Magic items are finally rare !

[Kraydak]

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.

Well, in general, ability to do something interesting scales with power. So you do need to compare the gp value. Of course, in *this* case, the players would do well do say "Divination, thats the spell that stops game play for 5 minutes while the DM comes up with a cryptic rhyme which we will spend hours debating before ignoring because we can't agree on what it actually means and it has a good chance of being wrong anyways? We sell it for the good of the campaign." If it had been, say, and Airwalk item, I would expect the wizard to choose the airwalk item over +2 int.

Remember that "interesting" includes "able to do something mechanically useful". If the item is going to be a substantial fraction of your total wealth, you really want it to be able to do that reliably. Items that duplicate very specialized spells... are not actually interesting because they stand a good chance of never being used.

 

[Arkham Angel]

"I'm working on magic items right now. A previous version of the rules had magic items that were just too complex and too numerous, so we're stripping off a couple layers of complexity. You won't be a magic item Christmas tree any more, but you might be a Christmas shrub or a Charlie Brown Christmas tree."

I may be wrong but this will defintly change the way people think about even about the basics. We're all looking at 4e content and saying oh that looks overpowered, that makes no sense, thats going to be unplayble. I wonder f we all stop to relise how large an effect low magic item will have on how we releate to the game mechanics.

Who here hasent built charcters "KNOWING" you get boost of this or gloves of that pushing your scores to this and getting you ability X to it potential.

I knida like the idea that charcters are self contained and you could go an enitre adventure without finding a single magic item and not really notice.

It was also give a nicer feel to "loot drops" at higher levels when nearly everythign dropped is either money jewls or enchanted , it kinda loses its flavor.

It may just be that finding a +2 sword will be more of a reward than a 3e +5 vorpal nine lives stealing dancing blah blah blah.

Why would we need another edition to accomplish that friend? We have our own house rules to make the game challenging and fun as it stands.

 

[Kintara]

Why would we need another edition to accomplish that friend? We have our own house rules to make the game challenging and fun as it stands.

House rules have always been incorporated into new editions of D&D. And sometimes things change incrementally (and other things become completely different, depending on the problem). We just hope it's for the better.

And furthermore, it sounds like you don't want us to have your fun! Edit: If you have a house rule to do something a certain way, then it must need improvement. Why not include any positive changes in a new edition? (And if there's more than one way to do it well, then maybe there should be more than one way of doing it in the book, too.)

 

[Storm Raven]

It also makes for more heroic stories, like where Beowulf beats Grendel to death butt-naked and unarmed. On the other hand, he does make full use of the environment he's fighting in...

I think that is only in the movie. If I remember correctly, in the poem, he fights Grendel armed and armored, but discards his sword when he realizes that weapons have no effect on the creature.

Of course, in books characters do all kinds of silly things like fight unarmed or fight without armor. In any game system in which armor and weapons mean anything though, those types of characters end up dead. When Harald Hardrada invaded England, his troops left their armor behind because they didn't expect the English to fight. The English showed up in armor. The invaders all died. That's basically not going to be changeable unless you come up with a system where amor means little or nothing.

 

[JohnSnow]

I think that is only in the movie. If I remember correctly, in the poem, he fights Grendel armed and armored, but discards his sword when he realizes that weapons have no effect on the creature.

Of course, in books characters do all kinds of silly things like fight unarmed or fight without armor. In any game system in which armor and weapons mean anything though, those types of characters end up dead. When Harald Hardrada invaded England, his troops left their armor behind because they didn't expect the English to fight. The English showed up in armor. The invaders all died. That's basically not going to be changeable unless you come up with a system where amor means little or nothing.

I actually checked with my brother (who has read Beowulf a few times) before I posted this. He assures me that scene is not unique to the movie, and does happen in the poem. Beowulf removes all of his arms and armor to face Grendel, because it wouldn't be honorable to do otherwise.

