New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[Andor]

Rechan, you seem to be upset that they are not designing 4e to exactly suit your own personal play style and prejudices. I'm not quite sure why you want to be able to open a book of someone else's work and see your own vision laid out before you, but it ain't gonna happen.

As to the rings, I too would rather see negative consequences for wearing them than a flat prohibition, but that's a trivial matter to deal with. I do kind of support the ring thing. It always annoyed me that rings were their own crafting feat, and yet were no different from any other wondrous item. Actually boosting them up to justify that 12th level crafting feat is a good thing, (although now odd because of the removal of that feat.) And, speaking just for myself, charged rings always drove me absolutely nuts. It's a RING, it's endless and eternal, it should not have 23 bloody charges!

There are many magic rings in this world, Bilbo Baggins, and none of them are to be used lightly.

 

[The Little Raven]

Ok, so you don't want to discuss rings. You just want them to be the way you see them. Fine. Feel free to stop discussing them.

So, then, you can't provide any examples of mythology or literature treating rings in the way D&D does? Because that's what I directly asked for, and you seem to have completely ignored it by trying to reframe my request as a desire to cease talking about rings. I've actually provided literary sources for my belief that rings are depicted that way, so how about you do the same?

Why would it exactly the same? He's using a +2 axe instead of a normal axe. That would go on top of his normal bonuses. Having internally consistency in the game world is not semantics and nitpicking.

MAGIC ITEMS ON NPCS/MONSTERS ARE COMPLETELY OPTIONAL SINCE THEIR RULES ARE MADE TO NOT REQUIRE THEM AS PART OF THEIR STAT BLOCK TO PRESENT A BALANCED ENCOUNTER WITH THAT NPC.

I say "Monsters don't require magic items to be balanced against the players they're fighting." You somehow reframe that as "Monsters can't use magic items."

If you've got players nitpicking about the orc stats in the book being different from the one they just fought, and that +2 axe doesn't cover the differences, then they're just fraking nitpicking for it's own sake, since it accomplishes nothing but slowing down the game with semantic nonsense that serves no useful purpose.

Its really part of the difference between playing a role-playing game and board game- a setting with arbitrary rules is just as bad as novel or setting with plot holes.

What? So, a board game can't separate an orc's +4 attack bonus into (+3 natural, +1 magic enhancement)? It's about using different rules for different purposes, since the PC rules have layers of complexity that NPC rules frankly do not need.

What is the point of bringing in other kinds of games, except to try and disparage them?

85% of the people I've played with would pick up on a DM fudging away a magic item.

Well, considering I suggested you're a nit-picker, and they do say "You are what you hang with," color me surprised.

 

[pemerton]

Voss, with respect to NPCs and magic items:

NPC stats will be generated in the same way as monsters, that is:

*choose a level;
*choose a role;
*read the appropriate numbers of a table;
*add appropriate powers for level and role (this may involve one or more of picking from a table, applying one of a finite number of templates, or some other technique I haven't thought of yet).

Of these four points, 1 to 3 are confirmed via various designer posts plus W&M. Point 4 is (I think) rational extrapolation by myself and other posters. What follows is also rational extrapolation (but I'll bolster my credentials by pointing out that I did predict the magic item changes - see post above!).

How to explain those numbers in the gameworld? Up to the GM.

So consider your Orc leader with his +2 axe. Suppose you are building him as a Level 7 Brute (or whatever the relevant role is), and the table tells us he should have +10 to hit and deal 1d10 + 10 damage. Well, we know his axe is factored into that.

Suppose he now loses his axe, so he drops to +8 to hit, 1d10 + 8 damage. We now look up the table in reverse and discover that he is only a level 6 Brute (and so worth fewer XP, easier for the party to defeat, etc).

In short, monster levels and NPC levels do not measure anything in the game. They are purely a metagame device to help the GM design encounters, and to determine the XP players receive from overcoming challenges.

Two upshots of this: if any spell description looks up opponent level, it will be a bit wonky, because the targetability of the Orc chieftain will depend on whether or not he picks up his axe. My prediction is therefore that spells won't target opponent levels, but rather something else like Save numbers, Bloodied condition, etc.

Second upshot: if you decide to build an NPC using PC build rules, that character will have two levels. The first is the PC-equivalent level. The second is the monster-equivalent level (determined, as with the Orc chieftain, by reading the monster table in reversse).

