"Character-defining" Magic Items

[nookiemonster]

One of the reasons for the new magic item rarities, according to Mike Mearls The Ruinous, is so that ordinary magic items and 'character-defining' magic items can sit "close to each other" in level. Consider these two weapons, which are within one level of each other:

+6 Magic sword. Level 26. Price: 1,125,000 gp. +6 to attack and damage rolls, +6d6 damage on a critical. Common item.

+5 Holy Avenger. Level 25. Price: 625,000 gp. +5 to attack and damage rolls, +5d6 and spend a healing surge on a critical hit. +1d10 radiant on Radiant attacks, daily power boosting your and your buddies' defenses, also functions as a +5 magic holy symbol (level 21 item, 225,000 gp, common), increasing the weapons effective monetary value to 850,000 gold. Rare item.

Now, for many characters, including many Paladin builds, the Holy Avenger is pretty ordinary, with not much to choose between it and the rather dull +6 magic sword. However, for a charisma-based paladin who has almost all of his powers use the Radiant keyword, and has lots of implement powers, such as your basic Paladin from the PHB, this sword is going to be a very nifty weapon. In fact, a much more flavourful choice for that character concept than the over-the-counter +6 Magic sword. Palindrome the Paladin's Holy Avenger isn't just part of his gear that he'll sell when it's no longer useful; it's part of the character concept, and hence is "character defining".

So it seems like the "rarity" of items is not just based on power, it's specialisation and suitability to a particular character concept as well.

 

[Joshua Randall]

What's odd is that having magic items be character-defining flies in the face of one of the original design goals of 4e, which was to decrease the importance of magic items vis a vis character powers.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Well this is kinda why I like the inherent bonuses option listed in the DMG2. Basically as you level, any sword you pick up is a +6 sword, and it is only "magical" if it actually has some cool ability attached to it. Magic items are only as character defining as the person who made that character allows it to be. If someone wants to build their character around an item, there is little wizards of the coast can do about it short of completely eliminating magic items all together. I think the 4e, especially with the inherent bonuses option being used, system does a good job of not turning a high level character into a farmer if he looses his magic chopsticks.....

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Didn´t work out...

i don´t know where it was written but somwhere seems to be mentioned, that plyers should get all the items they want... all the time...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I see it as some items are meant to be huge... excaliber type others are just +1 swords...

 

[Bold or Stupid]

What's odd is that having magic items be character-defining flies in the face of one of the original design goals of 4e, which was to decrease the importance of magic items vis a vis character powers.

I think the idea was to remove the "standard item set" type of set up, were a lot of generic magic items were needed to keep on the curve. 4e reduced the numbers of these required and the rarity move appears to be pushing towards characters having signiture items more like characters in fantasy literature.

 

[mneme]

Indeed. In order to keep the "tween" material in perspective, you have to look at the the status quo at the end of 3.5 -- where every mid level (or higher) build would include at least three stat boosting items, multiple (probably overlapping) AC and other defense boosting items, etc, ad infinum. I think we had party members with like 5 items boosting AC in one fashion or another, and we weren't heavily into optimization (not many defensive weapons, for example, whereas a serious defensive character might have had, say, two +5 defensive short swords, armor, a ring of protection, bracers or some buffs providing a Holy or Profane bonus to AC, boots of Dex, something boosting Cha (which for a paladin boosted all saves), etc).

In comparison, the old 4e standard was a vast reduction -- and Essentials standard, with a 11th level character having one rare item and 2 uncommon items, even more so.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Now, for many characters, including many Paladin builds, the Holy Avenger is pretty ordinary, with not much to choose between it and the rather dull +6 magic sword. However, for a charisma-based paladin who has almost all of his powers use the Radiant keyword, and has lots of implement powers, such as your basic Paladin from the PHB, this sword is going to be a very nifty weapon. In fact, a much more flavourful choice for that character concept than the over-the-counter +6 Magic sword. Palindrome the Paladin's Holy Avenger isn't just part of his gear that he'll sell when it's no longer useful; it's part of the character concept, and hence is "character defining".

Actually, I think the inability to give out a "Character Defining" item is a major flaw with the old magic item system. Many player (not everyone but many) built characters around items as much as feats and powers. "Build essential" is what items became. If you didn't have the "Build Essential" item, say rushing cleats or a frost weapon, your character's mechanical build fell apart.

"Build Essential" items are very bad for "Character Defining" items. If a character's build required a frost weapon, the DM couldn't give out a "character defining" weapon to that character. The "Build Essential" frost weapon would always be the weapon of choice.

Worse, the problem is compounding based on the number of items printed. It's very possible that a player has built his character 1-30 with optimal items planned out at every step of the way. No matter what items the DM gives out, the player has in mind what his "Build Essential" item is for that slot.

Going to the Common/Uncommon/Rare system is, in my mind, a great change. It removes item optimization and allows the DM to give out "Character Defining" items that will actually see play.

 

[brehobit]

eh,
I had a 2nd edition character who had an intelligent magic sword. That sword was quite character defining--it just was part of who he was. More lawful neutral than my dwarf (who occasionally fell into greed rather than principle) and with the ability to detect magic and detect lies often became part of the plot. Also allowed for flying.

Hugely powerful? Maybe as a +3 sword in the hands of a 7th level character, but other than the flight, it was mostly out-of-combat power. But still cool.

It's much harder to do this in 4th edition...

 

[Zaran]

What's odd is that having magic items be character-defining flies in the face of one of the original design goals of 4e, which was to decrease the importance of magic items vis a vis character powers.

I think they changed this because they were listening to quite a few players who felt like the magic items didn't seem very magical especially when they were basically made available for the players to pick and choose. Making most of the items so that it's up the DM to choose what to give out will put some of the christmas morning back into the game.