Magic Items that lost their magic

[Storm Raven]

Um, that's kind of a prime example of "daily" IMO. Thor has a "belt of strength" that doubles his STRENGTH, but in the comics he doesn't wear it all the time.

When it TRULY has hit the fan, (fighting Kurse, Celestials, the Destroyer armour) that's when he actually puts on the belt...

Now, I guess so. Traditionally? Not so much. He wore the belt when he used the hammer because he couldn't lift it otherwise. Plus, the comics give no reason why he didn't wear Megingjord all the time to begin with. I guess he just wanted to make things harder on himself most of the time. I suppose he would forego Járngreipr too, just because he wanted to burn his hands a lot.

Really, the comic book comparisons don't make any sense, because the characters who populate their pages don't make sense. I'd rather go with mythic Thor than Marvel Thor any day. And mythic Thor wasn't a complete moron.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Exactly.

You're missing "Utility", unless that is also just flavor. A cloak that allows to teleport you a few feet, a sword that can deal fire damage instead of normal damage.

For the next design iteration of D&D, I propose "Options not Bonuses".

 

[Rechan]

You're missing "Utility", unless that is also just flavor. A cloak that allows to teleport you a few feet, a sword that can deal fire damage instead of normal damage.

I also consider that a flavor choice.

Here's a quick and dirty example of what I'd like to see:

Sword of the Icy Field (Level 6)
Property: Gain resist 5 cold.
Proeprty: Gain Ice Walk.
Power (At-Will): As a move action, freeze all non-magical, non-animated liquid in a close burst 2. Anyone in the liquid are pushed back 2 squares. The frozen liquid can be walked on, but is treated as challenging terrain (wielder of Sword is immune).
Power (Encounter): Attack: Level+2 vs. Reflex; Anyone in the liquid when the At-Will power is used are immobilized (save ends) instead.
Power (Daily): Standard action. Create an ice wall 5 with 8 until end of your next turn. Wall has 40 HP, vulnerability fire 5. Wielder is treated as having Phasing with regards to the created wall. Sustain minor: wall persists.


Shield of the Abating Flame (Level 11)
Property: Resist fire 10.
Property: All enemies that use the Fire keyword are treated as marked by the Shield's wielder.
Power (Encounter): Immediate reaction, when missed by a melee attack. Target takes 1d8+con fire damage.
Power (Daily): Immediate reaction, when hit by an attack that deals fire damage. Gain hit points equal to half the damage dealt by the attack, before applying the shield's fire resistance.
Power (Daily): Minor action. The wielder of the shield may transfer any benefit of this shield's abilities to any non-combatant ally he is carrying/holding hands with.

 

[LostSoul]

Its quite easy. The DM simply gives items the powers he/she wants them to have and places them wherever desired. Let the items in the books stand as they are. They work ok for "dime store" items that you can buy as gear. Real magic items that do really impressive things can go back to being distributed by the DM like they should be.

Took the words out of my mouth.

Gauntlets of Ogre Power that raise your Strength to 20 are just fine, I think, as long as PCs don't have access to them whenever they want (ie, they are in the DM's hands). It can make for an interesting adventure if the PCs decide they want to track down one of these impressive items.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The comparison with comic books is particularly off, because the characters with items that give them power? That's their shtick. Their entire power set revolves around those items.

To compare D&D to Comics, it would be like giving Thor's hammer to Wolverine. Or giving Iron Man's suit to Nightcrawer. Now he has his teleportation in addition to all the things Iron Man's suit can do.

Take away Iron Man's suit, and he's just an alcoholic CEO. Take away Spiderman's spidey powers, and he's a smart mouthed scientist. Take away a fighter's Gauntlets of Ogre Power and his Vorpal sword, and he can still kill ogres with a butter knife. Same as if you took Batman's utility belt away from him.

Although they're the exception rather than the rule, there have been storylines in both Marvel and DC in which heroes have lost some or all of their gear or abilities- Thor has lost his hammer on occasion; Wolverine did lose the adamantium from his skeleton for a time- and even some in which a character goes on a "treasure hunt" and loots other characters in order to get access to certain powers or abilities- Hal Jordan grabbing up other GL rings; Dr. Strange lost a lot of his power right before going on a multi-dimensional quest (to save someone), defeating foes and absorbing abilities as he went.

And as you point out, there are certain characters who are essentially themselves no matter how much gear they lose. Bruce Wayne in a speedo is still a great detective, formidable martial artist, and probably has a plan to defeat you, even if its just a quick punch to the jaw (Guy Gardner, I'm looking at you).

 

[ferratus]

I myself want the shtick. I want Wonder Woman's bracers, or Bilbo's ring of invisibility. I should clarify that I don't want a low-magic game. I'd like the magical items the characters pick up to be important if they are taking up a body slot, an integral part of their powers suite. So the minor daily abilities which give a slight tactical advantage and are forgotten aren't really items I want to spend body slots on. Especially if they have names like "Gauntlets of Ogre power".

Gauntlets of Ogre Power will always be to me the Gauntlets of Ogre Power used by the Tethyrian Thieves Guild leader, "Cruelty's Mask" a sadistic Lovitar worshipper who controlled her guild because she had the strength of an ogre.

