealment to caster and his allies. Sustain minor. When you sustain the zone, you can move it up to 5 squares. After you cast vexing cloud, make a save, if you fail, the rod's magic is spent (in addition, the cloud can no longer be sustained).
Special: if the rod has been properly maintained, you automatically succeed on this save.
I also have a vague idea about a magical poisoned blade that requires a poison dose be added to it every day (not a problem for yuan-ti), but could get expensive pretty fast...
What I actually want to talk about - specific items that would work within the context of players having inherent bonuses, and that allow for enemies to have items frequently.
I've settled on two approaches : (1) see above post, (2) significant drawbacks (NOTE: numbers are usually with heroic tier in mind.)
Foulspawn Seer staff - Peer Into the Maelstrom - minor action, you are dazed until eont, +2d6 extra damage on your next attack before eont.
variant : you are blinded instead of dazed - I think I like this one better.
The idea here is that you take your turn normally, and then, as your last action, you activate the staff, you hobble yourself significantly, but you get a significant damage boost.
Goblin Hexer's rod - Vexing Cloud - standard action, Area burst 3 within 10; enemies within zone take a -2 penalty to attack rolls. The zone grants concealment to caster and his allies. Sustain minor. When you sustain the zone, you can move it up to 5 squares. After you cast vexing cloud, make a save, if you fail, the rod's magic is spent (in addition, the cloud can no longer be sustained).
Special: if the rod has been properly maintained, you automatically succeed on this save.
I also have a vague idea about a magical poisoned blade that requires a poison dose be added to it every day (not a problem for yuan-ti), but could get expensive pretty fast...
Last edited:
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Magic for inherence
So, as always, I've been tinkering with stuff and my latest craze has become magic items, residuum and the in-game economy. (You know, the easy stuff.
So a few points for context :
- I liked the 3.x thing of enemies having PC-equivalent levels of magic available to them when appropriate
- I feel 4e has many items that feel bland
- the goal of "Character over items" was important
- the above point wasn't actually achieved
- when using inherent bonuses (which should really be the default IMO), many (if not most) items, especially weapons and implements, become very dull
- I want pretty much all enemy casters to have magical implements
- I want many enemy weapon users to have magical weapons (when they have plausible sources for them)
- I want all these considerations to not break the game into a thousand pieces
The problem with 'classic' D&D/3.x and magic items is that the bad guys MUST have them to be a true threat, at which point the PCs WILL have them when they win (which they pretty much must or else you don't have a game). This is the problem that 4e's technique is intended to solve. Monsters 'stand alone', they're fearsome and fully capable of holding their own, with their abilities built-in, so they just don't need items!
IMHO the problem of 'character over items' is a red herring. The problem is when characters are NOTHING BUT items, not when a few items are vital to their success at times (or incrementally useful all the time like magic armor/NAD items). IN TOTAL the goal may not have been completely achieved, but it was CERTAINLY achieved in one respect. Let me give an example:
I have a 14th level Wizard character in 2e (was a 1e character). He has a Staff of The Magi, a Displacer Cloak, and a Robe of Eyes, and Wings of Flying. Everything else about the character, mechanically, is built on this combination of items. His spell selection, contents of spell books, his choices of other minor defensive items, which scrolls and potions he's chosen to create, etc. ALL of it is based on having this specific combination of items and thus the mechanical advantages and limitations which flow specifically from his use of them. Tangling with ultra-powerful beings in 2e is a tricky tricky thing, even for 14th level PCs, and thus when taking on something like Demogorgon, the exact interactions of all these elements has to be perfect! The character is, in effect, mechanically determined by his item selection.
No 4e PC is so completely constrained in this way. I mean, sure, you might need a Frost Brand in order to put the cherry on top of your Frost Cheese combo build, but you could get cold damage another way, or simply use some other tactics. Because everything is measured in terms of damage, and not 'gotcha!' SOD effects, and defenses etc. are all fairly consistent its not such a huge big deal to have one specific 'kit', and you don't need to build your character's 'shtick' around an item (like the Staff of The Magi in my example, this is a crazy 'shtick forming' item).
I certainly cannot say your other 'wants' are wrong, that would be silly, but I wonder why you have some of them? I mean, 6 and 7 particularly, what is the point? I mean, every caster can have an implement, most of those need not be magical, same for weapons. I mean, IF you are wanting to portray a world where every guy has magic items, and they're just commonplace, then OK I get it. If not, and I think the desire to 'make magic special' is likely to be more consistent with this, then why do it? Why have every orc boss swinging +N magic sword? There's only one of 2 possible outcomes here
1. The PCs will soon be flush with these really cool magic swords, at which point they will not be cool anymore.
2. Magic swords will just be humdrum and nobody will care.
You cannot have both 'items are special' and 'monsters constantly use items', the two are not consistent with each other.
