Essentials: Magic Item Rarity Explained, it's actually good!

[abyssaldeath]

I wonder how this will translate into generating high level PCs. I suppose the base rule (One Level+1, one at Level and one Level-1 item, plus GP equal to Level-1) is same, but you may only draw Common Items, and maybe a few Uncommons.

I posted this concern too and I think I may have come up with something.

When creating a PC at higher level you may choose one uncommon item level +1, one uncommon item at level, one uncommon item level -1 and gain GP equal to level -1 that can be spent on common items. Note: A DM can allow a player to choose a rare item in place of one of the uncommon items.

I think this would work pretty well.

 

[JohnnyO]

Thats possibly because up until now you couldn't really use your daily power items fully because of the limits per day. It was fustrating to know you couldn't use an item when needed because you had use another a few rounds earlier. Maybe with the relaxing of this limit you players will be more open to them. Or maybe they simply like static items better, so this won't change anything. I wouldn't say thats something that needs a fix

I agree, I'm thinking that removing limits/day would make them more useful. My players usually reserve their daily item use for a potion, so I'm curious to see how things like potions and whetstones (which count as a daily item use) will interact with this limit being lifted.

Personally, I'd be fine with lifting the potion as a daily item rule, and then adding back some potion mixing tables
April Fools: Potion Miscibility

 

[Baron Opal]

...Here's how I envision using the rarities:

-Inherent bonus rules in effect.
-No common items exist except expendables.
-Uncommon expendables can be made (they're not that great in 4e anyway).
-Permanent uncommon items can be made, but only if one has the "recipe." Like knowing a spell in earlier editions, these recipes will be valuable commodities.
-Making rare items requires both a recipe and quest-specific materials.

That's the upshot for me as well.

Between this and paring down the races and classes, I've almost got my next campaign all set.

 

[Prism]

Agreed. I think we can assume that Staff of Ruin will NOT be a Common item, despite the fact that it it adds static damage. It has a property. I'd bet that most Common weapons, implements, armors, and neck slot items have no properties.

I'm not sure that will be the case at all. These rules are not being introduced to prevent certain items being taken as often. They are being brought in to allow daily items to be used many times a day without that being abusable. The staff of ruin doesn't fall into that category at all. I have no idea if that particular item will be common or not. If a player would prefer a simple damaging staff that hardly breaks the game, over something more complex/interesting why change it? I bet there will be a number of boring, static bonus common items for those that prefer them

 

[mneme]

One thing people haven't considered: we haven't seen what Wizards consider rare and uncommon items. I'd expect rare items, if anything, to have useful properties -and- powers.

One use of the c/u/r split is that you can have "just the bonus" available for cash, and have "the bonus + a cool power" as the rarer version, without killing the bonus version. If IAoP are common, then there should be IAoP with powers available as uncommon or rare items.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I have a few concerns and a single suggestion.

1. To me, one of the archetypes of fantasy is the wizard who specializes in crafting items. My 3e wizard took all of the Craft Magic * feats and used them all. I want to be able to do this in 4e as well. I don't mind having to invest some time and effort into finding "recipes" and materials, but I don't want it to be just plain impossible to make interesting items.

2. I can accept that it will normally be impossible to to buy uncommon and rare items, but I'd like any DM I play to will interpret the word "normally" creatively.

3. Decreasing player control over magic items reduces the ability for a player to achieve certain concepts. I have always maintained that PCs should start with more than one feat, and this change just makes me think it more strongly.

The suggestion:

For the purposes of crafting items, tier should be considered. A paragon tier PC should be able to craft uncommon heroic tier items without much trouble. An epic tier PC should be able to craft rare heroic tier items and uncommon paragon tier items without much trouble, and uncommon heroic tier items without any special effort at all.

 

[fba827]

One thing people haven't considered: we haven't seen what Wizards consider rare and uncommon items. I'd expect rare items, if anything, to have useful properties -and- powers.

There was some article or podcast (sorry, I don't recall the source - but i think it was one of the podcasts from gencon, perhaps the upcoming releases one?) where one of the designers said something like "the majority of the items currently released are uncommon" (or something to that effect).

So consider most existing items to be at the uncommon level. With some exceptions being common (probably generic +1s without any properties or powers to be common), while other stuff as rare (like the properties and powers that you suggest)

 

[JohnnyO]

I'm not sure that will be the case at all. These rules are not being introduced to prevent certain items being taken as often. They are being brought in to allow daily items to be used many times a day without that being abusable. The staff of ruin doesn't fall into that category at all. I have no idea if that particular item will be common or not. If a player would prefer a simple damaging staff that hardly breaks the game, over something more complex/interesting why change it? I bet there will be a number of boring, static bonus common items for those that prefer them

Hmmm, you may be right. A static boost to damage is a simple, set it and forget it type of property, like +2 to some property or whatever.

A thought occurred to me that it may have more to with reducing the complexity of situational bonuses, and the drag they have on the game at play time. i.e. A weapon that does +2 damage is common, while a weapon that does +6 damage against bloodied foes while adjacent to at most one ally within 5 squares of the caster would be more uncommon.

 

[Scribble]

Don't forget the psychological impact too- Just calling something rare makes it slightly more "special" when you manage to acquire it.

I mean take two minis... Both are lumps of plastic about the same size, and equal in "actual" value. One is purple and the other is green.

Make the purple one "rare" and suddenly opening the box and finding the mythical lump of purple plastic is more desirable. Then limiting the number you CAN find, also makes actually finding it even more exciting.


Calling a magic item rare puts a little seed of "I must have that!" in the players mind.

And if you're rolling up the items randomly- finding something rare becomes even more exciting.

 

[keterys]

Hopefully they've actually thought about how to do this, but I could easily see the following working:

Gauntlets of Smashing (Common)
Property: +4 item bonus to melee and close damage rolls

Fire Giant Gauntlets (Uncommon)
Property: +4 item bonus to melee and close damage rolls
Power (Encounter): Free Action. Use when you hit with a melee attack. That attack deals 10 extra fire damage.

Armageddon Gauntlets of Ashardalon (Rare)
Property: +4 item bonus to melee and close damage rolls
Property: Whenever you score a critical hit, add 1d10 extra fire damage.
Power (Encounter): Free Action. Use when you hit with a melee attack. That attack 10 extra fire damage.
Power (Daily): Standard Action. Close burst 2; Highest + 6 vs. Reflex; 6d8 fire damage and the target is pushed 2 squares and knocked prone.