Legand & Lore: Magic Items

[UngeheuerLich]

That could actually work.

I though about spell books working that way:

You have one daily attack power per level as a mage, but you can find tomes and use a different daily powered by your daily. Wizards only.

An easy way to give back the wizard feel of older editions.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That could actually work.

I though about spell books working that way:

You have one daily attack power per level as a mage, but you can find tomes and use a different daily powered by your daily. Wizards only.

An easy way to give back the wizard feel of older editions.

I am not certain off-hand, but doesn't the Essentials Mage do this, basically? The core Wizard just allows you to pick one out of two choices, but the Essentials Mage allows more. (But I believe you only ever gain 2 automatically for each level).

Problem of course - this doesn't work with the Essential Classes. Well, too bad for them.

Of course, it could in a 5E version, where you might get the choice between permanent abilities and daily powers for some classes - then you might have the option to eschew one of your non-power features for a daily or encounter power for your sword. Or an item might allow you to eschew a power for a feature.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I agree, but I see the opposite in this thread as well. Lots of people making inferences into what Monte is thinking, that go beyond what Monte wrote, for good or ill. I've read a number of posts here and thought, "What? Where did you get that? I have to go back and reread now!"

Probably fear and wishful thinking.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I am not certain off-hand, but doesn't the Essentials Mage do this, basically? The core Wizard just allows you to pick one out of two choices, but the Essentials Mage allows more. (But I believe you only ever gain 2 automatically for each level).


Of course, it could in a 5E version, where you might get the choice between permanent abilities and daily powers for some classes - then you might have the option to eschew one of your non-power features for a daily or encounter power for your sword. Or an item might allow you to eschew a power for a feature.

I would actually like to see this implemented. Think about having a sword that has power X that no other item or class has. Now what you could do is track this per encounter. Let's say the sword has a power that is equivalent to a level 3 power. Well the fighter for instance would need to choose to use either the power from the sword or his normal level 3 power.

 

[I'm A Banana]

but a lack of balance doesn't make the game more fun, it makes it less fun

This isn't necessarily true.

Think about the vorpal sword. The design could be that, say, on a roll of 20, a normal or minion enemy makes a save or is decapitated. It's still a high-level, rare item (possibly high paragon/epic tier), so getting your hands one in the course of a campaign would be cool.

And then, the person who rolled a 20 on their attack roll, could auto-kill certain enemies who might die when their heads are cut off, and feel like a frickin' awesome rockstar for a round.

And the downside is...what? A few easier combats? Combats already assume the PC's win, this just makes it faster. The fighter gets to shine brightly for a round? Okay, and the rogue gets their auto-kill power the next round (this is high level D&D, after all!).

Where's the problem? *Especially* if, as Monte mentioned, you include DM advice for the effects of the weapon: "DM Advice: This weapon can make some combats easier, since it will kill enemies faster. Feel free to throw in an extra monster in an encounter, if the party happens to be getting lucky."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This isn't necessarily true.

Think about the vorpal sword. The design could be that, say, on a roll of 20, a normal or minion enemy makes a save or is decapitated. It's still a high-level, rare item (possibly high paragon/epic tier), so getting your hands one in the course of a campaign would be cool.

I actually kinda like this. Doesn't work on Elites and Solos means it doesn't do what the previous editions did with save or die and vorpal swords - take out an interesting, profilic NPC too easily.

 

[Incenjucar]

I actually kinda like this. Doesn't work on Elites and Solos means it doesn't do what the previous editions did with save or die and vorpal swords - take out an interesting, profilic NPC too easily.

To make this work you'd have to get rather meta-gamey with the restrictions, and then people would complain because the vorpal sword can't decapitate dragons or jabberwocks.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

How much variance can you have in the math, and still leave it so that most people will find the game balanced enough? I don't know the answer.

Say for sake of argument it is +0 to +6. So if your character is completely optimized, you'll have +6 higher than a character that is ruthlessly and perversely avoiding any optimization whatsoever.

