Discussion on +x magic items

[A'koss]

I agree that as soon as you put in +X items, then PCs are expected to have them in order to meet the required level of power for their level (and are boring t'boot). And I had all but forgotten the +6 wand reference, too bad.

I like the idea of weapons that only have special abilities attached to them - knock foes back a square or two or daze them on a crit. Charge up with energy x times/enc., etc. and so on... I personally find raising the damage up a step or two (eg. a longsword inflicting 1d10 [mithril], 1d12 [adamantine] damage, etc.) at least a little more interesting an enchantment if you're just looking for a straight damage boost.

 

[Khaalis]

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?

This is simple. Take a page from True20 where magic weapons instead of being +X, are simply "Supernatural". A "magical weapon" is simply that - magical. This would include simple properties such as never rusting, never needing to be sharpened, and then the key mechanics ability to strike creature harmed only by "magic". This works just like special materials like cold iron. Magic weapons have a purpose and it does away with the +X stacking issues. To this you could then add a system like Legacy Weapons for adding on additional magical properties like Vorpal, Flaming, etc.

I doubt they will go this route, but it would be nice.

 

[NewfieDave]

I find it hard to justify a "realistic" game world where a Bag of Tricks exists, but a Ring of Protection doesn't.

Who says Ring of Protection has to be a +X bonus.

Ring of Protection
Acitvation: Immediate action
Effect: Prevents up to 10 damage dealt to you before your next turn. This ability may be used once per encounter.

What item level should that be?

 

[Someone]

I can think on dozens of magic weapons that don't involve pluses. From a roleplaying point of view, I'd much prefer my character to wield a Sword of Ogre decapitation rather than a +1 sword, though the +1 sword would probably be mechanically more useful (unless the campaing has lots of ogres). Or a sword that floats and fights on it's own when the wielder is asleep or unconscious and is threatened. Or that can just hit incorporeal beings and shines in the dark and doesn't rust ever.

All those properties not only are cool, add to the character and can potentially satisfy the player more than a weapon with a plain bonus, they do not screw the game's math, which is the problem with 3.X "big six" boosters. Having magic items give qualities and offer new options sure makes the characters more powerful in a sense (a party with a flying carpet won't sweat a chasm, while a party without will probably have a big problem) but on the other hand monsters and other challenges that rely on a balanced mathematical approach (say, traps with attacks against Defenses) will be equally challenging for both parties if they choose to fight (unless they fly out of reach and the mage just blasts the bastard away with at will attacks. But you know what I mean)

So, in a nuthshell, flavor big yeah. Pluses boo.

 

[delericho]

But, from a verisimilitude perspective, it seems to me that people who use magic, people who create magic items, would see a huge benefit from items like this, and would see a huge value (profit) to be gained by researching and finding ways to make these kinds of items.

How would you justify it?

"It's magic!"?

Seriously, though, if we're looking at a 'real' game world, then the Wizards of that world don't know anything about Saving Throws or Armour Class, so can't go researching items to improve these things. A "Ring of Protection" is still a sensible thing to research, but it's most likely to take the form of protection from energy types, or weapon damage, or falls, or something of that sort. Mechanically, that could mean many things, but doesn't necessarily have to be a flat +X bonus to AC.

Alternatively, they could make it an Armour bonus, so it doesn't stack with regular armour, and thus all-but-eliminate the item from the equipment list of most characters. I do think I'd prefer it to simply be gone, though.

By the same token, the Cloak of Resistance would probably be replaced by a "Cloak of Fire Protection", a "Cloak of Intemperate Climes", and a "Cloak of Arcane Dispersion", or something. Instead of giving a +X bonus to saves (which the in-world Wizards wouldn't know anything about), it would instead provide Fire Resistance, or grant the wearer immunity to weather effects, or grant whatever is going to succeed Spell Resistance.

