Discussion on +x magic items

[DM_Blake]

I'm not trolling here; I'm genuinely curious.

I've read a bunch of threads where a bunch of people have posted about items tht add +x to some D&D value, such as +2 to hit, or +4 to Strength.

Many people really dislike these kinds of items.

One argument against them is that "they are required". I take this to mean that in 3.5e, many encounters are set to a certain EL (Encounter Level) which expects that the player(s) have these types of items to successfully engage them. Wouldn't want to have to fight a monster that requires a magical weapon to hit it if you don't have magical weapons.

But, what is the alternative?

Assumption: we're sticking to traditional D&Dish fantasy here. Not going Arthurian, not going Eberron, not going to any other campaign setting where magic is unusually common or unusually absent - those campaigns are fine in their own right, but they are supplemental settings. They are not core concepts.

So, what would you want to see instead of a +2 sword?

Would we eliminate them altogether? Have no magic swords? Or only have Sword of Sharpness, Flaming Sword, etc., but without any bonus to hit or damage? Is that the solution?

If we did that, we would then need to rebalance the monsters to make them appropriate for player(s) without these +x modifiers. But then what if someone had one anyway? What if Boris the Fighter has a +2 sword in a game system where he doesn't need it? Wouldn't he be overpowered? In this scenario, would we have to just rule that such items don't exist so Boris cannot have his +2 sword? Give him a Cloak of Elvenkind instead?

Or would the solution be to take the +x bonuses away from all items and add these bonuses to character abilities instead? This way the player(s) have these bonuses, and can challenge the appropriate EL monsters, but aren't reliant upon a "Christmas Tree" of magic items?

So, what is a good alternative for a D&Dish setting?

 

[HP Dreadnought]

Just get rid of the +x magic items and rebalance the monsters. Fewer modifiers to keep track of is a good thing. How convenient that a new edition is coming out where the designers could do just that.

Unfortunately, we know there are +6 wands, so obviously they chose not to.

If somebody introduces +x items into a system not designed for them, then its no different from any other house rule with potentially unbalancing effects on the game.

 

[Masquerade]

Or only have Sword of Sharpness, Flaming Sword, etc., but without any bonus to hit or damage? Is that the solution?

This would be my preferred solution, but I'd like to keep magic items an optional part of the game.

With the rebalancing of math for the new edition, I would hope that +X modifiers from magic items won't be assumed, but, as Dreadnought pointed out, we've already seen that there are +6 wands, etc.

 

[Umbran]

Well, here's the thing.

This is fantasy. people like having magic items. Either your game is balanced assuming you don't have them, and a character who has them will be comparatively overpowered, or the game is balanced assumes they are there, and then there is the appearance of needing them.

Honestly, is should not matter which is chosen as the nominal case - the problem is solved by giving DMs good guidelines for dealing with the other case.

I have a moderate dislike for +X items simply because they are... boring. Undramatic. Uncinematic. The have no style, in and of themselves.

 

[delericho]

I've read a bunch of threads where a bunch of people have posted about items tht add +x to some D&D value, such as +2 to hit, or +4 to Strength.

Many people really dislike these kinds of items.

One argument against them is that "they are required".

For me, the issue is that they are similarly the most cost-efficient way of boosting your character's power... and are really dull. Given a fixed amount of gold to equip a character (as the WbL guidelines suggest), you're going to go for some set of the 'big six' to squeeze the most out of your character. Which is fine once or twice, but got really old about six years ago.

But, what is the alternative?

Well, I would roll the Cloak of Resistance into the 'native' bonuses provided by the class, and the Ring of Protection and Amulet of Natural Armour rolled into a class-based Defense bonus, and then eliminate these items entirely. I might also advocate giving all characters a +2 bonus to all ability scores at levels 5, 10, 15 and 20 (instead of levels 4, 8...), and getting rid of the stat boosters.

I would also get rid of a 'vanilla' Sword +1, and instead require all items to carry one or more additional qualities. I would also tie the power of those qualities to the power of the sword - so you can't get a +1 shocking holy flaming bane long sword, but might be able to get a +5 shocking holy flaming bane long sword. Or something like that.

I would also like to see a lot more items built with a set of related powers along a theme. The latest Pathfinder has a good example: Boots of the Mire, give the ability to walk on water in the marshes, to ignore movement penalties in marshes, to leave no trace in marshes, and give a +2 Fort bonus vs. poisons and diseases. Items like that have a whole lot more flavour and interest than yet another Cloak of Resistance +2.

Oh, I'm also mostly in favour of items being fewer, more powerful, and gaining in power along with the owner. Sort of like Weapons of Legacy, but perhaps built better. Indeed, the best way to handle this might be to make a Legacy Item talent tree available to all classes, providing exactly this facility.

So, what would you want to see instead of a +2 sword?

IMO, swords +1 and armour +2 are just too iconic to do away with entirely. However, I think we can go some way to reducing the 'boredom factor' of such things by insisting that all such items carry some sort of additional effect as well as its base plus. Even better would be to require all such items to be named, and to provide guidelines in the DMG for describing the appearance and history of these magic items.

