D&D 4E 4E Magic Items...

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

So I read the posting preview about 4E magic items (on the EN World home page) and I'm left with the following question...

4E is reducing PCs' reliance on magic items... how exactly?

All I see is reducing the ability to use rings and some optional rules to limit magic items. Everything looks like the 3E Christmas tree effect to me. Doing away with enhancement items for certain body slots isn't going to stop the Christmas tree effect. It'll just change the "colour of the lights."

Really, I was kinda surprised/disappointed to read this preview. I thought they were really clamping down on number of magic items PCs can use...

I had a negative impression at first (and posted based on that), but now it's mostly a bit of disappointment that they didn't cut the tree down more.

From what I can see, you only need three items, rather than the 7 or 8 a fully decked out fighter required. I don't think I'll bother to fill the other possible six slots since they're not needed, and wouldn't bother filling them up for NPCs (saving time).

I'm still worried about NPCs. It would be weird if classed NPCs don't use the same rules as PCs. (I don't expect that from monsters, but I would expect that from, say, an NPC wizard.) It would be a bad thing if they didn't get the required three (since they would be weak for their level) and would be a bad thing if they did get the required three at the same level the PCs did (Monty Haul!).

 

[Irda Ranger]

I had a negative impression at first (and posted based on that), but now it's mostly a bit of disappointment that they didn't cut the tree down more.

"Mostly" cut down is just the default. Mearls has confirmed in another thread that the assumed +'s are disclosed in the DMG. Grant those to all PC's as a level bonus and you can remove +x items from the game entirely. It's a supported alt-Rule.

From what I can see, you only need three items,

And not even that with 15 minutes work.

I'm still worried about NPCs. It would be weird if classed NPCs don't use the same rules as PCs. (I don't expect that from monsters, but I would expect that from, say, an NPC wizard.) It would be a bad thing if they didn't get the required three (since they would be weak for their level) and would be a bad thing if they did get the required three at the same level the PCs did (Monty Haul!).

I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle. To use a 3E-ism, what's the CR of a 15th level Wizard with no magical items? 13, maybe? I just made that up, but the point is: you don't have to give NPC's magical items. You just have to adjust the XP reward for beating them accordingly. NPC Wizards don't have to be balanced against PC's at each level (they're feelings won't be hurt, honest!) any more than NPC jewel merchants do. Balance is just for intra-party game dynamics to make sure everyone's having fun. You can take all their equipment away and you won't hear a peap out of them (except the voices in your head).

Now, I realize that without Flight, See Invis, etc. certain 3E classes (*cough*Fighter*cough*) were totally gimped by a lack of gear, but I am trusting the 4E designers have dealt with this.

 

[bgaesop]

I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle. To use a 3E-ism, what's the CR of a 15th level Wizard with no magical items? 13, maybe? I just made that up, but the point is: you don't have to give NPC's magical items. You just have to adjust the XP reward for beating them accordingly.

Since they've already said that monsters are going to be worth a certain amount of experience that you can adjust by adding special abilities and be a certain "level" as opposed to having a Challenge Rating and determining exp from that, I think it would be a great idea to have NPCs of X level be worth Y exp (maybe adjust for class?) and have each magic item be worth a certain amount of extra exp, just like the monsters. Maybe we could go back to 2e magic item creation rules where you gain a certain amount for making an item and have an npc with that item be worth that much extra? That way you can make an npc of a given level more of a challenge and still be able to precisely control how much exp you're giving out. Want to know if you've made them too powerful? Look up a monster that gives that amount of exp and see what level it is!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Since they've already said that monsters are going to be worth a certain amount of experience that you can adjust by adding special abilities and be a certain "level" as opposed to having a Challenge Rating and determining exp from that, I think it would be a great idea to have NPCs of X level be worth Y exp (maybe adjust for class?) and have each magic item be worth a certain amount of extra exp, just like the monsters. Maybe we could go back to 2e magic item creation rules where you gain a certain amount for making an item and have an npc with that item be worth that much extra? That way you can make an npc of a given level more of a challenge and still be able to precisely control how much exp you're giving out. Want to know if you've made them too powerful? Look up a monster that gives that amount of exp and see what level it is!

