Discussion on +x magic items

[RangerWickett]

Kill monsters, take their money, buy ale and whores and ship passage to more adventure. Hire armies, live in the lap of luxury, acquire the finest things the markets of the world has to offer. Drugs, secrets, territory, bards to sing of your heroism, temples to honor your god, loyal servants who will assassinate those who stand against you.

Kill monsters, take their stuff, and buy cool things, not +1 gear.

A game should be rich enough that you can buy things other than stuff with which to kill more things. You'll have more powers of your own that are interesting and cool in 4e, so you shouldn't need as much magic gear. Nobody gives a damn about what boots a hero wears.

The "awesome loot as reward" component of the game could be replaced with some other reward that doesn't require tons of magic doodads. I've been playing a Conan game for a few months, and the one magic item we got was cursed! I haven't cared, because I've been having so much fun just 'killing things' (and especially because the things weren't just random, but were ***holes who needed a good killin') that I haven't even noticed there isn't much stuff to be taken.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hmm. I think everyone has a point.

Why might we need +X items: People want get loot that gets better. If every item has a unique special ability, the game becomes cumbersome because you have to manage too much?
Why don't we need +X items: They just add a number, that's boring. If you want a character to have a higher number, just give him one with the class.

So, the question is - is there a "sane" equilibrium between these two points?
Are WotC trying to achieve one in D&D 4? Or are they doing it the wrong way and the system will break down, just as it used to do?

 

[Nifft]

If you have nearly as many items, each of which is a special case of some kind, is it going to be easier? Anyway, area dispel affects spells, not magic item effects.

Yes. They won't partially overlap with spells.

Anti-magic fields are less problematic, too.

Compare:

PC: "Attack, natural 16, that's -- 37! Did I hit?"
DM: "You're in an AMF, did you remember to subtract your magical bonuses?"
PC: "Oh, right... uh... 32. Did I hit?"

... vs. ...

PC: "Shadow Weasel Smite! Attack is---"
DM: "Nope, you're in an AMF."
PC: "Oh right, so just a regular attack. Can I keep the natural 20?"

In the first example, you're trusting the math of someone who has a vested interest in being wrong (in one particular direction). In the second example, it's a binary condition. No fudge room. Easier to monitor.

Cheers, -- N

 

[delericho]

So when classifying the monster, do you assume that the PCs are properly equipped. If so, why bother giving the monster DR at all? Or do you assume the party doesn't have the right equipment. . . in which case a party that does will earn a disproportionate reward relative to the difficulty of the encounter.

The trick is that you don't have to balance each monster in isolation, but rather in context with a whole bunch of other monsters. Although the party might be carrying a cold iron weapon for dealing with fae, or an adamantine one for golems, they're unlikely to be carrying both. So, one encounter will be that bit easier, and the other harder, which is no bad thing.

I think the best thing to do is to balance assuming the party don't have the appropriate items, on the grounds that it's easier to recover from an unexpectedly easy encounter than it is to recover from an unexpected TPK.

 

[delericho]

Why might we need +X items: People want get loot that gets better. If every item has a unique special ability, the game becomes cumbersome because you have to manage too much?

Why don't we need +X items: They just add a number, that's boring. If you want a character to have a higher number, just give him one with the class.

So, the question is - is there a "sane" equilibrium between these two points?

I would suggest keeping the +X for the 'big ticket' items where a +X has a certain coolness to it - I nominate magical weapons and armour as the only two examples here (perhaps skill mods as well, I suppose), and go to unique effects for the rest.

The other advantage of unique effects, though, is that the character only needs enough to make him unique and interesting - perhaps the character has one or two items, rather than the magical sword, armour, shield, belt, helm, gauntlets, cloak, amulet, toothpick, two rings, and codpiece. So, hopefully there would be a bit less demand for a supply of items.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

it's easier to recover from an unexpectedly easy encounter than it is to recover from an unexpected TPK.

There are expected TPKs in your campaign? You're a RBDM!

 

[Nifft]

I would suggest keeping the +X for the 'big ticket' items where a +X has a certain coolness to it - I nominate magical weapons and armour as the only two examples here (perhaps skill mods as well, I suppose), and go to unique effects for the rest.

So you'd want to keep the arms race items? IMHO those are the biggest problem, along with stat-boosters and save-boosters.

Arms race items = required items = boring items.

Cheers, -- N

 

[delericho]

So you'd want to keep the arms race items?

The long sword +1 is just too damn iconic to drop. It's not D&D without it.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

A game should be rich enough that you can buy things other than stuff with which to kill more things. You'll have more powers of your own that are interesting and cool in 4e, so you shouldn't need as much magic gear.

Of course you won't need it, but some players will still want it. Increasing base class power just won't do it. Look at it from the character's point of view. No matter how much power a PC has, as long as there is a real chance of them losing a fight now and then they will want MORE POWER. And why shouldn't they? This is their life on the line. They'll look for every advantage they can find.

The only ways to combat this are to severely limit the number of options for increasing power or to ask players to metagame -- to tell them "Look, I know your characters would logically seek out every possible means to increase their power, but can we agree out-of-character to limit that?" Your players might or might not be amenable.

As to limiting the options, here's a few ways you might do it:
Items have a cap on what bonus they can bestow. Gauntlets give you +2 Str up to a maximum of 18, belts give you +4 to a maximum of 20 or so.
The new class-based bonuses do not stack with item bonuses. Perhaps you get a +1 resistance bonus to saves per 3 PC-class levels, so that +1 cloak is only useful for NPC classes or for very low-level PCs. Perhaps Rage gives an enhancement bonus to Strength.
Multiple magic items interfere with each other in some way (though this will lead to PCs seeking to craft multi-use items that do everything).

 

[RangerWickett]

People used to think Vancian magic was too iconic to D&D to get rid of.

Consider:

"I'm a tough-as-nails 10th level fighter. I have a magic sword that I drew from the clutches of a petrified saint, and I used it to slay the necromancer that destroyed my village and set me on the path of a hero.

"Oh, you're selling plus-two swords? Well sure, I'll take one. Can I trade in this piece of junk?"