Legand & Lore: Magic Items

[GMforPowergamers]

I think the first thing is to scale back +x... no more +1-+6, but +1 or +2 with the bane like add on effects.


A weak magic sword:
It adds 1d4 fire and can once per day shoot a ray of fire
or
It makes you crit on a 19 or 20


An avrage magic sword:
+1 to hit and damage, +1d6 fire, and a cool fire encounter and daily power
or
+1 to hit and damage, +3 vs elemental

A Rare and powerful magic sword:
+2 to hit and damage +1d6 fire, and a few cool encounter or daily fire powers

or

+2 to hit +5 vs magic users, and add +1 to all defenses and saves vs arcane spells.

edit: I rember back in 2e we use to give out +2 or 3 swords and rings of protection by level 3 or 4, but even in high level campaigns (17+) I remeber few if any above +3.

I really want to imagin a world were my fighter can pick up a flaming sword, or a defender, or any other and still be a good fighter...

 

[FireLance]

Monte seems to be making the assumption that magic items cannot be an expected part of character advancement and a reward at the same time. On the other hand, he also seems to be advocating a style of play in which rewards are generally commensurate with the challenges overcome by the character: in order to get that 10th-level magic item, you need to defeat a 10th-level monster, for example.

He doesn't seem to realize that matching rewards to challenges implies that the rewards become expected. The specifics may vary, of course, and treasure generation may even be random, but if a 1st-level encounter has a 50% chance of generating a 1st-level magic item as a reward, and a party of 1st-level PCs are expected to overcome 10 1st-level encounters before they earn enough XP to reach 2nd level, they should expect to gain 5 1st-level magic items before they reach level 2.

What he might be advocating for is the need to trim the Christmas tree down even further or even eliminate it entirely, so that the DM can hand out any magic item and not worry that the PCs have apprpriate magic weapons, armor and neck slot items to keep up with "the math", or that players should not get to choose what magic items they earn. I'm okay with the former, but I will ignore any advice related to the latter. I've been allowing players to choose what magic items they gain since 3E, and it's working fine in my group. Naturally, YMMV.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I need to print this column out, so I can cuddle up to it and keep warm at night.

Seriously, I've wanted something like this for years (and I say that as a vocal fan of 3E and 4E both). I want magic items to have absolutely zero built-in connection to character advancement. I wand there to be exactly zero requirement that everyone have precisely the same number/value of items. And I want items to be interesting, by which I mean that no item should ever solely, or even primarily, add a numerical bonus to something. (And yes, that means I think that the idea of the +X items should be greatly curtailed, if not utterly eliminated.)

Dunno how possible it is to rewire either of the current editions to work that way, or if it would require the dreaded 5E, but I would weep grateful tears of holy water and Dos Equis if it happened.

 

[Stalker0]

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

I completely agree with this.

I understand Monte's sentiment in this, but there is a reason magic items became the common place commodity they are today...they aren't just desired....they are needed. That reason is primarily in the magic item bonuses.

4e took a step with its magic items, but it didn't go far enough. We don't need +5 swords, +3 armor, and +2 necklaces. We can be happy with flaming daggers, stalwart armor, and periapts of foretelling.

Just kill the sacred cow and be done with it...and with that it opens up a new freedom in magic item creation.

 

[FireLance]

Just kill the sacred cow and be done with it...and with that it opens up a new freedom in magic item creation.

While I'm neutral with respect to having +X items in the game, I don't see how it has constrained magic item creation. Seriously, a magic item's "plus" is completely orthogonal to whatever other properties it might have. Considerations like "this ability is too good for a +1 item" are more a function of the item's level (which I assume magic items will continue to have) than the actual plus.

 

[Nyronus]

Wow, a fantasy RPG where we can do away with magic gear and instead leave the real magic in dynamic, powerful, and arcane armaments with stories and challenges behind them.

I'm so glad 4e developed Inherent Bonuses and Artifacts for this style of play, and there is no real need for a system overhaul to implement this.

I'm also rather miffed at Monte's assumption that the game be the "loot and loot" centric tales of yester-year. His wizard can spend all the time she wants looking and questing for a single Robe of the Archmagi. My party is way too busy dealing with Tiamat's fascist empire, the looming threat of a Divine Civil War, and either an Abyssal or Far Realm invasion to be worrying over where to get their next +5 Sword. If a bunch of epic tier heroes want to stop and spend a whole quest getting one magic item, it better be something like the axe which cleaved Io in half, or the Sword of Kas.

Hence why I love inherent bonuses, boons, and artifacts as an alternative to the eternal +n treadmill. It de-clutters the narrative, giving more space to more interesting topics, and it allows for some truly epic additions once in a while. More or less everything Monte wants. So, once again Monte makes a big deal out of problems where a solution already exists in the system framework.

 

[Jack99]

I completely agree with this.

I understand Monte's sentiment in this, but there is a reason magic items became the common place commodity they are today...they aren't just desired....they are needed. That reason is primarily in the magic item bonuses.

4e took a step with its magic items, but it didn't go far enough. We don't need +5 swords, +3 armor, and +2 necklaces. We can be happy with flaming daggers, stalwart armor, and periapts of foretelling.

Just kill the sacred cow and be done with it...and with that it opens up a new freedom in magic item creation.

I agree. Even better than inherent would be a system where you dont need to get +1/4 levels in order to stay at par. Removing the + part of weapons, armors and necklaces would make for much more interesting choices. Weapons would be judged by their abilities and powers, instead of the amount of bonuses.

 

[Will Doyle]

I do like the suggestions here and elsewhere to ditch item enhancement bonuses in favour of power effects, but I don't see a case for this being argued in the article.

I'd be interested to see what their new guidelines would be for item allocation. I'd hope they retain a flat level suggestion, which then refers to a clear set of definitions about what's intended for each tier (or whatever).

Overall, I think the poll lacks a third option. I get a bit nervous by Monte's suggestions that magic items allow the DM to have a role in character customisation. I've seen issues before where DMs end up flavouring the character against their will - as Monte rightly says at the start of his article, even the difference between a flame tongue weapon and a helm of brilliance can be quite profound.

Honestly, I think 4E has the balance about right now - common items that can be brought or crafted, and then rare items that are only available as awards. I also have nothing wrong with using wish-lists: as overall, they're just letting players play the character they actually want to play. As long as they're not actually telling the DM when they should be getting them, it's all good with me.

 

[delericho]

If magic items make a character better then they need to be part of the character advancement track. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to balance the game.

(Sure, in theory it's possible, but the complexity of doing so explodes as the number of options increases. Given that WotC aren't going to stop introducing new items, and nor should they, they can't ignore that problem.)

If magic items are not to be an assumed part of the advancement, then they can make a character more interesting, more adaptable, or more diverse, but they must not make the character simply better. So, no bonuses to hit, or skill checks, or defences. Damage from attacks must remain comparable to what the PCs can get using their own powers (and the magic item cannot increase the damage that the PC does with his powers!).

The goals expressed in the article (to make items more interesting, and to remove them as an assumed part of advancement) are good ones. But the proposed solution is awful - it just won't work.

Oh, and the poll's rubbish, too.

 

[LostSoul]

I understand Monte's sentiment in this, but there is a reason magic items became the common place commodity they are today...they aren't just desired....they are needed. That reason is primarily in the magic item bonuses.

Magic items are only needed because the players can't decide what level of risk they are going to take.