Legand & Lore: Magic Items

[KidSnide]

Monte Cook's second Legends & Lore is up:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Magic and Mystery)

Personally, I really agree with the article. Rather than build in a fixed expectation about what magic items the PCs should get, the rules should provide the GM the tools to understand how different quantities and types of items will affect the PCs power levels. There is no reason every 12th level character needs to have the same level of loot. There should be room for high-loot games and low-loot games without resorting to inherent bonuses.

-KS

 

[KidSnide]

And I would feel slightly more intelligent if I had spelled "Legend" correctly in the thread title (and it would be even better if it was plural)...

-KS

 

[Incenjucar]

Monte has basically described a video game without a level cap to the items you can get a hold of, complete with the option to grind. :/

 

[Jack99]

And I would feel slightly more intelligent if I had spelled "Legend" correctly in the thread title (and it would be even better if it was plural)...

-KS

Don't worry, last week, Legends was spelled without the "d". It's apparently a common ENWorld disease

Regarding the article, Mr. Cook hits the mark, at least for me. Give me (the DM) an effective way to calculate how to balance my campaign depending on which items has been found and I would be a happier DM. I love thee balance of 4e, but it has taken something out of DnD. Inherent bonuses are the best thing since sliced bread because it removes the need for the constant upgrading/flow of weapon/armor/necklaces. But there has to be an even better way. Wonderous items are still a bit too meh.

 

[Incenjucar]

The main problem with inherent bonuses is that they act as a cushion, not a full alternative. Magic items still retain an upgrade-or-toss scenario, rather than growing with the character.

I'd like to see more magic items designed to grow with the character, while never becoming useless if left at their original level. You'd never use a +2 Flaming Sword at level 30, but you'd certainly use a flaming sword that adapted to your level. If you did some quests to get it upgraded it to a full Rare flame brand, all the better.

I've already started using "numberless" magic items, like Splitting and Dynamic weapons, and they're quite popular.

 

[Jack99]

The main problem with inherent bonuses is that they act as a cushion, not a full alternative. Magic items still retain an upgrade-or-toss scenario, rather than growing with the character.

I'd like to see more magic items designed to grow with the character, while never becoming useless if left at their original level. You'd never use a +2 Flaming Sword at level 30, but you'd certainly use a flaming sword that adapted to your level. If you did some quests to get it upgraded it to a full Rare flame brand, all the better.

I've already started using "numberless" magic items, like Splitting and Dynamic weapons, and they're quite popular.

If you use inherent bonuses, all you need to do is to rule that if your inherent bonus > the magic bonus of the sword, then the sword acts as if it had the inherent bonus. Meaning, that if a level 28 picks up a Flaming Sword +2, it acts as if it was a Flaming Sword +6 for the purpose of critical dice and other powers. It also mean that it would have grown with the character, had he found it earlier.

 

[Incenjucar]

This is true, but it significantly alters the balance of magic item prices and crafting. I'd really like to see a nice clean unified system that works all the adjustments out. I'd also like to see common->uncommon->rare expansions more, which were one of the things about MME I actually rather liked.

 

[Dire Bare]

I really dislike the idea of inherent bonuses, especially when they don't stack with item, and even more so if you get to use whichever is greater. What's the point of even having magic item bonuses if they don't matter? Or matter very little?

I'd like to see magic items largely taken out of the "math". I would have no inherent bonuses at all. I would have +1 weapons (and armors, etc) be about as common as they are today, to represent the superior crafting of a special item. However, I would have anything above a +1 incredibly, and increasingly, rare. I would love a 15th-level character get excited to finally earn a +2 sword! To replace item bonuses, I would differentiate items by powers.

Our fighter is unlikely to find a +2 sword in his career, and even less so a +3 or higher. But the +1 flametongue sword he finds in early heroic tier becomes a treasured weapon! It offers the option for his weapon damage to have the fire descriptor, maybe with a little extra damage to cold creatures, and a daily awesome fire-related power. As he advances in level and unlocks the secrets of this magical weapon, he gains further encounter and daily fire powers to use with the weapon.

 

[Grydan]

As I've said elsewhere, I'm all for the death of the +n weapon altogether.

I want magic items to be about interesting properties and powers, not math operations.

I liked this column a lot better than Cook's first.

 

[LightPhoenix]

While I agree with Monte almost completely on this, I think he does a disservice in not discussing what I consider to be a major development flaw of 4E. When they decided to curtail the Christmas Tree Effect (a good thing) they moved too far in the opposite direction, making too many items weak and boring.

I like the 4E concept of Roles. I think it's one of the concepts they got right when they designed 4E. Right now, I don't really feel that items accentuate the concept as much as they should. Items should be what allow a player to not just differentiate, but to add to the role they play in a party. If class/role is the cake, items are the frosting.