Legand & Lore: Magic Items

[KidSnide]

I think it might have been awkwardly put but the idea is nice. The problem is I can't see how you'd do it. Pluses aren't the problem. People's expectations are the problem. It is logically impossible to have items that are both powerful and not consequential at the same time. Items in 4e are usually fairly weak, enhancement aside, because they aren't supposed to be what you lean on to make your characters. You can't make them more distinctive and interesting without making them more powerful. You could give them very distinct niches, but that won't meet the desire to have a limited number of items.

Monte doesn't say that items won't be powerful. He just says that the rules will support characters that are powerful for their level (i.e. well-equipped) as well as characters that are weak for their level (i.e. few or no magic items).

Rather than a strict system telling the DM what the players should have at a given level, the game instead could provide a DM with guidelines and suggestions for what would happen if he introduced various kinds of items into his campaign. Thus, the DM is armed with knowledge, but free to do whatever he or she sees fit.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Monte doesn't say that items won't be powerful. He just says that the rules will support characters that are powerful for their level (i.e. well-equipped) as well as characters that are weak for their level (i.e. few or no magic items).

Right. It is more what people are extrapolating from it. The conflicting desires are here. Monte seems fine with just making basically old style AD&D type powerful items and leaving it at that. He talks about guidelines and risk/reward.

I agreed with the risk/reward part. I'm not sure what I think about powerful items. I think it really depends on the type of game you want to play. What seems clear is you can't have one single system that delivers both powerful and distinctive items AND keeps them subservient to character abilities. One or the other is going to dominate.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Oh, and for those worrying about "balance":

First, relax, take a deep breath, and realize that a well-designed game won't make a +5 bonus the difference between "balanced" and "unbalanced."

Second, it's OK to be "unbalanced," if being unbalanced makes the game more fun. Balance is a tool to use in pursuit of a goal, not a goal in and of itself.

 

[catastrophic]

You guys can roll your eyes about balance as much as you like, but a lack of balance doesn't make the game more fun, it makes it less fun. Hand waving who gets the vorpal sword is not good design will result in an inferior game.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yeah, I feel as if people are reading a lot of good design ideas into an article which barely even hints at them being implemented.

I agree, but I see the opposite in this thread as well. Lots of people making inferences into what Monte is thinking, that go beyond what Monte wrote, for good or ill. I've read a number of posts here and thought, "What? Where did you get that? I have to go back and reread now!"

 

[Dire Bare]

I just want a three-bladed sword that shoots its blades like rockets at the bad guys . . . .

 

[Stalker0]

magic items need to be powerful.

I'm going to use this quote to play devil's advocate against myself.


On the one hand, I want to see the removal of magic pluses. On the other hand, I believe that 4e's magic items for the most part are extrememly boring and forgettable. Part of that is design, but part of that may be power.

Now...its easy to design some magic items that are cool and that don't directly influence a character's overall power much. But....it hard to do that when you design a lot of magic items.

If magic items become items that no longer are a true part of a character's power...will they still be loved and appreciated?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You guys can roll your eyes about balance as much as you like, but a lack of balance doesn't make the game more fun, it makes it less fun. Hand waving who gets the vorpal sword is not good design will result in an inferior game.

This is an opinion, not a matter of fact.

there are two different kinds of balances:

pvm and pvp:
pvp needs to be balanced in a way, that everyone can contribute
pvm needs to be balanced in a way that makes killing a) fun and b) fast or really challenging, depending on the opposing force.

So items may not disturb pvp balance too much. (You may have +5 vorpal sword, but every other person can still contrbute meaningful, best even if they are naked...)
and items just need to shift pvm balance on the fast or challenging axis towards faster.
If the group has access to a powerful magic item, you just need a way to estimate the effect.

e.g.: Vorpal sword: lets say, on a hit above natural 18, you decapitate an enemy. Maybe the design restricts it to only beeing able to behead a monster of lower level. (tying effects to HD is nothing new to D&D, elite and solo count as beeing of 4/8 higher levels)
result: effectively you just reduced certain monsters to minions... which the system assumes anyway...

Actually, 4e would not be worse, if you behead every monster that is some levels lower than you on a hit of 18+ on your D20.

So with some clever design, you can easily make items cool and not disturbing balance too much. And making items be magical again should be a design goal.

 

[Ainamacar]

I think it might have been awkwardly put but the idea is nice. The problem is I can't see how you'd do it. Pluses aren't the problem. People's expectations are the problem. It is logically impossible to have items that are both powerful and not consequential at the same time.

...

Either items are a lot like 4e items and form a measurable part of PC power, but don't really add a lot, and are not that distinctive BECAUSE of that. Or else they are few in number and mighty and will be quite interesting but also quite character defining.

