D&D 4E Eliminating magic items in 4e completely

[BryonD]

If something is "useful," people decide it has to be "necessary."

Yeah!!!!

And as soon as these "people" grow up and learn that WotC knows what they want better than they do the gaming world will be a better place.

 

[frankthedm]

How can a fighter ever be able to fly without magical means? That is just not possible.

Sure it is. Get a mount with wings. Pegusai, Griffons, hippogryphs, Nightmares, dragons and god knows what else can serve as flying mounts.

 

[Klaus]

Sure it is. Get a mount with wings. Pegusai, Griffons, hippogryphs, Nightmares, dragons and god knows what else can serve as flying mounts.

Flumphs?

Oh, wait. Flumphs are Small.



Dire Flumphs?

 

[D_E]

Hmm... Apparently I wasn't very clear.

BeauNiddle: Yep, that's what I was talking about.

It is my belief that attrition-based mechanics have gone the way of the dodo in Fourth Edition. So while 100% may be nice, 80% is probably sufficient to deal with any encounter. It just won't be as "easy."

Attrition between battles has. Attrition in battles has not (at the very least, you still die when you "run out" of HP).

You'll finish every battle with some fraction of your per-battle resources left (hp, per encounter powers and items, etc). That's your safty margin. Bad luck or bad choices will make you dip further into your resources.

To know how important the optional items are, you'd have to know in what shape you're expected to end combat. If every battle is a knock down, drag out fight where a single bad roll can mean death, then the absense of "extra" items could be very noticable. At the other extream, if you essentially can't die unless you do something really stupid then the lack of extra items won't be felt at all.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Rather than concidering the % of resources left (since we have no information from previews about it) lets instead consider what sort of bonuses magic items will give. The obvious answer is Powers [per encounter abilities]

If a character has 10 powers then adding another 5 wont necessarily be unbalancing (and consider they want players to have something interesting to do every round and that battles are meant to last longer then 10 powers is probably on the low end of what a character can manage by the time they've accumulated a supply of magic items). Furthermore consider the Power we've been shown so far - Elven precision, can reroll one attack roll per encounter. The gnome in the magic item article has bracers of accuracy it seems fairly likely that all they will do is grant the Elven precision ability. I'd file that under useful but not necessary.

In 3rd ed items gave fighters their ONLY special abilities. In 4th ed magic items are competing with all the other things the character can do so it's a lot less likely they'll be pivotal in battle.

Until we see 4th ed in much more detail we wont know whether a character is meant to end every encounter having used every single ability they have or if they're expected to have used only 50% and it's the tactical choice of choosing which powers that makes the game challenging. Until we know that we can't say what effect adding another 5 abilities to a character will have.

I think the important term is "Opportunity Cost".
If it takes a swift (minor) action to activate per encounter ability X, and a swift action to activate item Y, this means you will still have to decide which you use. If the encounter is no longer than the number of "innate" powers you can activate as an immediate action, magic items just give more flexibility. (Assuming the powers you have are not automatically less powerful than the magic item power)

Flexibility is still useful, no doubt about that. But game balance within an encounter is less strongly affected by that then by giving you an outright better option.

This doesn't work for all items. If there are boots of flying that work constantly, the only oppertunity cost you have is not wearing boots of speed or boots of teleportation, and there is no "innate" ability covering the same "slot". I think that might be why such items are put at very high levels (carpet of flying was level 17?).

Group dynamics can help in balancing the power of these items.
A Fighter capable of flying primarily reduces his disadvantage against a flying opponent. (But he might have been able to do the same with a Bow?). He doesn't gain a significant benefit against earth-boud monsters, because he will still want to smack them with his melee weapon, meaning he stays in reach anyway. Out of combat, the utility of flying is pretty strong, off course.

If, say the Ranger character can fly, he can protect himself pretty well against melee and earth-bound enemies and is still useful with a bow. But the Fighter is still down there, and has to do his "Defender" job. He will probably be less defending and more "binding", because the enemy creature might attempt to flee if faced with an opponent it can't get too. Or the monster is just content ripping apart the Defender, which it probably would have done even if the Ranger was on ground (since the Fighter would have tried to defend the Ranger and ensure that the monster goes after him).

If all characters can fly (and use it, in a dungeon, flight doesn't give the same benefits as in the open wild), the monster will have to run for cover. Or the party just ignores it.

 

[Hjorimir]

I don't think I'd elminate magic items completely, but I do think I would enjoy a game where magic items didn't provide the bonuses (the big three, as it were).

I've always thought it would make more sense if a magic sword simply inflicted more damage and didn't confer a bonus to hit (in my mind that would mean the sword was adding a level of skill to the wielder).

I'm going to be taking a very close look at this come June.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think I'd elminate magic items completely, but I do think I would enjoy a game where magic items didn't provide the bonuses (the big three, as it were).

I've always thought it would make more sense if a magic sword simply inflicted more damage and didn't confer a bonus to hit (in my mind that would mean the sword was adding a level of skill to the wielder).

I'm going to be taking a very close look at this come June.

With hit points as an abstract measure, both might be equally valid.
I'd tend to reason this way:
- To hit bonus means the weapon is better balanced, easier to handle, or even actually guides your hands (its magic)
- To damage bonus means it somehow hits "heavier". It might be due the material being denser/heavier, or it's "extra sharp". The abstract nature of hit points means that its also more difficult to evade the blow - maybe to "roll with the blow" is more difficult due to the weapns speed, or its weight means you weapon block works less well, or its sharpness means that even a tiny graze is more dangerous and you need more effort to avoid the damage.

 

[Hjorimir]

With hit points as an abstract measure, both might be equally valid.
I'd tend to reason this way:
- To hit bonus means the weapon is better balanced, easier to handle, or even actually guides your hands (its magic)
- To damage bonus means it somehow hits "heavier". It might be due the material being denser/heavier, or it's "extra sharp". The abstract nature of hit points means that its also more difficult to evade the blow - maybe to "roll with the blow" is more difficult due to the weapns speed, or its weight means you weapon block works less well, or its sharpness means that even a tiny graze is more dangerous and you need more effort to avoid the damage.

Sure, I can see that. I just prefer swords like Sting and Glambring to +1 orc bane shortsword. So, if I remove the bonuses and incorporate them directly into the characters, I can make all my magic items unique and special. I think that emulates the fantasy novels I enjoy so much.