New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[Stogoe]

Oh, and for those of you who say that they should have dropped +1 swords... you can't do that. I have fewer sacred cows than most, I think, but you cannot play D&D without +1 swords. Futz around with draconic magic, completely rearrange the planes, or whatever other nitpicky thing ENWorld seems to want to latch onto this month, I don't care. But if I can't have a longsword +1, I'm not playing D&D.

I completely agree with this. +X weapons are D&D, both to roleplayers and the wider world. Everyone knows what a +1 longsword is.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

wow, that discussion is senseless...

There are three kinds of opinions around here:

change too much = wotc sucks
change not enough = wotc sucks
finding a (very good middle way) = wotc sucks

---> you can´t make all people happy everytime.

Some people around here seem to have all of the three opinions...



The only thing I would have liked, is that there are slots, but it isn´t assumed by default in monster stats, but this is a minor problem.

But assuming it in the monsters statistics will help those who give out magic items as proposed in the rules. the rest, who change that can easily adjust...

...just look at Irda rangers post for one possible solution. Or just send lower mosters.

D&D without +x items would not be DnD, and bags of holding are still in

@ Rokes: well elaborated math. Now I completely agree. It was late in the evening yesterday and I didn´t explain my math very well.

 

[Vradna]

So, then,

*SNIP*

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

I am all for discussing something in a constructive way and I am all for people having their own opinions to 4th Edition, regardless if they are positive or negative towards a particular topic.

In short, people are allowed to like, love, dislike or hate something as is their right.

But some respect goes a long way. If someone is overly negative towards a topic, he or she is certainly allowed to be and well within their right to express their opinion on said topic. You sir, have deviated from topic and are now name calling because others either cannot or will not see your point of view.

Name calling is insulting and offensive. So I'll ask you nicely once, to stop it, because frankly I am sick of reading your rubbish.

 

[Dausuul]

As long as +X items exist, the designers have to decide what the "expected" X is going to be at level Y. Otherwise it's impossible to balance monsters against PCs. However, by giving all classes equal access to +X stuff (wizards get +X wands, et cetera), they make life much, much easier for DMs who want to hand out more or less treasure. If you hand out less treasure, one PC does not gain relative to another; the only effect is to make the monsters a little stronger, and the DM can compensate for that.

I approve of eliminating face and torso slots. Shoulders, not so much. I mean, really... you can't benefit from both a cloak and an amulet? What gives?

 

[FireLance]

I probably missed this in my initial reading of the thread, but how did we get from "there are six secondary, non-essential magic item slots" to "the Christmas tree will still exist because players will demand/DMs will be forced to give out magic items to fill all of these slots for all of the characters"?

 

[Lord Ernie]

Hrm... while I was hoping for an elimination of "necessary" magic items, I suppose that was a little too much to hope for. After all, as stated before, then anyone who does hand out magic weapons to his players has to boost the monsters in his campaign accordingly to keep up the challenge (although, on the other hand... what good is a magic weapon then, anyway?).

So I suppose 3 "necessary" items, in other words: items which influence the game's base maths, is an acceptable enough middle road. Also, it evens out the math: weapons add to magical or physical attack, the cloak and armor add to defense against both respective attacks. Dumping them completely, and lowering the attack on some of the monsters depending on their level accordingly should be a good way to houserule a no or low-magic campaign - easier at least than is currently possible.

On the ring debate: easiest thing to houserule ever. If the rings published in the DMG/Item Guide/Whatever are too powerful for level 11-, invent your own weaker versions and you're good to go. I'm imagining these "weaker versions" will be more like some of the nice but not gamedefining rings in 3.x (although I recall my wussy elf sorcerer sure loving his Ring of Warmth once the campaign moved to the High North).

 

[Derren]

On the ring debate: easiest thing to houserule ever. If the rings published in the DMG/Item Guide/Whatever are too powerful for level 11-, invent your own weaker versions and you're good to go. I'm imagining these "weaker versions" will be more like some of the nice but not gamedefining rings in 3.x (although I recall my wussy elf sorcerer sure loving his Ring of Warmth once the campaign moved to the High North).

The goal is not to "make rules which everyone has a easy time to houserule" but making "rules which don't need to be houseruled". And in this regard the ring issue simply fails.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I probably missed this in my initial reading of the thread, but how did we get from "there are six secondary, non-essential magic item slots" to "the Christmas tree will still exist because players will demand/DMs will be forced to give out magic items to fill all of these slots for all of the characters"?

That was easy. It stands on the internet, so it must be true!


I think part of this assumption is because we (or at least some of us) are still stuck in the 3.x mindset. 3.x abhors a vacuum, err empty slots. Because you can always get something in the slot that is critical to your characters abilities. It boosts attack, defense or hit points. And that constantly. These are desirable - probably even neccessary - things.

But how many players will really complain that they don't have:
- Bag of Holding
- Boots of Water Walking
- Ring of Invisibility
- Necklace of Fireballs
- Carpet of Flying.

I am not saying these aren't cool items. Players finding them certianly won't throw them away*). So if you get to generous, you will see all slots filled. But none of them will be essential for a characters core abilities/survivability, so complaints about the lack of them won't happen a lot...

*) which by the way would be nice. Too many items in 3.x are just sold at first oppertunity to get one the "essentials".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The goal is not to "make rules which everyone has a easy time to houserule" but making "rules which don't need to be houseruled". And in this regard the ring issue simply fails.

So, if I can find anyone that dislikes a particular rule, the game is bad?

If I hated, for example, the rules of Armor as "difficult to hit", does this make D&D bad because I have to house-rule it? And in fact, house rules in this regard seem a lot more difficult then saying: "Normally you can't wear rings before paragon levels. With me, you can."

 

[Dragonblade]

There are three kinds of opinions around here:

change too much = wotc sucks
change not enough = wotc sucks
finding a (very good middle way) = wotc sucks

---> you can´t make all people happy everytime.

Some people around here seem to have all of the three opinions...

Ha! So true.