This is getting easier the more magical items come out. As a DM, I would hand out the cloak of invisibility and forget the ring ever existed for example. I don't hand out any magical items that have just a flat +X bonus, but only ones that also out a new trick that matches the flavour text of the item. I get the feeling that the combat tactic is decided first and the magical item is given a name second, which makes it feel like a device or tool rather than a magical item.

I'm also frustrated at the difficulties that the +X puts on playing magical items of the type I like. It is too late to switch over to houseruling the +X items out until the next campaign, and there are many instances when having a power locked away in an appropriate item would be very handy. If I collected a series of wands as a wizard for example, it might make me excellently flexible war wizard. However, as the current model stands, I have to get rid of the wands just because the +X doesn't keep pace with me. If I'm supposed to toss away wands after a few levels, the wands might as well have charges in them like they used to.

The one part of 4e magical items I've been exceptionally pleased with is the artifact rules. This is probably why I have already handed out three. I'm seriously considering for my next campaign doing exactly what has been mentioned upthread by PirateCat and Rechan, namely giving each item a variety of powers that you can unlock, essentially making every item lesser artifact (though unintelligent and doesn't move on when it is finished with you).

edit: I should clarify that I'm not down on less powerful magical items either, since I like things like collapsible campsites and spoons that fill empty bowls with porridge. Maybe if the Gauntlets of Ogre Power were called "Gauntlets of Feat of Strength" or the ring of invisibility was called "ring of daily disappearance" I'd be happier with them.

 

[gizmo33]

+X items aren't there just for the fiddly bits. They're not just feats or bumping stats. +X items are in D&D for nostalgia/sacred cows.

Really? I missed the "Sacred Cows" chapter in the 4E DMG. Are you just making this up?

The designers themselves said "We had to keep in +1 swords, because everyone understands what a +1 sword means".

That doesn't mean anything to me. If "everyone" understood what it meant in the same way, we wouldn't be discussing this.

Other RPGs don't have the +X items in them, so it's a concept only to D&D.

While I found your other statements to just be somewhat vague, this one is objectively false. Though it was risky to make a statement about *all* other RPGs and expect it to be true.

It's not just fantasy literature to me. +X items are boring. I am aware that people like to increase their stats - I like to increase my stats - but, that's not what magic is, to me. Magic isn't "Now I have a +5% chance of hitting something".

A +1 longsword is boring, but a +0 longsword isn't? AFAICT you're using the term "boring" when your statements seem to support something along the lines of "annoying" or something different. Who cares about a +1 sword? Why complain about them if they are simply boring? The real crux of the matter seems to be that they threaten something about the way you'd like to DM. Otherwise, I don't see the point in objecting.

So if it's not just fantasy literature that inspires your notion of magic, then what? AFAICT this makes no difference to what I'm saying - combine real-world mythology or your own magical practices or religious beliefs about what magic should be or whatever. If you don't understand or aren't interested in the resource management aspect of the game, that's fine but there's no reason to invent another explanation (sacred cow) to try to apply to everyone's motivation.

And, one doesn't even need to fiddle with monsters - just give a +X in their math at the levels that players are expected to get the +X. Level 1: +1. Level 6: +2 to Attack/Defenses.

True enough. But adding +1 to your attacks at first level is, or isn't boring? Why is this any better than a +1 sword?

 

[gizmo33]

If I collected a series of wands as a wizard for example, it might make me excellently flexible war wizard. However, as the current model stands, I have to get rid of the wands just because the +X doesn't keep pace with me. If I'm supposed to toss away wands after a few levels, the wands might as well have charges in them like they used to.

What level do you reach where you can't use a +1 wand? I think what you mean here is that if you get a +2 wand then it replaces the +1 wand. But then if the "flexibility" you mention is really brought about by having a set of wands, then why does replacing one wand in the set suddenly make the others less useful? Is your example here based on an actual gaming experience? I can't tell because I've only seen things replaced, never thrown out just because they aren't of a high enough bonus. If you don't have something higher level to replace it with, then all you're really doing is replacing something magic (wand +1) with something non-magic (wand +0) and I don't see the point in throwing out the magic wand.

 

[ferratus]

True enough. But adding +1 to your attacks at first level is, or isn't boring? Why is this any better than a +1 sword?

It isn't, that's the problem. It is just adding +1 for the sake of adding +1, not because it adds anything to how cool the character is. A fiery blade, a keen blade, a blade that teleports people into another dimension are all a lot cooler than "I can hit slightly more often for slightly more damage". It is especially frustrating if your DM hands out a +3 sword when you have a +1 sword with a daily power. That pretty much means you stick the +1 cool sword into your pack and use the +3 sword most of the time, even though you'd rather use the cooler sword.

It adds nothing to the game but a bookkeeping annoyance.

 

[Stormtalon]

And, one doesn't even need to fiddle with monsters - just give a +X in their math at the levels that players are expected to get the +X. Level 1: +1. Level 6: +2 to Attack/Defenses.

True enough. But adding +1 to your attacks at first level is, or isn't boring? Why is this any better than a +1 sword?

Except, it divorces those mathematically-required bonuses from the items themselves, letting you focus on items that do things rather than merely provide bonuses.

Me, if I were to take the numerical bonuses off of items and put them on characters, I'd probably put them at 3/8, 13/18 & 23/28, to spread the boosts out a bit. I might do that on my next campaign, even.