New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[Rokes]

"10% less often" doesn't mean what you think it does.

If you have a 15% chance of being hit, attacks deal 10 damage each, and you're attacked 100 times during an adventure, you take an average of 150 damage.

Same character, give them a +2 suit of armour. That reduces the chance of being hit to 5%. Get attacked 100 times during an adventure, 10 damage each... the average is now 50 damage.

So, your "10% less often" means the damage has been reduced by 67%!

Cheers!

Darn Aussies! Anyway, we're both right, but looking at it from different angles. I guess what I was referring to is that you always take 10% less total damage, as in your example, if you are attacked 100 times at 10 damage each, with +2 armor vs. +0, you always take 100 less damage (10% of 1000 possible damage). As for your perspective, if you're comparing the percentage between damages taken, it's not linear. It ranges fromp 5% to 100%.

105% vs. 95% => 1000 Damage vs. 950 Damage = 5% Difference
100% vs. 90% => 1000 Damage vs. 900 Damage = 10% Difference
95% vs. 85% => 950 Damage vs. 850 Damage = 11% Difference
90% vs. 80% => 900 Damage vs. 800 Damage = 11% Difference
85% vs. 75% => 850 Damage vs. 750 Damage = 12% Difference
80% vs. 70% => 800 Damage vs. 700 Damage = 13% Difference
75% vs. 65% => 750 Damage vs. 650 Damage = 13% Difference
70% vs. 60% => 700 Damage vs. 600 Damage = 14% Difference
65% vs. 55% => 650 Damage vs. 550 Damage = 15% Difference
60% vs. 50% => 600 Damage vs. 500 Damage = 17% Difference
55% vs. 45% => 550 Damage vs. 450 Damage = 18% Difference
50% vs. 40% => 500 Damage vs. 400 Damage = 20% Difference
45% vs. 35% => 450 Damage vs. 350 Damage = 22% Difference
40% vs. 30% => 400 Damage vs. 300 Damage = 25% Difference
35% vs. 25% => 350 Damage vs. 250 Damage = 29% Difference
30% vs. 20% => 300 Damage vs. 200 Damage = 33% Difference
25% vs. 15% => 250 Damage vs. 150 Damage = 40% Difference
20% vs. 10% => 200 Damage vs. 100 Damage = 50% Difference
15% vs. 5% => 150 Damage vs. 50 Damage = 67% Difference
10% vs. 0% => 100 Damage vs. 0 Damage = 100% Difference


As you can see the damage is always 100 less (except in the first case) which is 10% of the total possible damage.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

A designer said "Christmas Shrub" and "Charlie Brown's Christmas Tree". That's not what I would call having 9 filled slots + misc items.

I knew that +x swords and armor would still be around. That's not the point.

The "Christmas Tree Effect" is the ability to stack large amounts of bonuses together. No the number of magic items you have. It's about the fact that you can get one item that gives a deflection bonus to AC, one that gives an enhancement bonus to your armor, one that gives an enhancement bonus to your shield, another item that adds a natural armor bonus, one that adds an insight bonus, etc.

Because of this a player who wanted to increase his AC would buy 4 or 5 magic items for just that purpose in 3e. In 4e, they buy magic armor and that's it.

 

[Rokes]

Where 3E went wildly wrong and took the Christmas Tree effect to a whole new level was this combination of decisions:
1) Magic items much easier to make than in earlier editions
2) Buying and selling magic items not only allowed but expected as a player's right
3) The frequency of magic shops implied by that statement in the DMG that anything with a value below the town's GP limit can be expected to be available for purchase.
4) More stat-boosting items (did 2E even have a Con-boosting item?)
5) Greater importance of stats (e.g. spell DCs set by casting stat)
6) Flawed bonus-stacking rules, and accessories introducing new items with different bonus types

In 2E, my PCs often picked up a collection of "cool abilities" items and kept them for when they might be needed. And as DM, I handed out such items. Same in B/X. Note that I never played 1E, where I understand selling magic items was common.
In 3E, the expectation became that they would sell them and buy something optimal (though I've always avoided buying magic items in 3E/3.5 as a matter of principle).
That made a HUGE difference.

What I liked about 3.Xe was how it made magic items easier to make. Not easier in the sense of the requirements, but easier in the explanation of the requirements! I want my players to have a pretty good idea of how they can make items or special components, but I don't want the core books making them feel that they should be able to make the items easily if they meet the requirements. (and don't get me started on spending XP to make items...)