 

[The Little Raven]

<snip>

THUMBS UP.

For a while there, I was worried I was taking crazy pills or something.

 

[Andor]

I'm telling you that you don't have to explain your NPC's +4 attack bonus being the result of his +3 normal bonus and a +1 from his sword because it's completely irrelevant to how and why his stats work in the game. You can choose to do that, just like you can choose to stat every NPC out like a PC, but it's not worth it because the end result is the same, but with more work involved.

Who gives a flying frak if the orc chieftain's stat block doesn't directly state that his axe attack is explicitly using the +2 axe you can loot from him, if the end result is exactly the same? Only someone who cares so much about semantics and nitpicking.

If I can rephrase slightly, what this means is that if you have 3 great orc chiefs they can all have the exact same combat stats, and yet produce different loot. How to justify this? Why with whatever flavor you like!

Fimbul the Mighty is a rippling mass of stinky muscle in the finest orc tradition. He weilds a crude bar of iron as a weapon, disdaining things like hilts and edges as pointly frippery. A position with some merit when you can arm wrestle gorrillas.

Torgol the Canny weilds a +2 Greatsword he looted off of a dead adventurer years ago and which helped him rise through the ranks of the Orcs desite his comparative weakness.

Zellin the Ancient is a mighty prophet of the Orcs and Grumish has blessed him with a holy aura that enables him to strike with the power of his long lost youth, even though he now can wield only his wooden staff.

So there ya go, three identical sets of combat stats, but one has a lootable weapon, one has a nice souvenier and one has a club.

Now it does lose verisimilitude if Torgol's sword turns out to be a +2 Flaming Greatsword but it wasn't flaming during the fight. In that case I would adjust his combat stats to the extent of giving his strikes the 'flaming' property, whatever that might look like in 4e.

 

[Voss]

So, then, you can't provide any examples of mythology or literature treating rings in the way D&D does? Because that's what I directly asked for, and you seem to have completely ignored it by trying to reframe my request as a desire to cease talking about rings. I've actually provided literary sources for my belief that rings are depicted that way, so how about you do the same?

I don't really have any sense that magic, magic items or rings in D&D reflect anything but D&D. It certainly isn't a good mythology simulator. People can quote Tolkien as much as they like. It doesn't affect my perception of magic items in 4e D&D.

I say "Monsters don't require magic items to be balanced against the players they're fighting." You somehow reframe that as "Monsters can't use magic items."

You also said that the magic weapon doesn't affect his stat block. Thats what I was responding to, because it doesn't make any sense to me.

If you've got players nitpicking about the orc stats in the book being different from the one they just fought, and that +2 axe doesn't cover the differences, then they're just fraking nitpicking for it's own sake, since it accomplishes nothing but slowing down the game with semantic nonsense that serves no useful purpose.

It affects their acceptance and enjoyment of the game. That seems important to me.

What? So, a board game can't separate an orc's +4 attack bonus into (+3 natural, +1 magic enhancement)? It's about using different rules for different purposes, since the PC rules have layers of complexity that NPC rules frankly do not need.
What is the point of bringing in other kinds of games, except to try and disparage them?

It wasn't a disparagement. I was simply trying to illustrate that this particular set of rules (like the hp/healing rules Chris Sims was talking about) sounds less like an RPG and more like a different form of game. In particular, a board game, where, generally speaking, the rules are simplified. Take, for example, the D&D miniatures rules. I could run a viable RPG session based around those skirmish level wargame rules. I'd rather have a fleshed out RPG, however.


@pemerton- thanks for detailed explanation. I appreciate that.
Can't say I particularly like it though. It seems really off that an orc with a +2 axe would be exactly the same as an orc without a +2 axe. There's a level of risk vs. reward there that isn't really satisfying. Since the PCs are going to end up with the axe afterwards, I'd much rather they took the extra risks of the level 7 brute having a +12/+12 with the axe bonuses, to prove they are worthy of it in some fashion.

 

[Bishmon]

To be clear, since I'm gonna get some sleep, my beef is with the number of magic items still being worn by characters. Like I've said, I think it's ridiculous for characters to suit up with magic items like they're sports gear. I've read a couple of 'solutions' for this:

-Only a couple slots are 'necessary', therefore you can just not equip stuff in the other slots. I've addressed partly why I think is rubbish. There's also the obvious encounter balance problems involved with cutting a character's magic items.