So that's not artistic license on the part of the filmmakers. There is some (interpretation, at least) regarding the origin of the "dragon" he fights at the end of the story, and with the way the story plays out, but nothing significant is changed in the fight with Grendel.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Honor wasn't something that came up a lot in Beowulf... Grendel ambushed Beowulf and his allies in the middle of the night (a case of being ready for the battle, but not ready enough), and Beowulf had no time to chose "honorable" or not.

Also, Beowulf did use a sword on Grendel. He discarded it when it shattered on Grendel's iron-tough hide. Apparently, this happened a lot to Beowulf. Beowulf also lost swords in his fights against Grendel's mother and the dragon. It was something of a recurring problem for him.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Why would we need another edition to accomplish that friend? We have our own house rules to make the game challenging and fun as it stands.

With "we" you mean your game group, right? In that case, "we" probably don't.
But then, why should anyone ever create a new edition / game / setting if you are using something else, possibly home-brewed?

The game isn't for one specific player or one specific gaming group. It's for several (thousands? millions?) of players all around the world, which might find the new system better than the old (overall), or might be intrigued by the new game and want to play their first game ever with it.

Remember that "interesting" includes "able to do something mechanically useful". If the item is going to be a substantial fraction of your total wealth, you really want it to be able to do that reliably. Items that duplicate very specialized spells... are not actually interesting because they stand a good chance of never being used.

Interesting might include "able to do something mechanically useful". But being mechanically useful isn't enough. A Belt of Giant Strength +4 is pretty interesting the first time you play the game. But if every Fighter you play ends up with one eventually, it becomes boring. It becomes worse if the game relies on you having it, and you don't even have a choice to pick something else. Especially because there is only so much Wealth you are "allowed" to have each level (and if you had to much, you wouldn't buy a different item, you end up with a Belt of Giant Strength +6.).

That's the reason for the Magic Item Compendium in the first place. There are alternative items to the Big Six, but unless very specific reasons, nobody will use them. They cost too much, and require valuable magic item slots. The 3rd edition solution is to change the cost for such items. But this won't really mean that people will not want the Big Six. It just means they can afford a few other items that are a bit more interesting.

 

[Storm Raven]

I actually checked with my brother (who has read Beowulf a few times) before I posted this. He assures me that scene is not unique to the movie, and does happen in the poem. Beowulf removes all of his arms and armor to face Grendel, because it wouldn't be honorable to do otherwise.

I read Beowulf within the last month (I was reading Eaters of the Dead and then reread Beowulf itself for comparison), and that's not how I remember the scene at all. Beowulf and his companions were attacked by Grendel in the middle of the night, and Beowulf shatters his sword on Grendel's invulnerable hide. I don't recall any "dishonorable to fight an unarmed opponent with weapons" in there. Maybe I missed something, but Beowulf was a guy who liked his weapons and armor - when he boasts of swimming the sea and fighting sea monsters, he says he did it armed with a sword and in his armor, and he wears his armor when he dives into the swamp to fight Grendel's mother, and grabs a giant sword he finds in her lair to kill her.

But that's a side issue, and you didn't address my real point. It is all well and good for an author to handwave away difficulties like a hero fighting a 100 foot tall dragon with wearing nothing but a loincloth and wielding a toothpick, but any game system that gives someone an advantage for having weapons and armor is going to encourage the use of weapons and armor. Unless you come up with some sort of game system that gives little or no advantage to weapons and armor (which I think many people simply would not accept in a game system), players are going to routinely make the pragmatic choice and outfit themselves with the best equipment they can get their hands on.

 

[JohnSnow]

To me, there's nothing wrong with people wanting good equipment. I do have a problem with the fact that D&D equipment is totally metagame. I "NEED" a +2 sword because if I don't have it, I'm somehow "underequipped."

There ought to be reasonable incentives for not wearing armor when it's not appropriate (swimming, crawling through a cave, etc.). I also want the character to still be ABLE to fight if he loses his sword (if it breaks on the monster's hide, or he's disarmed, or whatever).

