New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[TwoSix]

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!

The best news that could have been received is that WotC is publishing the individual's collection of house rules as the new edition. When that doesn't happen, wailing and gnashing of teeth ensue.

 

[vagabundo]

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.

I think the three are linked. They have re- jigged the bonuses that low level rings used to give and gave them to the appropriate item slot. Now rings will be powerful items and there is not so much stacking maths to track.

Anyway as long as I can make my Transvestite Fighter I am happy:

Implement: Whip of Domination
Armor: +3 Leather mini skirt
Neck: +2 Necklace of diamonds
Arms: Bracelets of Courtship
Feet: Stiletto Heals of Trampling
Hands: Gloves of warmth
Head: Tiara of leadership
Rings: Rings of marriage
Waist: Belt of Slimming
Wondrous Items: Bag of holding (no change)

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Ugh. basically the fact that the article states pc's are expected to have a +2 armor at 9th level, and that this is factored into the math of the game just flat out sucks.

So basically, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

This is what really bothered me about the article.

 

[mhensley]

This is what really bothered me about the article.

But don't they have to design the game this way? In most games, you will get magic items so it is reasonable to expect a certain level of power from those items by your character level. If they don't do this then encounter balance will be much harder to achieve.

 

[Nymrohd]

If the game expected players not to have +X armor or weapons at any level, then you could not house rule such items in the game in a simply way without increasing the power level of your characters massively. And +X effects may seem dull but they should be there. Why?
Because with no +X effects the longsword the local blacksmith in the village made in his free time will be as precise and dangerous a weapon as the longsword made over a century by a legendary eladrin smith.
Also note that nothing specifies that the +X effect is part of magic enchantment. That is just metagaming. In fluff it can be superior craftsmanship.


In short you are annoyed that the game does not suit your vision and forces you to make a simple house rule to change what you don't like, and you wish it would follow your vision and force others to create complicated houserules, if even possible, to retain part of the game that has been there since the beginning.

 

[Lab_Monkey]

SWSE and Iron Heroes managed without magical items being necessary.

In one of the recent podcasts, the designers explain the how they view the Star Wars Universe and the D&D Universe differently in terms of the importance of items (I believe it's in the 'Tell me about your character' episode but it could have been the 'You may already be playing 4e' episode) . IIRC they explained it as follows: In Star Wars characters are likely to use the same light saber through their entire career. In D&D they had a different design philosophy (i.e., no 1st level characters with a magic greatsword and magic full plate) and therefore they implemented slightly different game mechanics to accommodate that.

I would have preferred characters to each have a slightly smaller cache of magic items, but from the sound of things, I'm easily going to be able to adjust the math. At this point I'm more concerned about fighter type characters needing an item of flying, teleporting, etc. to be viable at high level.

 

[FireLance]

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.)

Seriously, isn't that going to be DM and campaign dependent?

I mean, as a DM, I pretty much allow the PCs to get whatever magic items they want (within the recommended wealth levels), so obviously I get Christmas tree characters. Of course, I personally don't see that as a problem.

However, in an upfront low or rare magic campaign, or with a DM who controls access to magic items more strictly, I don't see how you could get a Christmas tree.

 

[Ander00]

What I'd really like to know at this point is whether the assumptions of +X implements, +Y armor and +Z cloak/necklace are also worked into the math for NPCs or if this is an instance of PCs and NPCs working on different formulas.


cheers

 

[D.Shaffer]

I was under the distinct, WotC-given impression that they were getting rid of the "Christmas Tree" effect, wherein every character in space is laden down with a dozen magic items to power them up.

Apparently WotC lied when the suggested this.

Wotc NEVER said they were completely getting rid of the Christmas Tree Effect. They HAVE been pretty consistant in saying they're toning it down. (Charlie Brown Christmas Tree, Christmas Shrub) The fact they havent toned it down enough for your liking <> 'Lied'.

As it is, I wish they had done a bit more in the removal of item slots, but I can deal with what they have now. My worry is they keep the various charged items that 3.5 recently introduced WITHOUT adding any limit to swapping objects in or out.

 

[Darkwolf71]

What I find amusing, is that they say the 'christmas tree' is a bad thing and characters will be 'less dependent on magic items'. Then the example PC shown has items in every single slot except a ring which at 11th level he barely qulifies for. (and he seems to think that is a bad thing. i.e. "Rings: None right now, sadly".)

doesn't seem to add up.