Can someone explain to me what 'Christmas Tree effect' means?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm just starting a level 13 Knight today -- joining an existing campaign after my old character decided to ascend to "heaven" when given the chance -- and she will have the following:

+3 Farslayer Craghammer (great for MBA-based Knight)
+3 Dwarven Gith Plate with campaign-based unique add-ons; think of it as a very minor Artifact -- designed by me
+3 Seashimmer Cloak
Boots of Adept Charging
2 potions of Vitality
1800 gp

That's it. Seems like a pretty short list by comparison.

There are guidelines for how many items/worth of items you're supposed to have even in 4e. However, you can ignore much of that, especially the details of gp math.

The previous character with oodles of items is probably not broken (in terms of being overpowered) and so the DM isn't hurting their campaign by allowing this, but I doubt the DM was following the guidelines.

 

[Tallifer]

I want to clarify concerning my Christmassy warlord:

A few of his items are of his level, found in the dungeon (using the wish list and treasure parcel system); most of his items are cheaply crafted using a ritual and gold, because the items are lower than his level.

My point was that 4th edition can sustain the Christmas tree effect even using rules as written.

This of course is a problem in many men's eyes, and that is why the Wizards of the Coast have introduced a new magic item system, although it is still in its initial stages (not fully implemented in the Character Builder).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I want to clarify concerning my Christmassy warlord:

A few of his items are of his level, found in the dungeon (using the wish list and treasure parcel system); most of his items are cheaply crafted using a ritual and gold, because the items are lower than his level.

My point was that 4th edition can sustain the Christmas tree effect even using rules as written.

There's little incentive IME for going that route. It also doesn't seem like you felt you needed all those items for your character.

I think part of the Christmas tree effect is tension between players, who want to ensure their characters are geared up, and DMs who have to put a lot of effort into ensuring this is the case (or not, which is its own problems).

 

[Ahrimon]

I want to clarify concerning my Christmassy warlord:

<snip>

My point was that 4th edition can sustain the Christmas tree effect even using rules as written.

See, I don't see your character as christmassy at all. Sure, your a walking magical swiss army knife. But other than the big three, those items aren't needed to function at the mythical 100% effectiveness. I think what you have is more how I've always wanted my characters, but haven't been able to due to a lower treasure game. Started at 5th, about to hit 7th and while the party has some gold and items to spread around, I'm still sitting with the exact same stuff.

This is why more and more I'm thinking the next time I DM I'm going to use the inherent bonuses system. Or talk the DM into that system for the next game I'm in. That way my players (or me) can focus on the wonderous items rather than the big 3.

I love wonderous items. Heck every character I create just for fun tries to get a restful bedrol, magic campsite, everlasting chalk, etc. To me these are some of the coolest items.

 

[blargney the second]

An alternate viewpoint: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/298688-mini-christmas-tree-2010e.html


-blarg

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

The Christmas Tree Effect is neither necessarily bad nor necessarily good. It is just a symptom of having a large number of (predominantly worn) magical items. The reason of why the effect exists is what really matters.

In OD&D to 2nd AD&D high level characters could have the effect and it would just mean they had a lot of magic items. For example, a high level fighter could have one or more magic weapons, a suit of magic armor, a magic shield, a belt of giant strength, a gauntlets of ogre power, a pair of winged boots, a magic helm and a smattering of wondrous items. If you took all of that away the fighter could still fight (though they would have trouble with enemies that needed magic weapons to hit)

On the other hand, to have a viable/effective character in 3.X you pretty much had to wear a specific set of items depending on your class and that most of these would be stat boosters.

 

[Nork]

Yea, the 'all players light up like a Christmas tree when detect magic is cast' is the origin of the term.

That being said, you could have 4E characters that satisfy that requirement, so obviously there is a bit more to it.

I think the real, if somewhat less dramatic definition is: Even if players do have a lot of magical items, will players even attempt to function if they have their mountain of magical gear taken away.

In an inherent bonus campaign, if the PCs get captured, stripped of their gear, and then manage to overpower their guards and suit up in the guards non-magical armor and weapons, they are primed and ready to charge in and take on the big bad evil guy.

In a Christmas Tree Lite system, if the PCs get captured, stripped of their gear, and then manage to overpower their guards and suit up in the guards non-magical armor and weapons, they are going to have some tough fights against normal mobs to escape and regroup, but its only like a 15% or 20% disadvantage, so they will go ahead and try to escape. They are not going to go anywhere near a big bad evil guy until they get a proper magic weapon/armor/amulet though.

In a Christmas Tree system, the players will sit very patiently and wait until the DM decides to let them have all their gear back, and they will NOT fight their way out without suiting in their personal sets, because they need a jigsaw puzzle of magical items to get all their bonuses to escape.


Obviously the DM can play it by ear and make super easy encounters to adjust things for the under-geared PCs, but frankly there are not any guidelines in 3E or 4E on how to do that, so I don't consider that a valid basis to talk about somethings Christmas tree status.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I want to clarify concerning my Christmassy warlord:

"Christmas Tree" doesn't refer to high-loot games. "CT" specifically refers to the need for lots of items to be effective.

In 3E, you would have needed all that stuff to be effective. In 4E, if your Warlord lost most of it, he would still be an effective character. That was the design change WotC tried and IMO successfully implemented for 4E.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

There are guidelines for how many items/worth of items you're supposed to have even in 4e. However, you can ignore much of that, especially the details of gp math.

Yes, I know. Our DM feels that the amounts specified in the guidelines are excessive, so we get less. It's our choice to play in the campaign anyway.

The previous character with oodles of items is probably not broken (in terms of being overpowered) and so the DM isn't hurting their campaign by allowing this, but I doubt the DM was following the guidelines.

Personally, I'd love to have more of those oodles, especially if I have some control over what they are -- it's an additional source of customization.

 

[GreyLord]

Actually, the Christmas tree effect didn't originate in 3e. Most probable it was orginated by an older player (the edition wars were MUCH more fierce when 3e came out between the old schoolers and the 3.X gens) who was stating it in a derogatory term towards 3e players and the game itself.

The term Christmas Tree can actually be traced at least as far back as page 92 of the original 1e AD&D DMG, in which they refer to such as accidents and referring to players with little skill and adorned with trinkets much like a Christmas tree. It goes further into derogatory statements in reference to this type of playing, but if you really are that curious, you can refer to it yourself (as I've given the reference).

This is a written reference to it that I can find, though there are probably earlier references to Christmas tree type players or campaigns prior to that.

In some ways this shows a vast difference of mindsets between the Gygaxian school of thought and the more modern D20 school of thought that came 20 years after.

Also, as I stated, I would imagine the original origin in reference to 3.X play was actually from an older player who was not quite as pleased with 3.X during one of the edition wars in relation to AD&D vs. 3.X and the ensuing rages over that.