As for the stat boosting items... well, in the real world, we don't have any permanent items to make the user stronger, or more agile, or smarter. We have various vitamins, or exercise regimes, or whatever to do the same, but these require long-term investments of time and energy (much like the existing tomes to gain Inherent bonuses). We don't (yet) have the powered armour, or the cybernetic implants, or whatever to do these permanently. So, provided we're okay with ignoring precedent, we could eliminate these from the game, and argue that magic just can't do this on a permanent basis (yet).

I'm also inclined to suggest that magic item powers should be more tightly bound to the items form even than they currently are. Magical boots should provide movement capabilities, cloaks protection from the elements, magical crowns powers of rulership, and so on. Amongst other things, this would probably remove the Defending property from weapons, and would eliminate the Slick, Shadowy and Silent properties from magic armour (armoure protects, it doesn't make one stealthy). I'm not sure how this would play out in all cases, but amongst other things it should cut down on any notion of moving items to less-used body slots to get the desired effects, which in turn should reduce the "Christmas Tree Effect" somewhat.

But again, it becomes awkward to justify. Mages can make swords that are extra sharp and can burst into flame, but they can't find a way to make extra sharp swords that don't burst into flame. And what about a +1 flaming sword vs. a +5 flaming sword? Clearly one is more sharp than the other; if we include mechanical explanations for why one of those is clearly superior to the other, then those same mechanics should be applicable to swords that aren't flaming.

Two options spring to mind.

The first is that the "extra sharp sword that doesn't burst into flame" should actually be a +1 Keen Sword. And then, your +1 Flaming Sword is extra sharp... but not quite as extra sharp as the +1 Keen Sword (or else, it would be a +1 Keen Flaming Sword!). You can justify that through some handwave about "the minimum enhancement that will be stable in an item of this sort".

As for the +1 Flaming Sword vs the +5 Flaming Sword... I would be inclined to argue that the +X and the associated powers should be required to step up together, or close to it. So, you wouldn't ever be able to find a +5 Flaming Sword, any more than you would find a +1 Holy Flaming Shock Bane Sword. This is best done, I think, by extending the "Flaming" and similar properties to cover the full "plus range", so that that +5 sword might be a +5 Apocalyptic Flame Sword. (Oh, and ideally, the "Flaming Burst" property, or equivalent +2 power, should be slightly better than taking both the "Flaming" and "Frost" +1 powers. Perhaps "Flaming" should give 1d4 extra damage, then "Improved Flaming" 2d6, "Greater Flaming" 3d8, and so on. Better names would be a bonus, of course.)

 

[Nifft]

Here's the sort of thing I'd like to see:

Flame Tongue [Fire]
This sword glows with a dull red heat. It sheds light like a torch, and may be used to start fires, though the heat never harms its wielder or his equipment.
You may use this sword as the Focus for any spell with the [Fire] descriptor.
When you invest (some daily resource like an Action Point) in the sword, it bursts into flame, and inflicts +1d6 Fire damage with each blow (for some duration).
When striking an undead foe, the Flame Tongue deals extra fire damage equal to your BAB.
Hardness: 20; HP: 80

Cheers, -- N

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.

You also don't want to fight the monster with an inadequate AC score or saving throw values.

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?

I think I'd like to see a +0 magic sword, the type listed above (eg never rusts, doesn't need sharpening, maybe harder to sunder). And that would be about it. I can do without the sharpness or flaming. (Maybe a flaming sword would flame for a minute per day.)

If we did that, we would then need to rebalance the monsters to make them appropriate for player(s) without these +x modifiers.

Which is so much work... why bother? Why not alter the characters instead?

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?

I don't see a good alternative within 3e, if you want to remove the items (short of doing monstrous amounts of work). Rules systems like Iron Heroes and D20 Modern are designed to work without items (items actively unbalance Modern!).

 

[Atlatl Jones]

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.

That's especially true for items that change the "math" of the game, like +x items. If the game is balanced assuming that characters of a certain level have +5 items, then if characters don't have +5 items they'll be 25% less likely to affect creatures that would otherwise be appropriate opponents for that level. A 1/4 difference in chance to hit is more than "nice, but not necessary."

