How I Stopped Worrying and Learned To Love Standard Plusses

[Spinachcat]

I had really hoped that +X magic items would have died off. Nothing is more boring than a +1 sword. I had hoped that after Earthdawn and Diablo, D&D would realize that +X magic was just tiresome and "unmagical" in any way.

Give me a Crimson Sword of the Tiger any day over a +X item.

 

[Irda Ranger]

AS I SAID THOUGH I don't mind the cloaks. It's the "all belts do this!" stuff that melts my brain slightly. Oh well, it's really an aesthetic/intuitive thing, not a deeply logical/rational thing.

As long as you don't allow belts to grant +x to Att, Dmg, AC or Def (or any stat) that stacks with the PC's weapon, armor or "brooch", I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't be able to allow for a Belt of Water-Walking, even though that's "supposed" to be a boot.

That and the ring deal is just really irritating and unecessary (or, it is necessary, WotC decided to stupidly write an article that utterly failed to convey WHY they did it, and didn't convey it in any other source, either!).

Although unstated, I think they wanted to reserve Rings as "the magic item category that's always really awesome." Not every sword is a Vorpal Weapon, but every Ring is a Ring of Power.

I think that's a perfectly fine thing to do. You don't have to do it that way, but as a choice, I like it. I can certainly live with it.

But making Rings really powerful introduces some balance issues, so they had to do something. They couldn't just make them 12th level items though (like a sword of Sharpness might be), because a character could go from no rings to two rings in one level, and that was too steep a power jump to suit their design goals. It would be really hard to design adventures and monsters if they had no way of knowing if a character had one ring or two; so the limited it to one.

I wrote some flavor text in the other thread to justify it; several people seemed to like it.

But if you want to have Rings of Power (using the RAW) and Lesser Rings (normal level restrictions only) in your campaign, I can't see the harm.

 

[Imp]

When I designed Iron Heroes, it took a TON of work to rip out magic items and work in new mechanics to replace them.

With 4e, it'll take even a newbie DM maybe a half hour once he has learned the rules. Heck, you've already done the meat of the work in this post.

That is really encouraging actually.

I'd certainly be happy with a few good sidebars for changing the flavor of the game if I wanted.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As long as you don't allow belts to grant +x to Att, Dmg, AC or Def (or any stat) that stacks with the PC's weapon, armor or "brooch", I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't be able to allow for a Belt of Water-Walking, even though that's "supposed" to be a boot.

Mmmm. I just don't know why they didn't do that. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, really, and I kind of suspect it may bite them in the arse when they want to release a new magic item book, and pretty much every sane way of having a magic belt that "does X or Y" has been expressed. I suppose that'll be the book that says precisely what you're saying, though

Although unstated, I think they wanted to reserve Rings as "the magic item category that's always really awesome." Not every sword is a Vorpal Weapon, but every Ring is a Ring of Power.

I think that's a perfectly fine thing to do. You don't have to do it that way, but as a choice, I like it. I can certainly live with it.

But making Rings really powerful introduces some balance issues, so they had to do something. They couldn't just make them 12th level items though (like a sword of Sharpness might be), because a character could go from no rings to two rings in one level, and that was too steep a power jump to suit their design goals. It would be really hard to design adventures and monsters if they had no way of knowing if a character had one ring or two; so the limited it to one.

I wrote some flavor text in the other thread to justify it; several people seemed to like it.

But if you want to have Rings of Power (using the RAW) and Lesser Rings (normal level restrictions only) in your campaign, I can't see the harm.

There's something hugely perverse about that, to me. Like, WHHHHHHHHHY? Like, it's multi-stage idiocy, the way you describe it. I don't see any logic to it beyond "Gosh I feel like maybe we should annoy a lot of players for no clear reason!". Rings aren't cool. Maybe that's the logic. Rings aren't cool so we'll force them to be cool by making them overpowered? Pffft. Then apparently they've made them SO overpowering that it's impossible to have a balanced game if you wear two? Seems a bit "out of whack" to me.

I've not seen your flavour text, afaik, but every attempt I've seen to explain it so far seems to have been pretty idiotic (imho ofc) and revolve around concepts not found in any other magical items. If you link it I'll look but otherwise I'm too lazy

Epochrpg's idea of rings that function differently at different levels is significantly more attractive to me than "lesser rings" which you rip off the moment you find a "ring of power".

 

[mach1.9pants]

I've always thought it was a great pity that they never really did this in 3.X.

