The Magic Items that WotC cannot publish

[avin]

Why create a rift between players and DMs.

I'm sure lots of DMs suffer because of the dullness of items too, and want a solution just as much as the players.

Not me, thanks.

4E dull items brought the balance I need to have fun DMing D&D.

 

[Umbran]

Actually, I'd think they can't publish them because they would end up as 'DM Only'.

Two things:

1) That's not why he said they couldn't publish it.

2) Every variation of the DMG and Monster Manual, and every adventure is already "DM only". That is not a barrier.

 

[Rel]

This all stems from the baseline of the core rules. When the DM deviates from that baseline by taking away access to powers, feats, whatever, the players are unhappy (and an unhappy player can REALLY moan about stuff).

Again, this just seems incredibly foreign to me as it relates to magic items.

Your example of taking away a class ability seems miles away from the idea that a PC should get any magic item they want from a book of non-standard magic items. The idea that a player would "moan" about this is something I find incredibly offputting. To the point that I would be reluctant to even game with that person.

 

[Obryn]

I'll add my voice to the chorus and say that I don't find 4e magic items inherently less interesting than 3e magic items, by and large. There are a few exceptions - notably in the "wondrous item" category that's declined since 2e - but I generally find them more interesting now. Simple +X items aren't the norm in 4e; they're pretty unusual. Weapons, armors, and amulets generally do a lot more than just adding a simple bonus. All too often, items in 3e would have to fill one of the Big Six, and few characters had much interesting stuff beyond that. 4e is in a better situation, here, at least IME.

Anyway, I think the missing design space is easier to fill than they'd expect. Let me lay it out...

The real problem isn't that some magic items will be more powerful than others. The real problem is the level/pricing/bonus assumptions. (For those few who aren't familiar with 4e's magic items, they're tiered in a 5-level cycle. Level 1, 6, 11, etc. are the simple +X items, and item abilities beyond that +X are effectively worth between 1 and 4 additional "levels", so right now there's no such thing as, say, a +1 item at level 6.)

So, for items like that necklace, you don't need to make a new kind of DM-only item (we have artifacts for that). Just open up the design space so that a weapon/armor/amulet ability can be worth 5 or more additional levels. I mean, if I have a +1 amulet that costs as much as a level 10 item, it can have a major effect and still remain balanced enough for players to buy or create it.

I don't think the situation is anywhere near as dire as the blogger presented. The design space is there; it just needs to be used.

-O

 

[ferratus]

I don't think the philosophy of the power level of magic items in 4e is a problem at all. There have been a lot of cool magic items that didn't do much but were a pleasure to have in the game. I think magic items suck in 4e for a completely different reason.

That reason is simply that they exist to fill a niche in the character's power suite, rather than existing for themselves. In other words, they exist to add another daily power, and to increase your % on a die roll. It should be no wonder then that they are boring.

A magical item can be cool without being very powerful, but it can't just be an extension of the character's abilities.

 

[Scribble]

Well, that's the thing, really. The statement they cannot publish them is... bogus. In the extreme. They darned well could publish them - put a big honkin' warning label on them saying, "These are dangerous to your game's balance, DMs may introduce these into their games at their own discretion".

This would violate their "all things are core" philosophy. Big whoop. Standing on principle here is not a virtue, if it prevents them from publishing things that inspire DMs.

Well sure- I think he means it in the same way someone on a diet says they can't eat a donut. Sure they CAN eat said donut but... Donuts don't fit in with the whole diet plan.

I think WoTC sure COULD make such a book if they wanted, but it goes against what they seem to have determined was a major problem with the earlier versions of the game. (You can choose if you agree it was a problem or not.)

Unexpected "gotchas" hidden in the rules the DM just didn't expect have a tendancy to make the game fall apart. Items like he mentioned fall into this category- too easy to be unexpected gotchas.

That said, I would love it if a 3pp published something like this... But not WoTC. I agree with what they're doing. Keep all the "official" rules to the point, and balanced, and let me (the DM) modify it as I see fit.

 

[ExploderWizard]

When I wanted different, flavorful items in 2E or 3.X, I made 'em up. When I want different flavorful items in 4E, I'll make 'em up.

Yeah I remember thinking this too. Then I looked at the complications of integrating this into the 4E character sheet and decided that expressing my creativity was not worth the hassle of having my players write out character sheets by hand. (A practice which should be outlawed by the Geneva Convention as inhumane)

Unless there is software support for custom items I will use the vanilla for 4E. The creative stuff can be saved for systems with character sheets less involved than an IRS form.

 

[Umbran]

While I understand, and even empathize with those lamenting the loss of "magical" magic items from D&D, I don't think its that big a deal.

Here's the thing - the logic goes beyond magic items. They are saying that they understand a local GM can use "unbalanced" material to good effect. They do it themselves. However, they can't publish such things for our use.

Apparently, we collectively can't be trusted with such material.

I normally give WotC and it's people a lot of leeway, but in this case, I'm a tad insulted.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

With the introduction of 3.5 they actually became mandatory, because the CR of high challenge monsters was computed with the assumption that all high level players would have an optimal suite of these items.

Wulf Ratbane will tell you that it's not as bad as people thought. But it wouldn't really matter. In the end, lots of players will always look for the highest positive modifiers they can get. It doesn't really matter if it is factored in the system or not.

[...]

By the way, I have a feeling of déjà vu. I think "we" (as in posters on EN World) have talked about these things before.

I don't expect anythingn new to happen in these discussions until WotC adds a new class of magic items. For some individuals, house rules will work fine, too, I suppose.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Apparently, we collectively can't be trusted with such material.

I normally give WotC and it's people a lot of leeway, but in this case, I'm a tad insulted.

I'm not that surprised.

Apparently, if you trust people with unbalanced material, and give suggestions for how to use it well, you are not attempting to make a "balanced" game.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/269031-ad-d1-designed-game-balance.html

Given the amount people grouse on the InterWeb, and given WotC's market niche, this is actually one thing I do not blame them for.