Design & Development: Magic Item Levels

[Prodigal_Sun]

I think we're all jumping to conclusions here, certainly the 4e Designers have stated that they have revamped the math behind the game.

We know (or think we know but let's assume we do) that progression BAB (and probably AC) will be 1/2 per level. +X magic items screw up the progression even a lowly +1 magic sword is like gaining 2 levels in BAB. This means that you should be able to reliably hit monsters two levels higher than you. I don't think they are that stupid when they have enough other options.

We know from this article and from gen con that +X weapons (I have heard nothing about armors an other items) are still in the game. What if they work differently than in 3.x? How? I don't know.

Some posters have suggested that the +X reflects the weapon effect (lightning, flaming, vicious). This is an option.

Another option is the SAGA option where developers have stated that +1 to hit was more valuable than +1 to damage. What if the +X to hit abilities where included in class features and powers (to reduce power creep) and a +5 sword only did +5 to damage useful, yes. Required to tackle appropriate challenges, NO! That rope of climbing suddenly begins to look as interesting.

Just my 2cp

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Don't quite think so. I expect they're going to try to limit the difference between top and bottom BAB more than that. A 15+ difference at level 30 is problematic.

I don't think it's problematic if it's the edge case.

But it will have to mean that all bonuses combined, class- and character-intrinsic as well as magic items, result in a +15 spread.

 

[Li Shenron]

Anyway, one of the big 'problems' with the 3.X 'christmas tree' wasn't so much that you'd need a magic weapon. It was that you'd need a magic weapon, magic armor/shields, several stat boosters, rings of protection, cloaks of resistance, and amulets of natural armor, the so-called 'big six'.

Mmm... I don't think so, not completely at least.

I think the xmas tree effect was created or exacerbated by the stacking rules, and the progressive prices. It makes no sense to buy a single +5 item when you can buy 5 items for the same total price and get a total bonus of +10. The progressive prices were meant to avoid characters to buy "big items", because in early D&D years it was considered "badwrongfun" to have a big +, but achieved exactly what it wanted to avoid, which is characters with outrageously big +s, only from multiple sources rather than one.

The metagaming (IMHO) concept of "body slots" was added to lower the problems, but it didn't work well at all. I think that instead of discouraging people to have multiple items, it only encouraged people to scavenge supplements for items that still stack and use a less-used body slot.

 

[Li Shenron]

The only real way to remove the Christmas Tree Effect is to remove the items in question outright.

I don't remember clearly, but weren't those items present in OD&D and AD&D? How could they be in the game without having the xmas effect?

One more thing... the problem was still in 3.0, but at least the 3.5 revision made things worse by nerfing the durations of boost spells. It only made stat-boosting items even more attractive.

 

[GlassJaw]

Ok, so magic items have levels. Great. How is that much different than we have now, other than there will be 30 different magic item values?

I'd like to know more about how they actually obtained those values, other than just picking them out of the sky (which a lot of the 4E development seems to have done). Are they priced such that they will be very expensive and rare? Did the devs do some kind of study to actually value some effects over others? When I hear things like "more art than science", I get nervous, especially considering how overly-complicated the 3ed magic item level system was.

At least the 3ed system followed strict rules on the price of items and effects. This article gives no indication the item pricing follows any sort of "rules" other than the devs "artistic talent".

 

[nerfherder]

We know from this article and from gen con that +X weapons (I have heard nothing about armors an other items) are still in the game. What if they work differently than in 3.x? ... What if ... a +5 sword only did +5 to damage...

Interesting idea. IIRC, that's how it worked in OD&D.

 

[nerfherder]

But really, what is improved here?

Magic item selection for NPCs should be quicker. Instead of trying to spend 100,000gp on magic equipment, the DM just needs to pick 1 item of character level, 2 items of character level -1, or whatever the recommendation is.

 

[D.Shaffer]

The article was kinda 'meh'. Nothing really new, for the most part. We've seen this before in the MIC. The only really new bit was how some of the abilities were distributed to new levels. That said, I have lots of questions that I want answered, mostly in the realm of 'This is a possible way to limit the christmas tree effect, is this what they're doing?'

Do we have the same number of 'slots' for magical items? If we can only have 3-4 'active' at a time, that can limit things.

How do abilities on magic items 'stack' with prexisting ones? Do they add? Do they replace? Boots of Spiderclimb that replace your regular climb bonus with a +15 is different from one that adds +5.

Another possible fix for the Christmas tree effect? Per day charge items. MIC was filled with 'three charges per day' items, might we be seeing those as a majority of magic items? A +3 Flaming magic sword that only acts like a +3 Flaming magic sword 3 encounters a day would certain place a limit on their effectiveness, although it might lead back to the '3 adventures, then rest' paradigm. Possibly more 'Once per encounter' effects?

 

[Lord Xtheth]

It's not like I didn't know how to distribute my magic items in the first place.
But this does seem like it makes things alot easyer to find/follow/create
I mean from a DM standpoint, I wouldn't mind a big list of "what should I give my pc's for level 5?"
From a player standpoint I can see things at the table like "I'm level 25 now, can I go buy that staff of the Magi in the window?"
And from a wizard making an item stand point "I can build up to a level 5 item right now"

I realy like this idea.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

When I hear things like "more art than science", I get nervous. This article gives no indication the item pricing follows any sort of "rules" other than the devs "artistic talent".

It makes me nervous, too.

"Art" leads to accidents of math.

"More art than science" is an easy dodge. Most of the things we've historically been told are "more art than science" are the very things up on blocks for a major overhaul: CR. Encounter design. Class balance. Spell design. Etc.

If the science is too tough for the artists, the artists need to get out of the way.

Everything we've seen from the scientists so far is blowing the artists out of the water.