As for 8, again, either items aren't that important and are thus fairly humdrum, or else they are and you cannot achieve this while having them be all over the place.
I think most of this is consistent with my experience. I think one way to handle this sort of issue is to have a lot of consumables. 4e was weak in the area of consumables. The game devalues prep and thus took a hard line on the power available in a consumable. The whole budgetary nature of items also work against their use, psychologically. Add to that the ease of actually making them by baseline 4e rules (pre-errata) and you have a problem.
However, making consumables MOST of the focus of the magic item economy, and making a lot of them basically sort of 'bottled rituals' and whatnot could be an answer. Leave the permanent stuff to the inherent bonuses and to more 'artifact like' kinds of things mostly. There COULD be a 'magic sword' that's part of the story, but it should be mostly a story item. Its powers may even be 'one time' kinds of things, perhaps not even under PC control!
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
The magic user impresses his ritual on his mind as a quick use... and forgets it after casting.
Last edited:
MoutonRustique
Explorer
The idea here isn't to give NPCs a bunch of items to alter their stats. The idea is to have items that are inspired by their stats. On the creature building front, absolutely nothing changes.
The purpose is to have magic be an integral part of the world for everyone - not just the PCs - and not have it break the economy in a million pieces.
By making power based on continued investments, we can sidestep this problem a bit : while, for a few days, PCs could end up with 10+ magical rods, staffs, wands, amulets and etc, in effect, those things are not worth much to almost anybody.
In essence, I'm providing two choices : try and use what they can (most of it will be useful, but even then, things will compete on the opportunity cost), or try and extract what they can out of items (I'm thinking ~1/20th of the usual worth in residuum
See above.
Also, for my circle of buddies, magic items are already "just gear". As such, the cool ones that stand out have the exact same characteristics as the cool "non-magical" items that stand out : they have player investment. Either from a cool picture that's been associated with the item, the sense of accomplishment when it was acquired, a particular description that struck a chord, or some completely random thing a player just decided.
I can try and make memorable items, but, IME, the ones that really stuck, weren't the ones I worked the hardest on - like, at all. So I've given up trying to "actively" make them "special" - I throw stuff at the wall as often as I can think of something possibly cool and then I have to just let the players decide if some of it, or something sparked by it, or something they saw on TV gets traction.
This is analogous to what I'm going for - but it's a different angle. But a very good one.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
I generally agree with the flavor aspect... at a world level I think this is true. You can only have magic be integral or special by rarity, but can we make them special other ways? The idea of making the economic kick back on items so poor that even gathering up enemy gear for disenchanting is a time choice is something. There are lots of story reasons for instance perhaps items are very bound to the individual using them making just picking them up and using them prohibitive forcing that disenchant or alternatively an attunement ritual to get anything valuable and limiting it as well.
Once you start putting those kind of barriers into place wouldn't that re-introduce a reason for higher rarity and game world price. And I think concepts like attunement seem a place to emphasize this is something heroes have not the everyman?
The place I find items most significant is their relationship to the hero.
For me I want the relationship between the PC and his magic items to be a player choice and an expression of the character... Are you making one of the Atlantean soldiers for whom magic items are just gear. Are you making a Beowulf or Lancelot who nobody would notice they did have a magic item. Are you making an Arthur who has many of his player character abilities like Warlord or Bardic powers described as things awakened or gifted by his Excalibur.
I made up that Riddle of Steel/Oath of Independence practice (and the Martial Focus in support of Martial Techniques) with some of this in mind
Last edited:
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
A lot of little items are harder to create a theme on... they do become just gear because of that. Item sets are kind of a compromise that might help.
Making the player involved in the design of an item has always for me been the key...
MoutonRustique
Explorer
Death Priest rod - Death Curse - standard action, ranged 10, 1d8+Con(?) necrotic damage and -5 to all target's defenses until eont. Hit or Miss: you grant combat advantage and have vulnerable 5 all until eont.
Special: if you underwent the resistance ritual, you may cancel one of the drawback effects. If you undertook the full atunement ritual, you suffer none of the drawbacks, the penalty is increased to -5, and the spell deals 1d8 extra necrotic damage (and you should probably be an NPC: those things should not be done...)
Special: if you underwent the resistance ritual, you may cancel one of the drawback effects. If you undertook the full atunement ritual, you suffer none of the drawbacks, the penalty is increased to -5, and the spell deals 1d8 extra necrotic damage (and you should probably be an NPC: those things should not be done...)
Last edited:
