Discussion on +x magic items

[JohnSnow]

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?

...

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)

That's actually pretty easy when it comes to the numerical boost items, assuming there aren't too many of them. Allow me to explain.

My personal "like" for "+X items" is in things that directly affect various checks, such as +2 swords, +1 shields, +3 wands, slippers that grant a bonus to climb checks, and so forth. If you write the mathmatical progressions correctly, you can give a character a +2 sword that provides a moderate edge without making him ineffective without it. From what we know about 4e progressions, a character gets +0.5 per level to his attack bonus, plus bonuses from stats, feats, and possibly other sources. That means a +2 weapon is a nice benefit, but is no more "overpowering" than comparing a character with an 18 strength (+4 bonus) versus one with a 15 strength (+2 bonus). Yes, it's nice, but as long as you keep the bonuses in check, it's not game-breaking.

Just as a +2 bonus isn't unreasonable at level 10, a +6 bonus wouldn't necessarily be unreasonable at level 30, if the rest of the math matched up.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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?

The core rules are already subject to one huge discrepancy in character power between various PC groups -- ability scores. At 8th level, going low-magic vs. high-magic is probably similar to going 22-pt buy vs. 32-pt buy. Going low-magic would be "more challenging" just as going with the lower point buy would be.

As to what specific mechanical changes you'd make, it depends greatly on the exact monster you have at hand.

 

[Faraer]

For me, the history, appearance and nature of magic items comes first, their rules effect is secondary. Certainly, items that are just mechanical bonuses are bookkeeping -- they aren't part of the group imagining, just an unseen part of the maths. Requiring a large array of magic items to stay on par dilutes the amount of attention each of them gets in play, making each one less important and interesting whether its rules are simple or complex.

 

[DM_Blake]

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.

I agree entirely.

What if magic in 4e works just like 3.5e, but prices were eliminated. Since they are giving magic items levels, they could simply say "when pregenerating a higher level character, choose 1 item appropriate to his level, and 1 item at level-2, one more at level-4, etc."

This would work kind of like the Magic Item Compendium, but based on item levels and not on prices.

Even more fun: insist that any player making a character at higher level than level 1 must roll for the items randomly, so there would be no picking the optimum items - they would have to make do with what they got. If this were the case, he should be allowed to reroll things not useful to his class (Boris the Fighter rolling up a magical wand he can't even use).

Then we mechanically remove prices altogether, which eliminates the magic item vendors on every street corner. With no prices in the book, players (and DMs) would be more inclined to barter for items. "I will trade you my +2 flaming sword for your rope of climbing" might be the new way to acquire magic items from NPCs (and probably not a NPC vendor on a street corner hawking a cart full of magic items).

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.

Great idea.

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.

I find it hard to justify a "realistic" game world where a Bag of Tricks exists, but a Ring of Protection doesn't. I would have to jump through hoops to invent a concept of "well, making a bag from which various random creatures can be magically withdrawn is actually fairly easy, from a mage's point of view, but making an item that protects people from phyiscal harm is just bending he laws of the universe too far".

How would you justify it?

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 really like the sword idea.

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.

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.

This I totally agree with.

In a "realistic" world where mages occasionally labor to make magic items, it seems totally believable that they might want a single item to do more than a single thing.

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.

Again, totally agreed. I would love nothing more than giving a new level 1 player a family heirloom and not have him replace it by 5th level for a better item.

 

[DM_Blake]

For me, the history, appearance and nature of magic items comes first, their rules effect is secondary. Certainly, items that are just mechanical bonuses are bookkeeping -- they aren't part of the group imagining, just an unseen part of the maths. Requiring a large array of magic items to stay on par dilutes the amount of attention each of them gets in play, making each one less important and interesting whether its rules are simple or complex.

This is a great perspective. I ofen use this perspective in my 3.5 games, too.

However, I take it a bit farther. I assume that an unusual item has a history and a unique appearance, but a more common item is much less likely to have that kind of interest.

My attitude with 3.5 is that levels are not hard to get. Even a new recruit to the city watch is probably 3rd or 4th level by the end of his first year. The same thing could happen to a mage or cleric who makes magic items.

Given that, then there might be "junior' magic item makers cranking out fairly ordinary common items sucn as +1 weapons and armor, and these might end up in the player's hands at some time with little or no history.

But a +3 holy warhammer came from a pretty accomplished magic item maker, and was no doubt commissioned by someone very powerful and probably saw a great deal of legendary use before it fell into some monster's treasure hoard. These items have history.

 

[Stalker0]

The problem with magic items in 3e is that the majority of a fighter's combat power and defense stem from them.

Without a magic sword, a fighter is doing at best 2d6 + 2 x strength. That just doesn't cut it after a while. Further, his AC without magic is probably around a 20-24 at best, which also gives way at higher levels.

In 4e, we will likely see class based defense bonuses, which cuts out the magical armor problem. Further, fighters will now have powers that give them big bonuses to attack and/or damage.

Wotc has said that magic items will now be nice but not mandatory, and I can easily see that happening.

If I have a power called Roaring Strike that grants an extra +5d6 damage, then sure the extra +1 damage from that magic sword is nice, but I'm fine without it.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Likes: +X sword, +X skill.

Dislikes: +X stat, +X saving throw.

Neutral: +X shield, +X armor.

QFT. My big elimination desire are the Stat-Boosters.

 

[Glyfair]

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.

It's pretty much mandatory. The other option is to assume they aren't used, and then the "standard" game that uses them will be unbalanced because the characters will be more powerful than assumed.

The game pretty much has to be balanced towards the most common play style. Anyone who plays significantly differently will have to adapt based on the changes they make. WotC can help that by discussing and publish tips and rules variations for the more common variations. Even so, once you change significant things, expect to make more changes (unless, of course, you could care less about game rule balance).

 

[VirgilCaine]

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

Where do all you people hide, and why haven't you found a system that's a better match for your tastes than D&D?

 

[Aloïsius]

The reason why I dislike +x items, and especialy +x weapons, is that, as soons as they exist, they are needed.
So, what's the problem ? The problem is that, starting at level 10 (or 8 or 12), every NPC will have +x weapons. Thus, PC end up with stokpiles of magic weapon, that are just treated like 2*x² gold pieces. And that's probably the worst aspect of magic-mart : "hello Mr merchant : we have 12 +1 longswords, 6 +2 shields, 3 +2 daggers and another 15 +3 chainshirt !".