D&D has the problem of balancing out a number of different genres. There's characters modeled after the likes of Conan, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser who basically don't wear armor. Then there's the ones modelled on medieval knights, who do. Finally, there's the Lord of the Rings model, where most of the characters don't wear armor unless they're going into battle. Aragorn doesn't wear armor except at Helm's Deep, the Battle of Pelennor Fields, and to the Black Gate. Gimli, on the other hand, wears his coat of dwarf mail all the time, and only borrows, IIRC, a shield.

So there's a lot of different treatments of equipment in fantasy. 3e basically only allows the unarmored character to work if he has lots of magical protections. Ideally, I think a system where different characters benefit differently from armor would be good. And being higher-level should have a significant benefit that might prevent you from NEEDING armor. So while Gimli benefits from wearing it all the time, Aragorn doesn't get a sufficient benefit from armor to justify its use except when he's going to war.

You can't eliminate equipment dependency, but it would be better, IMO, if it didn't totally handicap any character.

 

[Storm Raven]

To me, there's nothing wrong with people wanting good equipment. I do have a problem with the fact that D&D equipment is totally metagame. I "NEED" a +2 sword because if I don't have it, I'm somehow "underequipped."

I disagree that it is metagaming to believe that you need the best equipment you can get your hands on if that equipment will help you survive in a dangerous occupation. I would consider it metagaming for a character to somehow decide not to want to equip themselves well, because it goes against what would be a common-sense determination for someone who actually found themselves in a situation where they would be facing down ogres and dragons.

There ought to be reasonable incentives for not wearing armor when it's not appropriate (swimming, crawling through a cave, etc.). I also want the character to still be ABLE to fight if he loses his sword (if it breaks on the monster's hide, or he's disarmed, or whatever).

There are, for the most part, right now. I've seen game systems that go much further into detail concerning moveing about in armor, but those systems are much more rules heavy than D&D, and IMO, tend to encourage metagaming rather than discourage it as a result.

A character can still fight in D&D if he loses his sword and has to resort to a "lesser" weapon or even fight unarmed. He's just somewhat to signifcantly less effective. Which is what someone would expect. Unless you posit some sort of system where having a magic sword gives you little or no benefit, this is going to remain true.

D&D has the problem of balancing out a number of different genres. There's characters modeled after the likes of Conan, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser who basically don't wear armor. Then there's the ones modelled on medieval knights, who do. Finally, there's the Lord of the Rings model, where most of the characters don't wear armor unless they're going into battle. Aragorn doesn't wear armor except at Helm's Deep, the Battle of Pelennor Fields, and to the Black Gate. Gimli, on the other hand, wears his coat of dwarf mail all the time, and only borrows, IIRC, a shield.

And all the characters you mention who wear little or no armor are literary characters, who don't have to worry about chance. The author can handwave their lack of armor - they don't risk injury or death unless the author decides they do. The only example drawn from history - medieval knights - pretty much always made sure to armor up whenever they were likely to face other people bearing sharpened steel intending to do them harm. Unless you have some sort of system where the players can ensure that they won't face injury or death by fiat, then wearing armor and carrying weapons - the best armor and weapons they can get their hands on - will be the only pragmatic choice.

So there's a lot of different treatments of equipment in fantasy. 3e basically only allows the unarmored character to work if he has lots of magical protections. Ideally, I think a system where different characters benefit differently from armor would be good. And being higher-level should have a significant benefit that might prevent you from NEEDING armor. So while Gimli benefits from wearing it all the time, Aragorn doesn't get a sufficient benefit from armor to justify its use except when he's going to war.

Aragorn has the advantage of having Tolkien write his battle scenes for him. PCs don't have that. If you want to have a cinematic type advanture, then a system designed to emulate that by removing all elements of chance, like say Amber, would work. But that's just not D&D, and never has been.