What I have loved so far about 4e is that they are reinstating a sense of awe about the game. Things are new, there are plenty of unknowns. Unfortunately, I don't see this extending to magic items. I wish there was a higher percentage of "cursed" items (like 80%!), but not in the traditional sense. I want items to not always work as intended, and to have hidden properties or effects. There needs to be a sense of wonder associated with MAGIC in all forms. Taking items, spells, or powers for granted is what leads to burnout imo.

 

[Rokes]

The "Christmas Tree Effect" is the ability to stack large amounts of bonuses together. No[t] the number of magic items you have.

With this I disagree. I believe the CTE (as it shall now be known!) is the effect of characters having to walk around wearing a dozen items just to FEEL effective. It looks like in 4e, they're making so that you won't have to have more than 3 items to actually BE effective, but it doesn't look like they've addressed the player's FEELINGS about being effective (or optimized, or whatever).

And there's nothing wrong with wanting more magic items, but you shouldn't feel as though you're incomplete w/o them!

 

[DandD]

The "Christmas Tree Effect" is the ability to stack large amounts of bonuses together. No the number of magic items you have. It's about the fact that you can get one item that gives a deflection bonus to AC, one that gives an enhancement bonus to your armor, one that gives an enhancement bonus to your shield, another item that adds a natural armor bonus, one that adds an insight bonus, etc.

Because of this a player who wanted to increase his AC would buy 4 or 5 magic items for just that purpose in 3e. In 4e, they buy magic armor and that's it.

I'm pretty sure that this won't stay so. After all, things can change, and some promises simply can't be uphold. I'll bet we're going to see some must-have-magic items after all, just at a higher level.

 

[Cadfan]

Having 9 slots, factoring 3 into the math, and leaving 6 as optional effects that aren't strictly mathematical and therefore do not factor into the math, is probably the ONLY way to make the game work with both high and low magic settings.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

What I liked about 3.Xe was how it made magic items easier to make. Not easier in the sense of the requirements, but easier in the explanation of the requirements!

There I agree with you. I was referring to how easy it was in-game. Low level requirements, trivial XP cost, no exotic quests. Just some gold and a bit of time.

I wish there was a higher percentage of "cursed" items (like 80%!), but not in the traditional sense. I want items to not always work as intended, and to have hidden properties or effects. There needs to be a sense of wonder associated with MAGIC in all forms. Taking items, spells, or powers for granted is what leads to burnout imo.

Like the "drawback" tables at the back of the DMG? Those were pretty good, and I found that players generally liked them if the benefits outweighed the drawbacks. I gave a bunch of such items to my PCs as rewards from the fey (each had a drawback that the fey at least would find amusing).

 

[Rokes]

Like the "drawback" tables at the back of the DMG?

Similar but more common perhaps. I find it hard to believe that the majority of magic item creators can make perfect magic items.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Similar but more common perhaps. I find it hard to believe that the majority of magic item creators can make perfect magic items.

Mastering Iron Heroes had some. They could be pretty harsh, though, because of the game's premise.

 

[Njall]

First off, drop the snark. It's pointless and unnecessary.

Second, I read the same article you did. The one that showed an 11th-level character wearing eight magic items on his body, not including a number of other possible magic items that might also be in his possession.

While it may be true that only three slots factor into the hit/damage/AC/saves math, that doesn't address the fact that the character is still suiting up in magic items like they're sports equipment, which is my biggest issue.

Well, that 11th level character was a playtest character; if you want to playtest something ( namely, magic items ), you have to actually have someone using them.
It doesn't mean that every 11th level adventurer is assumed to have all those magic items: in another playtest report, for example, they told something about a 10th level character that didn't have a single one.

Furthermore, there are people who like their christmas tree effect
They probably like the idea of playing a character that's decked up in magic trinkets of all sorts. I don't see why D&D shouldn't support that kind of playstyle at all.
Conversely, if creating or buying a magic item isn't easy as it was in 3e, and magic isn't required to balance things out, a DM can simply choose to hand out fewer or no "optional item" at all. This way, the game supports both high magic and low magic campaigns.

Remember, you're not playing a MMORPG: just because you have a slot at your disposal, it doesn't mean you'll find something to fill it up. Ultimately, if it's up to the DM, I'm fine with it. In 3e it wasn't, since wealth per level was assumed as a part of game balance and creating a magic item was kind of trivial.