Numion said:
I still don't buy this argument. Most of the items higher-level PCs in D&D carry are of the type that only enhance what the PC already can do, not something that allows him to do completely new things. There are the flying boots maybe, but usually it's just ability boosting items, more potent weapons and armor.
It's never been a question what the equipment can do - the character always defines what can be done, and the items strengthen that concept. I guess someone could construct a character that was a rogue but emulated being a wizard through items. Then it would be more of a case what the items can do, but it wouldn't be very efficient or useful.
People have this really bizarre idea that it's the items that change gameplay at high levels. Well, guess what -- take out the items, and gameplay will _still_ change at high levels, unless you rework the rules wholesale.
Take the big three game-breakers: flight, teleportation, and divination. None of these are inherently dependent on items. If you removed winged boots, cloaks of dimension door and crystal balls, you still have these powers in the game; they're just limited to a small subset of classes. Wizards can still fly, teleport and scry just fine, as can clerics (after a fashion); so you would still have to deal with the consequences of such magic. It's only the poor bloody infantry (fighters, rogues and other mundane types) that gets left behind.
The same goes for nearly any other high-level power you care to name. Items _level_ the playing field, they don't define it.
And there's no need to call names, no matter what hong said.
He started it. 1 theory is that a gang of cannibal munchkins gnawed Bendry's knees off in 7th grade, and he's been bitter ever since.
In our high-level campaign, we've mostly _never_ been defined as "that guy with items A, B and C". There is the archer, who naturally has an uber bow; the master of chains, who naturally has an uber spiked chain; the archmage, with lots of uber stuff; and so on. The characters have an identity, which flows through to what they have, rather than the other way round. The one exception might be the ninjaish rogue, who poured all his resources into getting one super ring with powers out the wazoo; but even then, there's still a recognisable archetype underneath the chrome.
I think it's safe to say that as a rule of thumb, if you like high-level games, you're not going to spend a lifetime angsting about how magic items contribute to the gaming experience. The point of such games is the _effects_ that the items provide, rather than the mechanism itself.
It's an idiosyncrasy of D&D that for most character types, their top-end powers tend to be obtained via magic items rather than being "innate" in some form or other. If it was another game, like HERO, the same effects might be obtained via powers that you spend character points on; or in Exalted, via charms (which can be thought of as super-powered feats). But if you're using the effects-based paradigm, then the source of that effect really doesn't matter: if you have a flight power, then you can fly, regardless of whether that power is obtained via a spell, boots of flying, or whatever. You get on with flying around, rather than worrying about how you managed to get up there in the first place.
When the creeping HEROization of D&D is complete, the distinction will become completely moot. Until then, I guess we'll have to put up with people ranting on about how high-level D&D means characters are "defined by their items", no matter how
rediculous and assinine this might be.
