Magic items are finally rare !

[FireLance]

Why not the focus on the REAL problem. Namely what magic can do in the hands of the PC.

From the dawn of Od&D to 3.x, strip a mage of anylevel of his "bling" and he at most loses 10-20% of his effectiveness. It mostly just takes him longer (he actually has to use those level slots to cast the protection spells) for every battle and he can't last as long.

Said fighter is absolutely boned in the same scenario in EVERY version of D&D (not just 3.x).

So the real question is _WHAT_ should magic allow for wizards and clerics?

I think the problem is equipment dependency, and not just magic item dependency. In D&D, spellcasters have generally been less equipment-dependent than fighters. Wizards could still cast spells that did not require material components, and at least in 3e, clerics could cast some spells without their holy symbols.

For what it's worth, 4e seems to be making wizards more equipment-dependent with the introduction of wizardly implements. A wizard can still cast spells without his implements, but it seems likely that they will have a lesser effect, or perhaps be easier to defend against. This would bring an implement-less wizard closer in terms of (in)effectiveness to a weapon-less fighter. Presumably, something similar will be done for clerics and holy symbols.

 

[JohnSnow]

Funny, it has worked great for me for quite a few years now.

4E may very well be an improvement. But if so it will be standing on the shoulders of giants. Making a case on the claim the 3E is bad design is just silly.

Okay, here's the deal. I never said 3e was bad design. I was talking about a particular element. Magic items which I believe were designed as a way to even out the saving throws of the classes are instead being used by people to drive the saves of the classes that already have good numbers into the stratosphere.

The ability to use a necessary game element to further unbalance the game is a design failure. It would be better if the classes were better balanced to begin with. Because otherwise, there's no guarantee that the +3 will item will end up boosting the fighter (who needs it) rather than the wizard (who doesn't). The former reduces the balance problem, while the latter exacerbates it. By eliminating problems like this, you make "game mastery" and "the build" less of a part of the game and lessen the chance that one guy will be stuck with a suboptimal character while his buddy has a superwizard.

Obviously, a good DM can overcome the design bug. But that doesn't mean that the DM should be stuck with that task when he has so many other things to do.

Yes, this philosophy (if carried out) means there will be fewer loopholes for the min/maxers to capitalize on. Which might diminish their fun somewhat. But is that a bad thing?

 

[Lanefan]

You could carry more than that. . . just make switching out what is readied cost actions in combat. The only issue there is too much non-combat stuff in the other gear category. But that's easy to fix just by not allowing them into the system.

Not allow (much) non-combat magic into the system? Are you *serious*???

I'd rather see more non-combat magic, just for the quirkiness value. Combat magic is fun, but there's more to the game than battle.

It's no harder than coming up with a list of magical items. As a matter of fact, you can limit the degree to which items can be abused. An item intended for fighters can be game-breaking if wizards get it. This is part of where the ridiculous saves of 3e come from. Items intended to make up for a fighter's defect (something that grants a boost to Will saves) allows the wizard's will save to become unbeatable. Bad design.

Simple answer: go old-school, and limit what classes can use what items. For multi-class characters, only their highest-level class counts for what they can use. So, a Ring of Mighty Will is usable by Fighter-type characters only, for example.

Not quite so simple (but maybe more useful) answer: put the bonuses into items only the target class is likely to use. Example: plate armour that gives +2 to Will saves (what wizard would wear that?), or a crown that gives +2 to Fort. saves but can't be worn with a helmet.

Lanefan

 

[FireLance]

Simple answer: go old-school, and limit what classes can use what items. For multi-class characters, only their highest-level class counts for what they can use. So, a Ring of Mighty Will is usable by Fighter-type characters only, for example.

Not quite so simple (but maybe more useful) answer: put the bonuses into items only the target class is likely to use. Example: plate armour that gives +2 to Will saves (what wizard would wear that?), or a crown that gives +2 to Fort. saves but can't be worn with a helmet.

Alternatively, have the equipment bonus and the class bonus overlap. A wizard doesn't benefit from a +5 Ring of Mighty Will if his base will save is already +5 or higher. However, a fighter with a base will save of +2 does.