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

This is my other major reason for disliking them. They don't add anything to the game. They just change the numbers, which is boring.

 

[Patlin]

I'm perfectly happy with +2 swords, and haven't had trouble attaching apropriate fluff to them in order to make them special.

The Sword of Garan, with which the great hero Thillboran slew the Hydra of Allos-Melith, can be special even if it's game stastistics are expressed as +2 attack and damage, glows in the dark.

What will make the sword more special is not changing the statistics, but rather changing the frequency with which magic swords are found. If each one of the 60 Githyanki attacking the City of Flam carry a +2 sword, the Sword of Garan isn't much to brag about.

 

[RangerWickett]

I am good at math. Not the really high end stuff, but y'know, I can handle calc, and geometry, and all manner of whacky algebra.

But I hate math in my games.

I hate it.

I'm writing adventures with high-CR NPCs, and in order for them to be even reasonably valid opponents I have to give them all magic items. It takes a long while, and is usually boring, and involves just typing 'blah blah blah' and changing +10 to +11. That doesn't seem like much, but doing it a lot makes me want to break my fingers so I have an excuse to stop.

Same with skill points. Too much math is required to design encounters for the current ruleset.

Here's my argument: If you want characters of level X to have a +Y attack bonus, just give them a +Y attack bonus. Allow for one point of variation: their ability score modifier. Then you can also get away with having morale effects that buff attack bonus. That way it's easy to determine anyone's attack bonus, and you never have to keep track of more than three figures: base attack bonus, stat mod, and morale bonus.

Video games can have janky stuff like +37 swords, because they let computers do the math. In tabletop gaming, when you have encounters like one I was thrust into last weekend with two hostile clerics who buffed their team with prayer, bless, shield of faith, and divine favor -- and then got hit with a dispel magic -- you don't want to be juggling so many numbers.

Magic items can still exist, but seriously, in literature if someone pulls out a sword, they might say, "This is the blade of my ancestors. It is unnaturally sharp, and can strike down fell beasts." But they never say, "And I compared it to my friend's ancestral sword, and his seems to be about 5% sharper."

Just have 'magic sword' as an on-off toggle. Season with special abilities to your preferred flavor.

I'm actually okay with having a game where the characters carry lots of magic items. (I'd hope there were rules built in so they're not necessary, but whatever). However, I don't want a game where magic items just give a stat boost. That's flippin' boring.

Here are some ideas for ways to fix the current magic item mentality. Note that all of these would obviously be rarer than the similar items in the current system.

Belt of Giant Strength - When you wear this, you have GIANT STRENGTH. You can lift things and wield weapons as if your size category was one larger (or two sizes, or three, etc.). These items are no longer commonplace, something every fighter has. Instead, if you see someone pick up a tree and use it as a melee weapon, you'll be impressed. No one is impressed when a dude with a girdle sticks you for one extra point of damage.

Gloves of Dexterity - Grants an extra attack, the ability to quickdraw, and snatch arrows.

Amulet of Health - You regenerate, representing that your wounds don't bleed. Might be best as a scabbard.

Amulet of Natural Armor -

Cloak of Resistance - If you make your save against an effect, the cloak completely negates it, and may reflect spells back at their casters.

Ring of Protection - When you concentrate, you hold out the ring and get +10 AC against a single attack each round, deflecting it away telekinetically.


And finally, to go with all of this, institute a rule that no character can benefit from more than three magic items at once, or else the conflicting magic cancels them all out. Or hell, 1 magic item at heroic, 2 at paragon, 3 at epic.

Name a fantasy hero from before 1970 who has more than 3 magic items. There are probably a few.

Now name one who wore a magic ring, a magic amulet, a magic belt, magic gloves, magic shoes, a magic shirt, a magic hat, a magic cloak, and magic armor, and carried three magic weapons.