Is the Christmas Tree really dead?

[Spatula]

One of the things about 4e was the insistence on getting rid of the Christmas tree of magic items that made high-level characters resemble rappers with bling. Most of this was due to stat-boosting items, etc, that soon became mandatory for defenses.

However, while there is a distinct lack of headbands of intellect, periapts of wisdom, and whatnot, characters do seem to rely a lot on magic items.

For instance, the new attack paradigm. The ideal character will now hit 50% of the time. One of the few ways to get an attack bonus is now through some kind of magic weapon, which they have issued to the spellcasters too. Then this is balanced out via magic armor, and, yes, there are items that raise the other defenses too. So now we have a garbageload of items that give offensive/defensive bonuses. Are as many needed? No, but the game mentions them all too often, and the PHB makes reference to martial characters needing magic weapons. So, my question is, do we need bling, or can I roll up an assassin rogue with a cheap dagger?

There's a difference between getting rid of "Christmas tree" characters and getting rid of all magic items. A rather big difference. Finding and using magic items has always been a large part of D&D, so of course 4e didn't get rid of them.

 

[GAAAHHH]

If the Christmas Tree is dead in 4th edition, what will we put our presents under?

 

[Dragonbait]

Part of the pruning of the Christmastree of magical items is this: Look through the MM and see how many monsters need magical weapons to be hit, or silver, or adamantium, or cold steel, or blah blah blah blah.

You could have a 30th level fighter with no magical items and he can still be effective.

 

[Nymrohd]

Santa is also dead in 4th edition

 

[Dragonbait]

Santa is also dead in 4th edition

He was not popular enough. Instead there is a Aggrivated Huge Ice Gnome Gragos , level 25 Solo stalker

 

[CountPopeula]

From a design standpoint, magic items can either unbalance the by being their, or by not being there. The design team decided against magic items making the player characters too powerful, so the characters are reliant on a magic weapon, magic armor, and a necklace.

This does mean, of course, that DMs who want to do away with magic items have some work to do. This isn't a problem in design, though, since any DM wishing to change the default has work to do.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It's not perfect (DMs still have to juggle loot parcels) but it's somewhat easier for DMs to distribute treasure.

The NPC numbers from the DMG make no sense to me (and magic items make it more confusing). Someone is going to have to explain things to me like I'm a seven year old. Until then, I can't even comment on how NPCs use items.

From the player point of view, I think it's a lot better. If you're not running a low magic campaign, you still "need" items to be balanced, but the number needed is a lot fewer. You can get bling, possibly even lots of bling, but you don't need bling.

 

[Caliber]

So it's like Charlie Brown's Christmas Tree of magic items?

 

[Wycen]

Why is the neck slot so important?

 

[Center-of-All]

In the same way that magic weapons help your attack and damage, and how magic armor assists your AC, your magical cloak/amulet/other neck slot item reinforces your fortitude, reflex, and will defenses.