-As a DM, don't give out as many magic items. Unless I significantly reduce the number of magic items, or limit the types of magic items given out ("We found another pair of magic gloves? That's the tenth pair this dungeon!"), characters are still eventually going to fill their available slots with magic items. Those items will probably be crappier than a by-the-book character because of the lack of selection, but they'll still be wearing 10 magic items. That doesn't solve my beef, and creates encounter balance problems to boot! Not my ideal solution.

And the thing is, I don't want to run a low-magic game. Far from it. I just think it's absurd that characters would wear 10 magic items. And the designers seemed to agree with me with their talk of reducing the Christmas Tree effect. In my opinion, they didn't do a thing to address that. Instead, they've just given characters more viable options with which to decorate their heroes with. Instead of characters picking seven standard items and three optional ones, they'll now be picking three standard items and seven optional ones. That's great, it solves one problem, but it doesn't solve the problem I was hoping they were going to solve.

 

[BASHMAN]

This was needlessly complicated. 2 things they could have done to get rid of the Christmas Tree effect:

1. No + items. These only create an arms race. Instead of a +3 Sword, just have Swords of Sharpness, or something like that-- where it has a special effect, but not on hit or damage.

2. No "slots". Instead, just say "Characters can have only 5 magic items". If that is too simplistic, say "Heroic characters can use 4 magic items, Paragons can use 6, and Epic can use 8"-- Simple, easy, and if you want to have all your items be rings, who cares. They could enforce the item # limit by saying it takes time for items to bond to you (must equip 24 hours before it begins to work) and that the laws of magic say people can have only so many items bonded to them. Simple, easy, done.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

THUMBS UP.

For a while there, I was worried I was taking crazy pills or something.

You're just taking the same as pemerton.

For people that desperately need low level rings: Flavour text says "looks like Ring", rules say "covers hand slot / is wondrous item". And done you are. For those that prefer the myth/literature-inspired approach to rings, they work only at Paragon tier or above.

---

In a perfect world, the +items of weapons, armor and save boosters would have gone the way of the dodo, I guess. But we are still talking about D&D, and D&D without +3 Flaming Swords or +5 Mithral Full Plate seems to lack something.
In 4E, it looks as if we have only 4 such +X.
1 for weapon attacks
1 for spell attacks
1 for Armor Class
1 for Defenses
weapon & spell attacks are covered by one slot, since a character will use only one of these attacks type anyway.

In 3E, we had:
2 types of items that boosted weapon attacks (stat booster + magical weapon)
1 general type of item that boosted magical attacks (stat booster)
5 types of items that boosted AC (armor, deflection, shield, natural armor, and stat booster)
2 types of item that boosted Saves (Cloaks of Resistance and stat boosters)

It seems to me as if the 4E appraoch is alot easier to handle. While the bonuses are still "expected", the limited amount of items that affect attack & defense allow us to adjust a combat encounters to take the lack of such items into account.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

To be clear, since I'm gonna get some sleep, my beef is with the number of magic items still being worn by characters. Like I've said, I think it's ridiculous for characters to suit up with magic items like they're sports gear. I've read a couple of 'solutions' for this:

-Only a couple slots are 'necessary', therefore you can just not equip stuff in the other slots. I've addressed partly why I think is rubbish. There's also the obvious encounter balance problems involved with cutting a character's magic items.

As long as they get their magical weapon/implement, armor and "defense booster", you won't run into a balance problem.

The key to removing extreme amounts of magical items is to avoid that they become (or feel) neccessary. As it stands in 3rd edition, roughly 6 items appear neccessary for a high level character. You can't really avoid it.
If it is not required for balance reasons to wear these 8 items (and reduce the number to 3), you get a few more options to handle magical items in your game:
- Don't care about the number of items? Give them out as you see fit
- Don't want to many? Give only the primary items out.
- Want to have them loads of items? Give out as many as you like. The 3 primary items are that matter, and if you don't give them overpowered ones for their level, you don't disrupt the game!
- Want to give out many, but don't want the characters to actually use them all - make a hose rule characters can't use (for whatever reason) more then the n items you want them to use. As long as they can carry the expected 3 primary items, your house-rule won't disrupt the game balance. (Unlike as in 3e, where you basically could forget the CR system)