Indeed, one of the few things I liked about the DMG2 was the magic items section, which provided more extensive descriptions for the items than we had previously seen.

 

[Cadfan]

My opinion differs depending on the +X item in question.

Likes: +X sword, +X skill.

Dislikes: +X stat, +X saving throw.

Neutral: +X shield, +X armor.

My heavy suspicion is that 4e is going to match my opinions on this subject. +X weapons will be in, for everyone. +X skill items will be in, instead of items which bypass skills. +X armor and shields will be in, because they have a sort of symmetry with +X weapons- though something may be done to fix the fact that +X armor +X shield is twice +X weapon in terms of bonus on a set of stats which directly faces off against each other. +X stat and +X save will be out, or, +X save will be divided up by save type.

That's speculation, but I think its good speculation.

Editted to add:

I would also get rid of a 'vanilla' Sword +1, and instead require all items to carry one or more additional qualities.

I do agree with this, sort of. I like the idea of +X representing the sheer quality of a finely worked magical blade, but a finely worked magical blade that doesn't do anything exciting is boring. Still, if we're going to have +X weapons, bad guys need to have them too, and permitting +X weapons without special abilities lets us fill out the generic bad guys without creating a menagerie of miscellaneous gear. I'd permit regular +X, but with the caveat that a proper DM should be aim to get weapons with unique features into the hands of player characters.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

I agree with Cadfan here.

stat bump items and saving throw boosting items need to go. I don't mind +x weapons and armor so much. I like to see enchanted swords that can do stuff..flaming, vorpal, etc. I also like magic items that let players do neat stuff - cape of the mountebank for instance. Those types of items, imho, are part and parcel to the D&D experience...heroes who, by themselves, can accomplish great feats-but they also have nifty toys.

 

[DM_Blake]

Just get rid of the +x magic items and rebalance the monsters. Fewer modifiers to keep track of is a good thing.

OK, given this answer, then what do we do with game mechanics like damage reduction and incorporeal?

How would a fighter ever hurt a ghost, spectre, wraith, etc., without a magical weapon? How about iron golems? Demons?

Would we change those monsters so that anyone can hurt them with any old sharp stick? Or would we assume that fighter will hide behind some cleric or mage for that encounter? Is his only recourse carrying around a backpack full of holy water?

Or do we build something into the character mechanic that says something like "all characters of level 8 or higher can hit incorporeal monsters" etc. Maybe modify that higher or lower for different classes?

 

[DM_Blake]

This would be my preferred solution, but I'd like to keep magic items an optional part of the game.

OK, so the question still stands, if there is one core system, and magic items are optional, how do you balance that core system to accomodate characters with magic items and also accomodate characters without?

If a CL 8 encounter is balanced for an 8th level group, and that group has no magic items, then what happens when another group encounters that same CL 8 encounter but this second group has magic items?

For me, I see eliminating magic items and/or making them common as dirt as being the realm of supplemental campaign settings, while the core mechanics need to walk a path somewhere in the middle.

So, since your preferred solution would be to make magical items optional, how do you work the mechanics blance for groups who choose a very low magic option and for groups who chose a high magic option?

(This isn't an attack - I really am soliciting ideas here)

 

[DM_Blake]

Well, here's the thing.

This is fantasy. people like having magic items. Either your game is balanced assuming you don't have them, and a character who has them will be comparatively overpowered, or the game is balanced assumes they are there, and then there is the appearance of needing them.

Honestly, is should not matter which is chosen as the nominal case - the problem is solved by giving DMs good guidelines for dealing with the other case.

Well said.

I'm curious as to what you might suggest for those guidelines.

Caes example: suppose 4e were designed so that nobody would have any of these kinds of magic items. Slippers of Spider Climb, or Carpet of Flying, maybe. But nothing that affects combat. Given that, what guidelines would you propose for the DM to deal with running hsi campaign in a 3e Christmas Tree setting?

Would they be loose guidelines like "If you give abundant combat magic items, you will need more monsters, or more powerful monsters, to challenge your players"?

Or would you want to be more specific and detailed?

I have a moderate dislike for +X items simply because they are... boring. Undramatic. Uncinematic. The have no style, in and of themselves.

Is this just semantics?

What if the +1 sword were simply called "a magic sword". That way, Boris the Fighter wouldn't say things like "I hit the orc with my +1 sword". Instead he would say "I hit the orc with my magic sword."

What if the definition was something like "This magical sword is a masterful work of swordcraft, finely crafted and perfectly balanced. The master weapon smith who made it sharpened it to a razor edge. So sharp in fact that it would break if anyone used it without the magical enchantment. Then a mage cast magical incantations to harden the sword, enchanting it to keep its razor edge and to additionally be magically strong so it becomes hard to break."

So, given something like that, the +x comes from being super sharp and magically reinforced, rather than just have a mystical bonus spell cast on it.

What if characters could easily spot a magical weapon because of the unbelievably sharp edge or weigted head combined with the exquisite workmanship, masterful balance, and resistance to rust, tarnish, and dulling with age and use?

Would that liven them up a bit? Or would they still be just as boring with a different label?