Essentials: Magic Item Rarity Explained, it's actually good!

[Jhaelen]

Thanks for the clarification. however, that is still a little upsetting, since those books were marketed to players and not GMs... but since they're uncommon items, it will be the GM who decides which ones you get, since PCs can only choose their own common items, right?

The DM has always chosen what items a pc gets.

The 4e DMG advice is to encourage players to create a wishlist of items they'd like to get. It is still up to the DM to decide what treasure to place. So, the new rarities really don't change anything, except item creation.

Item creation is clearly no longer as useful as it once was.

 

[vagabundo]

Thanks for the clarification. however, that is still a little upsetting, since those books were marketed to players and not GMs... but since they're uncommon items, it will be the GM who decides which ones you get, since PCs can only choose their own common items, right? Or can you choose uncommon items based on your level?

It will be at the DM's discretion, but - as a player - you could use the book to quest for items and - in game - look to track down ones that you covet. I don't want magic items to disappear back behind the DM screen, I think that is a step backwards.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Second point - I would have thought that the position of 'career defining magic items' would have been perfectly covered by the artifact rules - the best bit of 4e magic items by a long shot IMO. Especially since different artifacts are aimed at different tiers. It introduces items which are designed to be with people for a certain time, which are interesting and powerful. Why have a separate group of 'rares' then?

Artifacts are a different kind of beast entirely though. They were never part of the parcel system at all. They weren't ever intended to be a defining part of your character. They were intended to be plot devices. An artifact isn't ever really YOURS as a player, it is something you interact with, more like a Companion Character. A rare item would be different. It would be something that belongs to the character that they keep, like other items, but with more history and significance. It seems to me like there's a niche for this kind of item.

 

[Scribble]

Are the going to need to change the alternative reward system at all because of this?

 

[ferratus]

I hope so. Neither of my DM's will use the reward system as given. They keep looking for a treasure generating table to look up. Since my DM's don't prepare rewards, they look on the rewards table for magic items, then sift through the books until they find something they like. If it is at the end of the session, they will generally "forget" to give out rewards at all.

So if there is a common, uncommon and rare treasure table to roll on, I'll get more rewards as a player, and it would be faster. Some residuum and rituals on the tables would be great as well.

 

[drothgery]

My personal hope is that they take the opportunity provided by the "rare" distinction to make items that aren't necessarily more powerful, but more interesting.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and disagree with this. As a DM, or a game designer, interesting magic items are fun. As a player, the folding boat is neat and all, but 90% of the time you'd rather have another +1 on your weapon/implement, armor, or neck slot item. Boring magic items are great. They're consistently useful, and it's easy to remember what they do (and in fact you can just figure them is being active all the time on character sheet and forget about it).

 

[MrMyth]

I disagree. There's a lot of evidence to say that the entire philosophy on the default balance level of 4e is different going forward. Some of it certainly seems linked to nostalgia reasons.

Yes. However, providing options to appeal to those who enjoy those nostalgic elements doesn't require removing the existing options from the game. Hence why claiming that "Marked" has been eliminated is blatantly incorrect - it is part of the rules, it remains part of the rules. Existing classes use it. One build that doesn't? That hardly overrides every other aspect of the game.

 

[Prism]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and disagree with this. As a DM, or a game designer, interesting magic items are fun. As a player, the folding boat is neat and all, but 90% of the time you'd rather have another +1 on your weapon/implement, armor, or neck slot item. Boring magic items are great. They're consistently useful, and it's easy to remember what they do (and in fact you can just figure them is being active all the time on character sheet and forget about it).

I think it depends on the player. As a player i find boring magic items...well boring. I'd generally prefer to have a folding boat, or wand of wonder, or instant campsite than an extra +1. The basic upgrade stuff needs to come in eventually but its rarely the thing I get excited about. I'd rather have a lower plus weapon with some interesting powers than a higher level basic version

 

[Plane Sailing]

Like Prism, I think I'd be happy in completely ditching vanilla magic items. Literally get rid of every item that gives a +x bonus to something.

Make all magic items interesting, some usable in combat, some not.

Lose the whole +1-6 grading of stuff entirely.

Can't see it happening, but I think it would be a huge improvement.

 

[Scribble]

Like Prism, I think I'd be happy in completely ditching vanilla magic items. Literally get rid of every item that gives a +x bonus to something.

Make all magic items interesting, some usable in combat, some not.

Lose the whole +1-6 grading of stuff entirely.

Can't see it happening, but I think it would be a huge improvement.

We already have the tools to pretty much do that though. (Through the inherent bonus system.)