Excerpt: You and Your Magic Items

[Lurker37]

Another point of note is that the Holy Avenger is now an epic weapon, and a mid-to-late tier one at that.

 

[CrimsonNeko]

I like the wording on the purchase price of PERMANENT magic items. Hopefully, this is referring to the possibility of rituals for temporary enchantments....

 

[Daeger]

Okay.

Levels 1-5: +1
Levels 6-10: +2
Levels 11-15: +3
Levels 16-20: +4
Levels 21-25: +5
Levels 26-30: +6

I the DM can say "I don't want you to have to cart around a weapon/armor/neckslot item; you all get your magical item bonus for your appropriate level for free, as a typical bonus". This is an option if you want a low-magic game, or if you're like me, you don't want item dependency, and think wondrous items are the REAL "Magical Items"...

Then how would I handle weapon/armor/neckslot powers/stats? Because regardless of the necessity of a +x item, the abilities that they grant are cool and players are going to want those. But if you're giving them the bonus for free, what about the item abilities?

Should they be achieved via quests, granting a PC to just endow the weapon they have with those abilities? Should they manifest (i.e. the player keeps the same weapon he did when he was at 1st level, it just develops different abilities as he adventures)?

T

Isn't the point of a low-magic game to make things a little more mundane? Just give them the bonuses, that's all they really need.

 

[Rechan]

Isn't the point of a low-magic game to make things a little more mundane? Just give them the bonuses, that's all they really need.

See, I don't want "Low magic".

I just like more emphasis on wondrous items being the thing that people think of when they think of "Magical gear". Instead of "Well we need this stuff..."

 

[A'koss]

Now that I've read the article a few times I find myself wishing they would've included an example of an artifact. I seem to remember them saying that they've actually stated up quite a few of them...

 

[Aria Silverhands]

You just stated that which is beautiful about 4e.

This is a feature, not a flaw. If you want to add restrictive fluff, by all means, please do! I'm sure I will be adding some of my own. In 3e I spent a lot of time trying to make things less restrictive, Unearthed Arcana, etc... 4e looks to be the opposite, which is fantastic.

It's a flaw. It's a flaw because of player perception. Which below is more appealing to you?

"No, you can't sell your items like that. No you can't disenchant. No you can't pay for ressurections."
-or-
"Yes, you can disenchant your magic items and use the shards and essence to perform a ritual to create another enchantment. Yes you can play a gnome."

Saying yes, is a more positive perception. It's easier to say yes. It's ridiculous to be forced to create a list of things to say no to for your games. WotC could have done better by making the wording ambiguous, constantly reinforcing that it is up to DM's what's allowed instead of constantly writing it as if you can do it this way... unless the DM says otherwise.

And it's even lamer that a fighter can swing about a magical sword and not get any benefit from it until someone tells him, "It's a +2, flaming sword."

That was covered in previous editions. The DM merely adds the +2 magic bonus behind the scenes until the character figures it out. I don't have a problem with telling players the magical bonus of the weapon, if it's an obviously magical weapon, but triggered effects and the like shouldn't be allowed until something specific triggers it. Like the right command word or identifying the item.

I disagree with the bolded word. Your assumptions and the things you require force your hand.

Oh, you could, you know, say, "yes".

It's my setting and I'm the DM. WotC should have written the rules to be a little less "THIS IS THE DEFAULT WAY" and more ambiguous, making sure people new to rp gaming learn that it's the DM's rules that matter.

 

[Stalker0]

It's my setting and I'm the DM. WotC should have written the rules to be a little less "THIS IS THE DEFAULT WAY" and more ambiguous, making sure people new to rp gaming learn that it's the DM's rules that matter.

I seriously disagree. Vague rules are bad rules. There's nothing worse than teaching a new player the rules, only for him to have to ask about all the things that are unclear.

And the clearest rule of all should be rule 0. Put it in big honking print at the beginning of the phb, that simple tells players that the dm is judge and jury.

If a dm wants to go on a houserule spree, that's fine. Especially at the start of a game, most dms throw down some houserules based on the specific campaign or their own personal preferences. Players deal with it and move on.

But a rulesbook should be as clear as polished glass, at least as much as possible. That way dms have a clear understand of the rules, and therefore can easily adjust them as they see fit.

 

[Sojorn]

Another point of note is that the Holy Avenger is now an epic weapon, and a mid-to-late tier one at that.

By RAW, it can show up as early as level 21 though

 

[Kosh]

It's my setting and I'm the DM. WotC should have written the rules to be a little less "THIS IS THE DEFAULT WAY" and more ambiguous, making sure people new to rp gaming learn that it's the DM's rules that matter.

They would be wasting a lot of space saying repeating rule zero over and over again throughout the book.

We haven't seen the books, but I'll bet rule zero is in the introduction to roleplaying section like it is in every roleplaying game.

 

[keterys]

It's a flaw. It's a flaw because of player perception.

Presenting anything but the best rule for a majority of groups is a flaw in DM perception.

This is the rule you should use. If you want a different play experience and your players agree, try these others.

You should make the game work how it works best for your group, obviously, but you're wrong that it's a flaw... assuming they've done their market research and testing correctly.