D&D 4E New 4E Products on Amazon

[Toryx]

I have a few ideas of how a magic item compendium for a game with 'less reliance on magic items' could be a good thing, but I don't have enough of a conception of what magic items will be like in 4e, so given what little information has been leaked, my assumption is that they're going to be as annoying and ubiquitous as in 3e.

That's my primary concern as well. Coming out with a MIC just a few months after the release of the system really seems like a large step away from "less reliance on magic items." I don't care about the book itself, I don't have to buy it (and probably won't) but I really don't like what that suggests about the role of magic items in the new edition.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Less reliance on magic items does not mean that PCs will have less magic items by default. It means the magic items won't impact the power of PCs as much as it does now, so that we don't need to follow wealth by level guidelines. So, if you don't want to cut back items in your own campaign, you won't have to re-balance the encounters.

People still like magic items. In my 3.5 Planescape campaign I was above the recommended wealth. There are still a lot of people like me who will actually be using lots of magic items. Now its great in that, theoretically, it won't impact balance as much as it did in 3.5. For people who aren't running low magic campaigns this would be awesome.

So, no, 4e is not being built specifically for low magic people. But, it allows you to run your low magic item games. Be happy with that, and don't worry about the others who want these magic items and are getting a book for it. You'll be much happier that way.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Less reliance on magic items does not mean that PCs will have less magic items by default. It means the magic items won't impact the power of PCs as much as it does now, so that we don't need to follow wealth by level guidelines. So, if you don't want to cut back items in your own campaign, you won't have to re-balance the encounters.

Yeah, the entire idea of "less reliance" on magic items implies there is still reliance on magic items to some extent.

I still have a feeling that you'll need to follow wealth by level guidelines. They will just be less important than they were before. So, if one player has a +2 sword and another one only has a +1, the difference isn't that big since it's only a 5% chance to hit and one extra damage. On the other hand, in 3.5 you often got into a situation where on character had a nonmagical weapon and no stat enhancers and another had a +5 flaming, shock, keen, frost weapon and a +6 belt of giant strength. This made one character way better at combat than another one.

I think what you'll see is that the expected amount of magic items will decrease dramatically but it'll still be there.

In 3.5 it is expected that you can get a +10 equivalent weapon by the time you were about 18th level.

If you change this to expecting a +6 weapon by the time you are 30 and spread this out across all levels, then you have about +1 per 5 levels. This way if one character has the gold of a 15th level character and one has the gold of a 5th level character(which is likely a HUGE difference), the difference in magic items is only +2 to hit and damage.

If you remove the number of things that purely add to your attack, ac and saves, AND reduce the number of slots you can put things in, it further reduces the dependency on items. However, it's a long shot from "No one needs magic items so why bother putting them in the DMG or releasing a book about them."

 

[am181d]

As I mentioned in another thread, Andy Collins ran a poll on the Wizards boards a few months back asking fans if they'd rather buy a "Magic Item Compendium" or an "Arms & Equipment Guide". Based on the way the question was framed, it sounded like this was less a question about content than about the title itself. (In other words, the MIC may have more than a little A&E in it.)

Here's the link to the Wizards thread, so folks can read and come to their own conclusions:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=927614

 

[Toryx]

Yeah, the entire idea of "less reliance" on magic items implies there is still reliance on magic items to some extent.

That in itself doesn't bother me at all. As many others have pointed out, magic items is a part of D&D and fantasy roleplay. And it genuinely is fun to find that stuff.

If you remove the number of things that purely add to your attack, ac and saves, AND reduce the number of slots you can put things in, it further reduces the dependency on items. However, it's a long shot from "No one needs magic items so why bother putting them in the DMG or releasing a book about them."

In theory that sounds fine. But is WotC actually going to remove the number of things that do that? For a while they were saying they were, but lately they've gotten rather oddly quiet about that. And there have been playtest reports that hinted at magic items being a significant addition to the characters.

Regardless, we know that they're going to have magic items in the PHB. It's possible there will be more in the DMG. I would expect them to have Realms flavored stuff in the Realms book coming out in August. But an extra magic item specific book just two months after the initial release of the new edition? If they were just releasing an arms and equipment guide that'd be one thing...an entire magic item compendium suggests something else entirely.

A +6 wand also makes me think of a +6 sword or +6 armor which is exactly the kind of device that leads to Christmas tree items. So I think they're weaseling out of the reduced reliance on magic items. If I'm right, I'm going to be terribly disappointed. It'd be like changing their minds on less vancian spell casting.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

And yet, you had a few peoples complaining WOTC would drought up the magical items and the game would turn to a clone of WHFRPG or something. >>;

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

A +6 wand also makes me think of a +6 sword or +6 armor which is exactly the kind of device that leads to Christmas tree items. So I think they're weaseling out of the reduced reliance on magic items. If I'm right, I'm going to be terribly disappointed. It'd be like changing their minds on less vancian spell casting.

I think people read too much into their comment on less reliance on magic items, personally. That's what I'm trying to say. If they change the scale so that it goes from +1 to +6 at 30th level instead of +1 to +20 at 30th level(which is basically what it is now), they are reducing it dramatically.

If they make it so that only rings give you bonuses to AC and get rid of amulets of natural armor they are already lowering the ac you get from magic by 5(or more for epic). If they get rid of gloves of dex, it lowers it by 3(or more again for epic). Although people will still want to buy themselves that ring of protection.

I think this was always their intention, so they said they were reducing the dependency on magic items and people started to think that meant that no magic items would be needed ever. Instead they meant that if you don't have magic you'd only have a 20% greater chance of missing than everyone else instead of 90%

My guess is, also, that during playtesting that feedback they got was that people wanted their magic items to do MORE and they gave a bit more power back to items.

 

[Kaffis]

Am I the only one that seems to recall the suggestion that magic items will grant options in combat and new abilities, rather than simply add numbers to stats?

I'm thinking Horns of Fog, Horseshoes of Speed, Medallions of Thoughts, Pipes of Haunting, not Belts of Giant Strength, Flaming Swords +2, Cloaks of Resistance +1, or Amulets of Natural Armor +3, here...