 

[DM_Blake]

One possibility is what was done in Star Wars Saga Edition for armor: characters got a level-based AC bonus that overlapped with the equipment bonus from wearing armor. Thus, lower-level characters got the most benefit from armor, while higher-level characters were usually better off not using any. Under such a system, you could still have +6 wands, but to a high-level character with a +6 level bonus, it would be no better than a +1 wand.

No, that's a whole "flavor" concept.

In Star Wars, the only people who don't need armor are running around with some mighty impressive supernatural powers.

That works in the Star Wars flavor.

That totally doesn't work in a medieval flavor, or in a D&D flavor.

I surely cannot imagine anyone in Arthurian legends, particularly the Knights of the Round Table, getting so good with their weapons that they would voluntarily strip off their armor before battle.

Add to that the notion of magical armor. If normal armor is protective even for the greatest Arthurian knights, then magical armor is even more so.

And if somebody showed up in that campaign with such a high level of skill at deflecting or dodging all attacks that he was actually as hard to damage as someone in that full magical armor, that would be totally out of place in the game, or that guy would be wielding some kind of different magic (spell or item) to make him that way.

As for me, I see D&D as more like medieval pseudo-realism than like Star Wars "use the force, Luke" mysticism. I love Star Wars. But I don't want it in my D&D.

D&D magic swords have magically enhanced edges, sharper than a razor, and magically hard enough to hold that edge. They can cut through enemies' defenses and hit those enemies more often for more damage. Put that kind of magic in a mook's hands, and he hits more often for more damage. Put it in a demigod's hands, and he hits more often for more damage.

D&D should NOT have a system that depletes the value of items because the wielder is "too good" to get any use from them. Leave that for Star Wars where it belongs.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Simple answer: go old-school, and limit what classes can use what items. For multi-class characters, only their highest-level class counts for what they can use. So, a Ring of Mighty Will is usable by Fighter-type characters only

Hence the problem – that you have to house-rule the crap out of 3.5 to have a semi-balanced, fun, almost calibrated system.

 

[FireLance]

In Star Wars, the only people who don't need armor are running around with some mighty impressive supernatural powers.

Like Leia, Han and Chewbacca? It's been some time since I last saw the movies, but I recall them using armor mostly for disguise rather than protection.

That works in the Star Wars flavor.

That totally doesn't work in a medieval flavor, or in a D&D flavor.

Except that D&D isn't a "flavor", it's an international buffet with 101 separate dishes (including desserts).

I surely cannot imagine anyone in Arthurian legends, particularly the Knights of the Round Table, getting so good with their weapons that they would voluntarily strip off their armor before battle.

Many D&D warrior archetypes typically walk around with little or no armor, e.g. swashbuckers, barbarians, rangers, (and in 4e) rogues, and are expected to be competitive in a fight with more heavily armored archetypes like knights and paladins.

Add to that the notion of magical armor. If normal armor is protective even for the greatest Arthurian knights, then magical armor is even more so.

And if somebody showed up in that campaign with such a high level of skill at deflecting or dodging all attacks that he was actually as hard to damage as someone in that full magical armor, that would be totally out of place in the game, or that guy would be wielding some kind of different magic (spell or item) to make him that way.

To be fair, the Star Wars Saga Edition rules provide some additional benefits for wearing armor apart from the AC bonus, and there is an Armored Specialist talent tree that allows characters to stack part of the equipment bonus from armor to their level-based AC. Similar rules could provide knight archetype characters an incentive to keep their armor on.

As for me, I see D&D as more like medieval pseudo-realism than like Star Wars "use the force, Luke" mysticism. I love Star Wars. But I don't want it in my D&D.

D&D magic swords have magically enhanced edges, sharper than a razor, and magically hard enough to hold that edge. They can cut through enemies' defenses and hit those enemies more often for more damage. Put that kind of magic in a mook's hands, and he hits more often for more damage. Put it in a demigod's hands, and he hits more often for more damage.

D&D should NOT have a system that depletes the value of items because the wielder is "too good" to get any use from them. Leave that for Star Wars where it belongs.

That is one way to explain how magic works in the game. However, there is another. Magic weapons and armor could simply impart a certain level of skill to the user. Using this "explanation" for magic, past a certain point, a magic sword is still as useful as a sword to its weilder, but its skill-raising quality ceases to help him any more because his personal skill has surpassed the level of skill imparted by the sword.