Yes, there are 'fun' unique interesting quirky kinds of items, and things that are temporary ala artifacts, but I think you're going to find it pretty hard to create a hefty list of items that are both exciting and trivial at the same time.

Right. It is more what people are extrapolating from it. The conflicting desires are here. Monte seems fine with just making basically old style AD&D type powerful items and leaving it at that. He talks about guidelines and risk/reward.

I agreed with the risk/reward part. I'm not sure what I think about powerful items. I think it really depends on the type of game you want to play. What seems clear is you can't have one single system that delivers both powerful and distinctive items AND keeps them subservient to character abilities. One or the other is going to dominate.

I certainly agree with you that there is tension between powerful interesting magic items and keeping character ability in the forefront, but I think you've missed the point that obviates the conundrum: what decoupling magic item power (whether large or small) from character ability would actually enable if done well. This isn't about deciding whether D&D evolves to favor one of trivial or character-defining items, it is about evolving D&D to the point where each table picks whatever balance they want and the system as a whole continues to work. You can even do both in the same game in the sense that the dominant factor varies from character to character, or at different times.

All this is dependent on strong guidelines that are reasonably robust, and sufficiently detailed to enable the new DM to run the game successfully. I think that is challenging (and definitely requires thinking about the math) but not impossible. If that is achieved we have many decisive qualitative gains: Low magic works. High magic Monty Haul works. The rich inexperienced kid traveling with the freaking Vow of Poverty monk actually works. Matching risks to rewards works (and for most people would be the usual case) but regardless of the details of that relationship the system doesn't care. All the system should care about is what items and abilities the PCs have right now and provide tools so the DM can challenge that party. That's it. In my opinion the single greatest conceit of D&D is that the party (almost) always faces challenges in keeping with their present capabilities, and the game is aided if it can help us achieve (or knowingly violate) that conceit with the fewest possible additional assumptions.

So let the rules of acquisition, and player expectations thereof, be governed by the story, the setting, and the table. For two editions they have been baked into the system itself, but these particular cookies have turned stale.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

As I've said elsewhere, I'm all for the death of the +n weapon altogether.

I want magic items to be about interesting properties and powers, not math operations.

I liked this column a lot better than Cook's first.

This I am not so sure. He didn't went in the direction I would have gone. I am seen more warning signs of an attempt to make a D&D game some kind of D&D simulation again. I don't like that.

Here's what I would like to see
1) Get rid of magical enhancement bonuses.
2) Give every character a certain number of "special power" slots. You can use either a certain type of character (class/race/whatever?) specific power, or you can use a magic item power.

Strictly within the D&D 4 context only, without adding new slots:

Flame Tongue - Magical Weapon (Heavy Blade)
Property: As a minor action, you can activate Flame Tongue. While activated, each weapon attack with Flame Tongue inflicts fire damage instead of weapon damage, and you may use Fiery Burst or Burning Strikes as replacement powers.

Fiery Burst - 5th, 15th or 25th level daily replacement power
Standard Action - Fire, Weapon
Area Burst 1 in 10
Prerequisite: Flame Tongue must be activated
Attack: Ability Score vs Reflex
Hit: 1[W] + Ability Score fire damage and the target loses all resistance and immunities to fire (save ends).
Special:
While the target loses all resistance and immunities to fire from this power, one of the following effect applies (characters with multiple roles must choose one):
Controller and Defender Role: The target suffers a -2 penalty to all attack rolls.
Leader Role: The target suffers a -2 penalty to AC and Reflex defense.
Striker Role: The target gains vulnerability 5 to fire.
As 13th Level Power: 2 [W] + Abilty Score damage.
As 24th Level Power: Area Burst 2 in 20. Striker: The target gains vulnerability 10 to fire.

Burning Strike - 3rd, 13th or 23rd level encounter attack power replacement
Standard Action - Fire, Weapon
Melee Reach
Prerequisite: Flame Tongue must be activated
Attack: Ability Score vs Reflex
Hit: 1[W] + Ability Score fire damage and the target suffers vulnerability 5 to all fire damage until the end of its next turn.
Special:
Defender Role: If the target makes an attack not including you before the end of your next turn, it suffers an additional 5 points of fire damage.
Controller and Leader Role: The target suffers a -2 penalty to Armor Class and Reflex defense until the end of its next turn.
Striker: Your next attack with Flame Tongue before the end of your next turn inflicts an additional 5 points of fire damage.
Level 13: 2[W] + Ability Score fire damage and the target suffers vulnerabilty 10 to all fire damage until its next turn.
Level 23: 2[W] + Ability Score fire damage and the target suffers vulnerabilty 15 to all fire damage until its next turn.

Problem of course - this doesn't work with the Essential Classes. Well, too bad for them.