New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[Wulf Ratbane]

In 3e, you can have a situation like this:

1) A 15th level fighter with no magical items.

2) A 15th level fighter with a Cloak of the Bat, a Horn of Blasting, and a Ring of Elemental Control.

3) A 15th level Fighter with a +4 Sword, +4 Armor, and a +4 ring of Protection.

We can agree that both fighter 2 and fighter 3 are better than Fighter 1.

But the important thing here is the difference between fighter 1 and fighter 2. Fighter 2 is a better fighter simply because he has more options, and his options are more interesting. But in a slug-fest, fighter 1 and fighter 2 are no different. That can't be said for Fighter 1 vs fighter 3, or fighter 2 vs. fighter 3 for that matter; Fighter 3 wins purely by the numbers.

I'd prefer the system build towards Fighter 2 being the standard, not being balanced to assume Fighter 3 is the norm.

Quoted because it's a really good post. I haven't decided if I actually agree with it or not.

 

[Rechan]

That just appears to reverse things. Instead of requiring the "no item" DM to rebalance numbers to make sure his PCs aren't being steamrolled for being underequipped, the "magic item" DM has to rebalance numbers to make sure his monsters aren't being steamrolled because his players are above the power curve.

It's funny that you say This, and then...

Nope, because at the levels (late teens) you would be gaining that flying capability, you'll be facing foes that can deal with it, through flight of their own or ranged attacks. Being able to fly doesn't increase your ability to strike others or avoid damage, so it would merely give you more options for movement (still limited by the one action per round limitation, just like a gestalt character).

Misc items that grant sundry abilities don't really effect the power curve, at least not in my thinking.

 

[Dragonblade]

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.

Indeed. Well said. I would suspect the vast majority of D&D players would prefer the game to keep some +X items. Taking them out means you aren't playing D&D.

If you'll notice, the vast majority of the items that they previewed have some other neato effect. If you really want, you can do the "no magic" option of just giving the PCs the bonuses for free, and then having whatever magic swords you find just having the extra "snappy" effect. There. Problem solved.

Yep. Just grant the PCs a bonus at level X equal to what bonus they were expected to get from magic items and BAM! You now have D&D with no magic items needed.

Although this requires a house rule, it is a minor one compared to making the default assumption that no magic items are needed. If no magic items are needed, then the vast majority of people who want to play iconic D&D have a much harder time trying to rebalance all the monsters to account for the fact they do want to give out +X items.

Really, WotC chose the best possible way of handling it.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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"?

An understanding of the player's mind? Human nature?

Seriously, if a PC may have a thing, it is a very short trip to must have a thing.

(Hence the Big Six.)

 

[ThirdWizard]

The goal is not to "make rules which everyone has a easy time to houserule"

Actually, I think sometimes it is. Lets say they have two choices, both of which are sound, but they are merely different play styles. One way is easy to house rule away and the other is difficult to house rule away. The easy to house rule is the better rule in this case. The "easy time to houserule" (of which I think this is one) is a good compromise that allows two play styles to easily co-exist between games.


To no one in particular:

They stated months ago that they were not getting rid of +X items. They even said quite explicitly that they were giving +X items to wizards. This should not be a surprise to anyone. WotC isn't lying, and they have quite greatly reduced the Christmas tree. I can't see why this change isn't being greeted with praise by all. It's a ginormous reduction in magic items for those who want to reduce them while leaving the option available for those who don't. This is the best news either side could have recieved!

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I like the reduction of +X items, and it seems most of the posters here do as well. The other parts of the changes are what seems to be drawing the most animosity. A little from the rejiggering of item slots, but most from their new take on rings. So much it spawned an entire thread.

 

[Steely Dan]

I like the bit about robe-armour and the shield action.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Misc items that grant sundry abilities don't really effect the power curve, at least not in my thinking.

In 3.5, it was certainly true that items that granted See Invisibility, Fly, and one of {Freedom of Movement, Dimension Door, Teleport} *did* affect the power curve very significantly. Because Invisibility and Fly were such good defensive tactics, and containment (Entangle, Solid Fog, Forcecage, many others) such a good offensive tactic.

The "Big Six" were generally important items, but I do not think they were the only important items.

 

[Nebulous]

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).

I agree. Depending on what the game finally looks like in June, i might very well be adding some small rules and ignoring some core rules. Like always. I can't say i'm pleased with the Christmas shrub, but it's not a deal breaker. Dm's who don't like it can still "fix" their game. This is actually about the only thing i've heard about 4e so far i don't like. But it 's not horrible.

 

[Aristotle]

I've not read every post, so forgive me if I'm echoing what has already been said. I'll have more time to read previous posts later today. My gut reaction was that the christmas tree was alive and well but, if the listed items are the sum total of the character's magic items minus consumables, I think it's a pretty reasonable list for 11 levels of game-play. My other thoughts...

On weapons and armor
+X weapons and armor may be iconic, but they are generic and dull. I was really hoping to see them implement something similar to SW:SAGA with character level generating the extra damage that plusses used to. That system could be tweaked to provide a bonus to armor (instead of an alternative to armor, since armor makes sense in fantasy) as well. Maybe I can come up with a good house rule for these, but I was really hoping to see them made core.

Don't get me wrong. I want magic arms and armor. I'm all for enchantments that add damage, radiate light, cause more frequent or larger crits, and so on... I was hoping to get rid of the generic, and make the magic mean something more than just a number.

SW:SAGA also uses level based bonuses to Defenses. That could be used, allowing the 3rd slot to be revamped as well, and making ALL slots optional.


On Potions
I like potions and scrolls. Consumable magic items are fun. I get that stats boosts are gone, but I'm not sure if I like the idea of potions/oils and scrolls being boiled down to healing and restorative capabilities. maybe it makes sense from an alchemical stand point... I'd be okay if scrolls go away, but I think there are enough other uses for potions that they could keep their status as temporary enchantments.


On Rings
Getting rid of a level requirement on rings isn't much use if all of the rings presented are too powerful to consider giving a character of lesser level. I bet the ability of the rings will warrant them being rarer and not getting into character's hands until some point past 10th level. I *might* get rid of the second ring slot completely, and thus the second level requirement, to further diminish the christmas tree.