I will admit that it is not the approach generally taken in 3e, where the bonuses usually stack. In a way, it is suggestive of gauntlets of ogre power and belts of giant strength in earlier editions, which set your strength to a specific level (and were thus of no use to you if your strength was already at that level or higher).

Under the 3e stacking system, a high-level character with a commensurately powerful magic item is significantly more capable than the same character with a low-powered or non-magical item. Even though an experienced DM can correct for it, and an inexperienced DM could use the wealth by level guidelines, this "need" for magic items is one of the most hated aspects of magic items in 3e (based on a poll that I started here).

The approach of allowing equipment bonuses to overlap instead of stacking with level-dependent bonuses is one way to fix this problem. Of course, it might not be the only way, and it will be interesting to see how the developers address it in 4e.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

GP value(flying carpet)>>GP(+1 sword)


Assuming the bonsai mostly works like a wand, you have to balance the giggle at the name to the irritation of figuring out how to carry the dang thing. Which could take 10+ minutes of game time... In which case the wand of CLW would end up with more net enjoyment.



GP(divination 1/day)>GP(headband of intellect)



Again, you get to enjoy flavor *once*, when you describe the item. Thats it. Anything beyond that (such as the logistics of transporting a potted plant) is probably a drawback, and usually takes up game time in non-fun ways. If you want "flavorful" items, you are just setting yourself up for disappointment (at best, at worst the DM and the player could disagree about what is "cool" at which point you will have a sullen player who got a, by his standards, subpar toy that the DM thinks is really valuable and will eat up his loot quota for awhile while the DM is irritated that the player isn't chortling with joy)

Don't look at the price tags. Look at what the items do. Divination 1/day is more expensive in D&D 3 then the Headband of Intellect +2 - but if given the choice (and no possiblity to get a "refund"), most 5th level Wizards will take the Headband.

Because the Headband is critically important for his character. It is even a requirement to own at some point for a 3.x Wizard. The divination item is just a "nice-to-have".

The problem is that too many items have become required, and since you only have a limited amount of wealth by level, other items are usually sold at the first opportunity. That's what really is the crux of the "Christmas Tree" syndrom. It's not really the number of items you carry, is that none of the items does really interesting things at the same time. They just make you better at something you do anyway. They don't add something interesting.

(The Bonsai Tree, by the way, was used in an Arcana Evolved campaign, where we had a Giant Greenbond. It was kept around, and proved useful. Though admittedly, it was a bit more than just the "Goodberry" effect it could do.)

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The problem is that D&D's wealth system is basically tacking on a "point buy" system for character power to a game that's supposed to be level-based. Characters get "x" power for levelling up, and in addition, it's assumed that they also get so many g.p. with which to buy powers. But that system penalizes players who want to spend money. And it enforces a campaign style where the characters are ridiculously rich, but if they spend any more than they have to, they're gimping their powers.

The game also penalizes people who decide to fight with pillows instead of swords. I'm fine with toning down the amount of extra ass kicking power gold can buy. But it needs to be there. You can fold the "big six" mostly into character advancement inherently and still be able to buy items.

Once you get out of the BS posturing of message boards, players actually DO want to improve their character's power. The dirt famer cmapign isnt nearly as popular as DM's like to pretend... ever wonder why its always the DM rather than the PC's who are telling stories of their "great" campaign where the PC's, after months of adventuring, recovered another third of the map to the mighty rusty bottlecap on a stick +1?

Its why the Magic Item Compendium and new feat/spell splatbooks sell better than 101 Medieval Hairstyles.

The but kicker needs a way to spend gold to directly benefit their character's power level. Not on mercenaries, towers and flour mills, you're confusing the butt kicker with the empire builder. And certainly not on flowery shirts, fancy meals and hookers. We place our characters in horrible situations all the time.. for fun. We make them crawl through sewers, and get stabbed, bitten, and burned constantly. We dont actually care about their comfort, at best we pretend to. Most players care a lot more if they passed that last saving throw or got a timely critical hit than if their character's breakfast was poached behir eggs or iron rations.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The power gamer hires mercenaries...ogre mercenaries.....mounted on triceratops in plate barding

Actually that to the empire builder or master of many servants. And the game slows to a crawl as you roll initiative for each of them in combat or fart around with an Axis and Allies style while the rest of the party just wishes they can can actually get back to the party based adventuring game they signed on for.