WotC: Souldn't Magic Items Be Classified By Function?

[jester47]

You can get something similar to what you want by just divorcing the description from the effect. All they're really doing with the various slots is siloing the abilities and marrying those silos to specific fluff text. All Movement based items are Feet based slots, for example.

If you want to keep the silos, just rename the 'item' based silos to effect based silos. Movement Item slots instead of Foot item slots, for example.

This totally clears it up for me and makes perfect sense. Thank you.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, here's a question. If you can somehow nick a ranger's two-weapon fighting ability (sigh), can you use a +3 wand in each hand? Do they stack? Can you cast multiple spells? The ranger can make multiple attacks, after all...

The real question is, can he use two wands whilst standing on the top of a speeding Lamborghini:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/05/19

 

[Lanefan]

I am, however, very glad they limit item powers by form. It makes a lot of sense to me that footwear, for example, should be limited to affects dealing with movement. No boots of intelligence for me!

I'm not glad of this at all, as it becomes too obvious what something does just by looking at it. Field-testing magic items because you *don't* know what they actually do is a large part of the fun/mystery of the game; codifying things such that items that go in slot x always perform a variant of function y takes most of this away.

I still maintain that any item carried/worn anywhere should be able to be enchanted for any function, and that the primary way to limit min-max builds is to do away with the idea of PCs being able to relatively easily make or custom-buy their own items.

One of my all-time favourite articles from old-time Dragon Mags consisted mostly of a couple of random tables for oddball magic items - one table for what it was (spoon, glove, telescope, etc.) and a second table for what it did (+1 protection, night vision, levitation, etc.). This looks to be exactly the direction 4e design is moving away from, and the game will be poorer for it.

Lanefan

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm not glad of this at all, as it becomes too obvious what something does just by looking at it. Field-testing magic items because you *don't* know what they actually do is a large part of the fun/mystery of the game; codifying things such that items that go in slot x always perform a variant of function y takes most of this away.

It is not something I am concerned with, but I can understand why others (like you) might.

I still maintain that any item carried/worn anywhere should be able to be enchanted for any function, and that the primary way to limit min-max builds is to do away with the idea of PCs being able to relatively easily make or custom-buy their own items.

But what if they just by sheer luck find the right items for their character?

And personally, I really don't like the ideas of Boots of Intelligence +2. It totally doesn't fit my image. Even with the 3.0 and 3.5 generous item-creating rules, I would probably have never made such an item. It just doesn't fit thematically.

In the end, the 4th edition designers cared more about balance assumptions over a wider array of play styles, and thematic appropriateness, and did care less in experimenting with magical items. Your approach differs, and each has its place - (unfortunately, only one will go into 4th edition.)

 

[Mistwell]

I hope they go with Monte Cooks Arcana Evolved system of pricing item creation by "Single Use, Charged, X/day, Constant" instead of by what it looks like and which body part it attaches to.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Christmas Tree Effect. Someone else coined the acronym on another thread.

Man Just reading through this thread and others we need a sticky FAQ for all the acronims and terms people use (and I am not cool enough to know).
Especially ones that relate to MMOs (*spit*) that every gamer is supposed to know- If it ain't a FPS {I'll put it in the sticky} or a sim it doesn't go on my PC!

 

[delericho]

I'm not glad of this at all, as it becomes too obvious what something does just by looking at it.

Not really. You'll be able to tell that those fancy boots have something to do with movement, but you still won't be able to tell the difference between Boots of Elvenkind and Boots of Striding and Springing, for example.

There's a gap between "no idea what the item does" and "total knowledge of what the item does". I think having the game sit somewhere in between can only be a good thing. YMMV, of course.

 

[ZappoHisbane]

I still maintain that any item carried/worn anywhere should be able to be enchanted for any function, and that the primary way to limit min-max builds is to do away with the idea of PCs being able to relatively easily make or custom-buy their own items.

How do you propose starting a character at higher than levels 1-3 (or whenever magic items would start to become appropriate) then? That's where these 'builds' mostly come into play, when players are given X,000 GP and told to go to town. Of course they're going to put together the most advantageous gear that's within their budget.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I'm not glad of this at all, as it becomes too obvious what something does just by looking at it. Field-testing magic items because you *don't* know what they actually do is a large part of the fun/mystery of the game; codifying things such that items that go in slot x always perform a variant of function y takes most of this away.

The first few games I played, over 20 years ago, it was indeed an exciting part of the game to try and figure out what an item did experimentally. The excitement soon wore off though, just a rote part of the game, and eventually it became one of great annoyance.

"Another ring? Sigh. I jump, I walk across a puddle, I pick a fight in a bar. Nothing? I light myself on fire, I think 'you can't see me' real hard, I... I ... WISH I KNEW WHAT THIS STUPID RING DOES!!!

It was a ring of wishes with one charge left? Wonderful."

I hope they go with Monte Cooks Arcana Evolved system of pricing item creation by "Single Use, Charged, X/day, Constant" instead of by what it looks like and which body part it attaches to.

That's the system the OP is really referring to, and no, they aren't. For all the reasons given in this thread, and then some. Personally, I found the AE system too "gamey", a system mechanic and not the way "real" spellcasters would create items in a fantasy world. Having certain effects tied to specific spots on the body makes magic seem to adhere more to a believable internal logic, like chakra points in real-world mysticism, and not just some mechanic designed for a game.

 

[pemerton]

[*]Each Magic item has a level.
[*]All items of a given level cost the same amount.

Not necessarily. It may be that 2 items of the same level cost different amounts: eg a sword +2 and a sword +2 that grants Second Wind as a free action 1/day are probably the same level, but the second would cost more than the first.