So in that range, I see potential room for routinely getting items that grant from +1 to +3, but not all the way up to +6. If items can cover that whole range, then they either have to be assumed, or you just effectively increased the range.

But shades of Mustrum Ridcully's idea, I'd like to see ways that characters can get enhancement bonuses through other means than items. (If they need to change the name to something else to fit the wider scope, fine.) Maybe certain feats give enhancement bonuses. Maybe classes get certain enhancement bonuses with expected abilities (shades of inherent bonuses). But they don't stack, because over the course of the level progression, you aren't expected to get more than +3, total, from any source.

I realize that puts us right back to the objection of inherent bonuses, that they take some of the oomph out of the magic. And so that is definitely a reason to concentrate the oomph in something besides the magic--be it flaming swords or more esoteric capabilities. But it seems to me that a modest range of plusses in equipment could be allowed to accommodate tradition, without busting the math entirely.

Then a +1 sword found early is something that lets you have a +1 a few levels earlier than you probably would have picked it up anyway, similar to a 1st ed. 4th level wizard finding a wand of 5d6 fireballs with 3 charges left. It may be temporarily imbalancing compared to a strict look at expected capabilities, but it all washes out in a few levels anyway.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I certainly agree with you that there is tension between powerful interesting magic items and keeping character ability in the forefront, but I think you've missed the point that obviates the conundrum: what decoupling magic item power (whether large or small) from character ability would actually enable if done well. This isn't about deciding whether D&D evolves to favor one of trivial or character-defining items, it is about evolving D&D to the point where each table picks whatever balance they want and the system as a whole continues to work. You can even do both in the same game in the sense that the dominant factor varies from character to character, or at different times.

All this is dependent on strong guidelines that are reasonably robust, and sufficiently detailed to enable the new DM to run the game successfully. I think that is challenging (and definitely requires thinking about the math) but not impossible. If that is achieved we have many decisive qualitative gains: Low magic works. High magic Monty Haul works. The rich inexperienced kid traveling with the freaking Vow of Poverty monk actually works. Matching risks to rewards works (and for most people would be the usual case) but regardless of the details of that relationship the system doesn't care. All the system should care about is what items and abilities the PCs have right now and provide tools so the DM can challenge that party. That's it. In my opinion the single greatest conceit of D&D is that the party (almost) always faces challenges in keeping with their present capabilities, and the game is aided if it can help us achieve (or knowingly violate) that conceit with the fewest possible additional assumptions.

So let the rules of acquisition, and player expectations thereof, be governed by the story, the setting, and the table. For two editions they have been baked into the system itself, but these particular cookies have turned stale.

I don't mean to sound contradictory, but it is easy to SAY (and believe) that this or that is 'possible' within a given game design. It is another thing to demonstrate that it is actually possible and further demonstrate that the implementation doesn't create all sorts of unwanted side effects.

 

[Evilhalfling]

4e items cover alot of ground other than just static hit and damage bonuses, and different players want different things.
One fighter in my last game requested fun items, many with odd daily uses.
the ranger took optimizing stuff, + healing surges, in addition to damage.
The wizard wanted optimized defensive gear.
The leader took every +healing item he could find.
The last player took gadgets - swords that could pick pockets, teleporting bolts, armor that aided disguise, grappling belts... many of which did not work the way he expected. (as he was not great at interpreting rules)

some items (like a greataxe of throwing and a cloak that knocked people down) were integral to the character concepts. Another character abandoned his archery style and focused on spells when the party found a legendary wand (scepter of the ice king) The fact that it would absorb (eat) the scepters of other rulers after they were defeated, was just fluff added after the fact that made him like it even more.

edit
The campaign above went from 1st-14th. Many of the magic items leveled for story reasons, or whenever an appropriate item level came up in the parcel system. A few were purchased(usually limited to common items), or upgraded by the PCs. We did wishlists, but out of 5-8 items players could expect to me to place one.
Juggling items was kind of a headache, and I worried about player balance alot when placing stuff.