Legand & Lore: Magic Items

[I'm A Banana]

To make this work you'd have to get rather meta-gamey with the restrictions, and then people would complain because the vorpal sword can't decapitate dragons or jabberwocks.

Well, clearly, jabberwocks should not be solos under this model.

But actually, the reason is justified in the story. Why is that Dragon an elite or a solo monster in the first place? Because it is insanely powerful, a creature that no lone warrior could take down on their own. It ties itself so strongly to life that even a vorpal blade cannot behead it. It is the exception to the rule.

You could even add a secondary "megadamage" effect -- something like, when you roll a 20 and fail to decapitate the enemy, it still deals 4 x damage or something maddening, to show that it TRIED to cut off the enemy's head, but FAILED.

That's all in the details, though. The big point is that an "unbalanced" effect like insta-death can be carefully balanced through a variety of factors, and even if it IS unbalanced (even if the vorpal sword could behead solos and elites!), that doesn't mean it's not fun. It just means the DM should be aware of how that weapon breaks the game before he gives it to the party, so that no player is ever caught with it unless the DM intends for them to be.

After all, in this model, DMs are in control of magic item distribution, and the DM can give you unbalanced magic items and take them away again without ever having to consult you -- magic items are extra. They are not an entitlement. Easy come, easy go.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

To make this work you'd have to get rather meta-gamey with the restrictions, and then people would complain because the vorpal sword can't decapitate dragons or jabberwocks.

That is nonsense*... as I mentioned above, tying ffects to the enemies hit points or hit dice is nothing new.
2nd and 3rd edition had many spells like that. (Many were actually death magic... circle of death, power word kill etc.)

*from a D&D players point of view

 

[Ainamacar]

I don't mean to sound contradictory, but it is easy to SAY (and believe) that this or that is 'possible' within a given game design. It is another thing to demonstrate that it is actually possible and further demonstrate that the implementation doesn't create all sorts of unwanted side effects.

That's a perfectly reasonable attitude to have in the absence of reasons to think otherwise, but my opinion is that a little optimism is actually justified in this case, and not just wishful thinking. I'm optimistic because concrete ideas are flowing, because sound DM judgment can address this issue in editions where it wasn't a mechanical consideration at all, because I think the designers of 5e will be intentional about this area, and because this is the sort of thing point-based advancement systems have had to deal with for years. I could go on, but I think you get my perspective, and I'll be content even if we disagree.

Regardless, my optimism is entirely secondary to the topic. What really interests me are the concrete ideas people have for pulling this off.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's a perfectly reasonable attitude to have in the absence of reasons to think otherwise, but my opinion is that a little optimism is actually justified in this case, and not just wishful thinking. I'm optimistic because concrete ideas are flowing, because sound DM judgment can address this issue in editions where it wasn't a mechanical consideration at all, because I think the designers of 5e will be intentional about this area, and because this is the sort of thing point-based advancement systems have had to deal with for years. I could go on, but I think you get my perspective, and I'll be content even if we disagree.

Regardless, my optimism is entirely secondary to the topic. What really interests me are the concrete ideas people have for pulling this off.

Right. There are lots of ideas. I think really the main effort in any 5e design spun off of 4e would be more deciding which ideas work together than coming up with them, and making it shape up as a system that does what is wanted. I definitely have a specific set of ideas, and I'm sure I'm not alone. It's always good to see what other people are thinking.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

...You could even add a secondary "megadamage" effect -- something like, when you roll a 20 and fail to decapitate the enemy, it still deals 4 x damage or something maddening, to show that it TRIED to cut off the enemy's head, but FAILED.

Actually I think it would be cleaner to say that a Vorpal Weapon does x4 Damage with the fluff of decapitating the target if it is reduced to zero hit points or less. That pulls alot of the metagame out of elites and solos issue and keeps the weapon as 'awesome'.
Of course, it should also state that it decapitates any critter it takes to below their negative bloodied value just to have the Vorpal do its thing more often


But more to the OP, I think the idea of getting rid of plusses is a good thing, and I am bordering on going with inherent bonuses in my game and granting a bonus of +1/3 enhancement to show that magic weapons are more dangerous overall. I really like the idea of item 'replacement' powers and possibly even a feat to become more effective at using the weapon {unlocking it so to speak and gaining a use of the replacement power ala the skill power feat}

I just gave one of my players a Figurine of Wondrous Power {Pink Elephant}... love that crazy magic item stuff!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Actually I think it would be cleaner to say that a Vorpal Weapon does x4 Damage with the fluff of decapitating the target if it is reduced to zero hit points or less. That pulls alot of the metagame out of elites and solos issue and keeps the weapon as 'awesome'.
Of course, it should also state that it decapitates any critter it takes to below their negative bloodied value just to have the Vorpal do its thing more often

So x4 or x5 damage on a 20 (e.g.: enough to one-shot-kill an equal-level monster), and with fluff that says "Any enemy reduced to 0 hp by the vorpal blade is decapitated." Maybe with a D&D-ized snipped of ol' Louie's poem accompanying it.

Yeah, I'm cool with that, for an epic-level capstone magic item.

And then a DM who gets sick of it can just take it away, since it's not part of a character's power, it's just an extra butt-kicking thing that the DM has allowed the party to do.

 

[Marshall]

It's a little more complicated than that, actually... ignoring rarity for a moment, let's say you have a +1 flaming sword. Level 5, lets you monkey with fire damage, has a daily. Okay, cool.

Now someone wants to make a _better_ flaming sword. Give it a couple extra abilities, call it 6th level, move on, right? Well, no... 6th level is for +2s. So... maybe it only shows up at higher levels? Call it... 15th? And have it stand there right next to the +3 Flaming Sword looking dumb? Or do you balance against the increased dice of damage on the flaming sword so that your item _could_ be called comparable?

Rarity helps a bit there, since you can maybe bump up rarity (ex: Flame Tongue), but you would actually gain a lot of leeway by instead taking out the enhancement bonus mechanic entirely.

Similarly, look at how awful your choices are at 1st/6th/11th/etc - Big 3 item design is very much constrained by the enhancement system.

No its not. Its only constrained by the levels assigned to the items. Just because Flaming is a 5th level enhancement at +1 doesnt mean that its still a +5 at 15th. Really, is the ability to change a powers damage type just as valuable at 15th+ when you have 5x the number of powers available? Shouldnt the base Flaming enhancement just expire after Heroic and be replaced with your Flaming+ in Paragon and an even better version in Epic?
No, the only design constraints are from keeping Heroic level abilities on Epic level items.

 

[keterys]

And yet, the Flaming+ example can't be a 6th level uncommon, because of the enhancement system.

And, in fact, almost every 6th level big 3 is a waste of space. And magic items trickle sadly in at the N+2 (ex: 7th) range, start to look decent at N+3, and N+5 is overly full.

Enhancement definitely constrains big 3 item design. Honest.

 

[FireLance]

To make this work you'd have to get rather meta-gamey with the restrictions, and then people would complain because the vorpal sword can't decapitate dragons or jabberwocks.

Have it work like the Assassin ability: if the target has X hit points remaining, it is decapitated. Set X so that a standard monster would be vulnerable even at full hit points, but an elite or solo would need some wearing down first.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Have it work like the Assassin ability: if the target has X hit points remaining, it is decapitated. Set X so that a standard monster would be vulnerable even at full hit points, but an elite or solo would need some wearing down first.

You could beef it up even further by making it work like Finger of Death, where if the blow landed bloodies the target, it takes X extra damage, then if if has Y hp remaining, it is decapitated.