I had a reverse thought if one wanted to make magic items entirely optional - people get a "xp reward adjustment" for magical items. But this seems to require a lot of calculations beforehand, so I think the 4E solution looks good enough.

Your way also soudns interesting.
An alternative is just to make up an NPC with the right stats and give him a magical item, pretending its benefits are already calculated in. Alternatively, you give him the item, adjust his abilities accordingly, and don't change the XP value. Instead, the magical item is the extra reward. If you don't give the NPC to extreme items (like a +4 sword for a 8th level NPC), the effect is pretty weak from a NPC vs PC balance point of view, and the difference between the base-line and the adjustment is covered by an extra magical item for the PCs.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

And Mearls has confirmed in another thread that even Newbie DM's you can make magic items entirely optional with about 15 minutes worth of house rule writing (which I expect to be a free download on someone's site within 17 minutes of 4E being released; so even easier).

where?

thanks

 

[Derren]

in 4E the unlucky PCs who only have three magical items (the primary ones) still have a good chance against monsters.
This of course means that PCs who have all their slots filled which will be the norm (see example PC) will have a easy time to kill any level appropriate encounter.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

I'm still worried about NPCs. It would be weird if classed NPCs don't use the same rules as PCs. (I don't expect that from monsters, but I would expect that from, say, an NPC wizard.) It would be a bad thing if they didn't get the required three (since they would be weak for their level) and would be a bad thing if they did get the required three at the same level the PCs did (Monty Haul!).

I suppose that when they say "Npc don't use pc rules" are reffering to the farmboy or the bartender or the host of minor npc, if you are going to use an NPC wizard as an adversary you can use normal rules, while if you just want to use a minor npc caster that got one or two minor spell just write (20 hp, DEF 15 (+2 to will), minor healing 1/day, fortune telling 1/day, evil eye 1/day)

 

[Khuxan]

where?

thanks

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4011654&postcount=16

Here.

No problems

 

[Raith5]

In 3E, the 'Big Six' magical items were necessary for game balance. In particular, at high levels martial characters required magical items to be able to compete with wizards and clerics. Money that could've been spent on castles, farms, spy networks or interesting, quirky magic items was instead spent on better weapons, better armor and better stat boosts because that was the only way to remain competitive.

In 4E, they've turned the Christmas Tree into a Christmas Shrub. From a 'Big Six' we've gone to a 'Big Three'. The other magic item slots are still there, but they no longer grant static bonuses - so now they can be used for interesting, niche abilities or used not at all.

If we use Frodo as an example, he had a magic sword, magic armor and an elven cloak (the Big Three), and then he had the vial of the light of Eärendil and the lembas (wondrous items). He didn't need the elf bread or light-thing to (for the most part) be viable in combat. In 3E, Frodo would've needed Gloves of Dexterity, Amulets of Natural Armor and so on just to remain viable - and then he wouldn't have had any gp for waybread or the vial.

Yeah, this quote is a good way of looking at it.

If you disliked the aesthetic of players with lots of magic item - you are going to be disappointed and will have to houserule (which is easier as other have mentioned).

But if you disliked the way that + items distorted the system you should be happy. What they have done is decrease the number of essential items that distort the maths of the system (no more rings of protection, amulets of of natural armour).

Im happy because they addressed the latter, i like interesting magic items and are essential part of D and D but IMO. In 3.5 ed the problem was always about the maths. As a DM you had the give the PC magic items constantly to be viable.

Now the question is what they will do will spell buffs, especially haste...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle. To use a 3E-ism, what's the CR of a 15th level Wizard with no magical items? 13, maybe? I

A nonmagical equipped melee fighter LVL 14 with 8 wis, 8 cha and no iron will against 4 LVL 1 wizards with charm person, good int, cha and spell focus enchantment I would say, CR is like 1?

4 charm persons with less than 50% to resist will likely be a very easy encounter.

Likewise, a well equipped party of 6 players with appropriate feats and tactics can take a whole tribe of trolls at Level 5 without suffering (heavy) losses.