They sort of did.
If you have "book of Exalted Deeds' on of the feats you can take is 'Vow of Poverty' which means no items. This then gives you a whole heck of bonus's that increase throughout the 20 levels. In a previous campaign I just gave every PC the benefit of this feat and there where only artifacts (with massive drawbacks) available.
Then I found Iron Heroes..thanks mike a great system (if poorly proof read book )

 

[mach1.9pants]

I had really hoped that +X magic items would have died off. Nothing is more boring than a +1 sword. I had hoped that after Earthdawn and Diablo, D&D would realize that +X magic was just tiresome and "unmagical" in any way.

Give me a Crimson Sword of the Tiger any day over a +X item.

But as long as what Mike Mearls said is true (not saying he is lieing but maybe it just won't work) you'll easily be able to house-rule remove the ICONIC (and Dnd necessity in my opinion) + items

 

[JohnSnow]

Mmmm. I just don't know why they didn't do that. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, really, and I kind of suspect it may bite them in the arse when they want to release a new magic item book, and pretty much every sane way of having a magic belt that "does X or Y" has been expressed. I suppose that'll be the book that says precisely what you're saying, though



There's something hugely perverse about that, to me. Like, WHHHHHHHHHY? Like, it's multi-stage idiocy, the way you describe it. I don't see any logic to it beyond "Gosh I feel like maybe we should annoy a lot of players for no clear reason!". Rings aren't cool. Maybe that's the logic. Rings aren't cool so we'll force them to be cool by making them overpowered? Pffft. Then apparently they've made them SO overpowering that it's impossible to have a balanced game if you wear two? Seems a bit "out of whack" to me.

There's a great deal of mythological and legendary precedent for magical rings being objects of great power. The One Ring (and the rest of the Rings of Power) are the best example in (reasonably) contemporary fiction.

However, in older mythology, most rings tend to follow the Tolkien model. Rings are never trivial magical items, but almost always objects of great power. Even the simple "ring of invisibility" is regarded as hugely powerful because it allowed its wearer to act without consequence (since nobody could identify them). This aspect of "invisibility as power" was further pursued by sci-fi writers in Wells' "The Invisible Man" (and more recently in the Kevin Bacon film Hollow Man).

Now, in D&D, invisibility just isn't that cool (since it can be penetrated). But there is something to be said for adhering to the mythological understanding of magic rings as items of great power.

Personally, I like it. Obviously, others are entitled to their own opinions. As long as they realize that all they've got is a preference, and not some defensible righteous anger.

 

[Voss]

Yup, that's pretty much the intent. We went out of our way to embrace transparency in the rules, to better help DMs understand how magic items interact with PCs, how they interact with the system math, and what happens when you start to change things.

It's also why items have a level as a guide for their power, rather than a gp cost. It's a lot easier to look at an item's level and determine how powerful it is compared to a character, rather than look at its price, compare that price to expected wealth, and then try to figure out the impact of an item that's worth 10% of a PC's total treasure compared to one worth 20% of a PC's treasure.

When I designed Iron Heroes, it took a TON of work to rip out magic items and work in new mechanics to replace them.

With 4e, it'll take even a newbie DM maybe a half hour once he has learned the rules. Heck, you've already done the meat of the work in this post.

Since you stopped by... thats all well and good for the primary items.
But what about the secondary items? The article mentions that bracers give offensive 'abilities', but not direct bonuses, gloves have attack properties, belts have things like strength boosting, and various 'other' items like potions and items will have a few, but not many combat functions.

If you take all those separate items together, in all their different slots where they don't overlap, how does that not accumulate into a giant pile of combat-related awesome, even if it doesn't give a single enhancement bonus?

It won't be on a mathematical curve, but it seems like these things still affect the game...significantly. In the sense that a 10th level fighter who has them will always be significantly, mechanically better than a 10th level fighter that doesn't.

 

[Nebulous]

Hopefully WotC will explain all this in the DMG.

Bingo. This is what a DMG is for, helping the guy with the hardest job. If they give a great set of rules explaining how to mod your game, i'll be happy.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There's a great deal of mythological and legendary precedent for magical rings being objects of great power. The One Ring (and the rest of the Rings of Power) are the best example in (reasonably) contemporary fiction.

However, in older mythology, most rings tend to follow the Tolkien model. Rings are never trivial magical items, but almost always objects of great power.

Such as? I can only think of the Rings from LotR and the thing they were inspired by, the ring from Der Ring des Nibelungen.

What are the other mythological and legendary precedents? Please enlighten me. How do they compare to other mythological and legendary items? Are ANY mythological or legendary items not "objects of great power"?

Let's talk about "mythological and legendary" weapons, now that you've attempted to use this as a justification - ever see a mythological and/or legendary weapon that sucked? I sure never came across one. Most would be artifacts in D&D terms.