New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[Professor Phobos]

I was really hoping to see something like the Earthdown system of keeping the same item, but having it improve over time.

I hate this "chuck your obsolete items, time for new ones!" system. Magical items should be rare and precious. I'd much rather have that +1 Longsword grow into a +3 Longsword as you level up than have to chuck the +1 to start using the +3.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I'm kinda bummed that plus weapons still remain, but at least they do more damage on a crit to differentiate them from normal weapons. Its not as bare bones as I thought, but he only said that a character should have +2 weapons. He didn't mention any other slot was required.

Plus, as someone else said, in playtesting you try and break the system. So its no surprise that the sample character does have a lot of items.

Also, I can see why people are against requiring a magic item for a certain level, but I'm glad they are doing this. Makes the math a lot easier and if they are paying such close attention to the power curve that's a good thing in my book.

Great article. I'm glad they are making these changes.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I hate this "chuck your obsolete items, time for new ones!" system. Magical items should be rare and precious. I'd much rather have that +1 Longsword grow into a +3 Longsword as you level up than have to chuck the +1 to start using the +3.

I'm thinking about house ruling the system so that there are no +X items in the game. A 10th level character holding a magic sword would gain +2 whereas a 20th level character would gain a +4 (or whatever bonuses are appropriate) would allow weapons to grow with the character. I'm considering it, at least, until I see how the rules are in the game as to whether or not it would work.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Najo!

I think Campbell's issue with breaking supension of belief is that if all the items except rings can be heroic level, then why can't rings be heroic level. Why can't their be minor rings. THAT doesn't make sense. At least have a catagory of all magic amulets, necklaces, rings and other jewery are all paragon level then, why only rings? Anyone with working hands and some fingers can slip a ring on.

They can also slip the other ring off and a new ring on.

I think the answer may lie in the (potential) fact that 4E Rings are proactive rather than constant benefits, so they need to be activated. A bit like spells. So 'using' two rings at once may be a bit like casting two spells at once.

Therefore wearing two at once would be irrelevant.

I know it doesn't seem like a big deal, but it was the first thing that jumped out at me as a game designer when I read the article. The second thing being that they still had a christmas tree because of all the items. They may not be needed items, but they are a checklist of slots none the list and gives the feeling that you have to have one of each magic item you can get. That is what makes the game feel more like a game and less like a heroic fantasy story.

I think no one truly expected no magic items, so it was always going to be something between about 4-10. While it appears they have went for the something closer to the latter, the pertinent factors are:

- No stacking
- Lower bonuses

It looks like there are only three items (per character) that affect the games maths, the 'crunch' items if you will. The others are leaning towards 'fluff'/story items.

 

[SteveC]

When I first heard about the reduction in magic items, I was a bit concerned, because magic items are part and parcel with D&D in many ways. I'm not happy with how many items we see in the 3X rules, but removing them altogether would make the game something I wouldn't enjoy nearly as much.

From that perspective, these rules don't seem too bad. So if I'm looking at this correctly, it looks like we expect characters to have a +1 to hit item and a +1 armor item for every four levels.

If I want to tone down items, I can remove both the magic weapon and the magic armor and not change the balance of the game one bit. If I'm working from a list of monsters, I can reduce the attack bonus and defenses for the creature by one for every four levels without much difficulty at all. Sounds like something I can live with.

--Steve

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think I get what you're saying. I'll call it the "Prestige Class Effect." If something exists in the game, gamers will assume its presence in the game and want to play with it. Correct?

Well, yeah.

 

[Darkwolf71]

I do think one thing you're missing is that most people do, in fact, like magic items.

See the popularity of the Magic Item Compendium as an example. For all the naysayers of magic items, D&D players, and yes that even includes DMs, really do like magic items.

I'm not 'missing' anything. Heck, I ike magic items as much as the next guy. I'm just saying, that's not the best way to highlight the new non-magic-item-dependency factor.

 

[Steely Dan]

For all the naysayers of magic items, D&D players, and yes that even includes DMs, really do like magic items.

Some D&D players, in my 20 years playing this bizarre game I have never had the hard on for magic items that most people seem to have, not that I don't like them at all, I just like my character to be the bad-ass and maybe have a few key items.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

I'm thinking about house ruling the system so that there are no +X items in the game. A 10th level character holding a magic sword would gain +2 whereas a 20th level character would gain a +4 (or whatever bonuses are appropriate) would allow weapons to grow with the character. I'm considering it, at least, until I see how the rules are in the game as to whether or not it would work.

This is a brilliant idea! Magic weapons have base "boons" (spell-like abilities tied to it) and the bonus to strike/damage grows with the character, or would be based on the tier.

 

[Bishmon]

Your problem is that you want magic to be special, and feel that characters carrying around 6-8 items each makes those items less special. And yet you say you don't want to run a low-magic game. So, what, you want to give out the same number of items as before, but players just throw them out because they already have 5 items each? This makes items more special.... how?

It's typically a bad idea to come at someone when you don't understand what they're saying. Politely asking for clarification would have been a good idea, and it would have made you look so much better.

To clarify, I think there's a huge gap between 'current D&D' and what I think of as 'low-magic D&D'. I want to be somewhere in the middle. I want magic to be a real, known, utilized aspect of the world, but I don't want it so common that every hero is weighed down with 10 magic items.

The way to make items more special is to just not hand out that many, I guess. You make sure characters are kept up to date on their primary 3 (or you work out the friggin' math and incorporate it into the basic level scheme), and then maaaaybe hand out a quirky and interesting secondary item every once in a while.

But for some reason, you throw out giving out less magic as a viable solution.

As I've already mentioned, it creates encounter balance problems. If encounters are balanced with characters wearing a half-dozen secondary items, a character that only has one secondary item is going to be behind the curve. Maybe not in terms of attack/damage/AC/saves (or maybe he will, if he's missing out on a temporary buffing item), but he could certainly be missing out on movement modes, attack options, defensive options, etc., situational things that could make all the difference depending on the specifics of the encounter. I've already mentioned the obvious power differences between a fighter with a carpet of flying and a fighter without a carpet of flying depending on the specific encounter.

And furthermore it only solves my problem if I give out so few secondary items that they're nearly non-existent because otherwise characters will still fill all their slots eventually. I don't want to run a game where a 20th level character is relieved to find slippers of spider climbing. But I don't want to have that 20th level character wearing 10 magic items, either. I imagine there's gotta be a functional middle ground in there somewhere.

I mean, honestly, is there ANYTHING AT ALL Wizards could have done to appease you that doesn't change things in a completely boneheaded way that doesn't even solve the problem you think you want solved?

Seriously, why are you coming at me with this tone? It's absurdly disrespectful and completely unwarranted.

And yes, there is something Wizards could have done. It's something I thought they were going to do based on their comments about 4E. As I've already mentioned, I would have liked to have seen them limit the number of secondary accessory slots. Maybe three accessory slots. Characters would have the expected magic implement/armor/neck stuff that factors into the attack/damage/AC/saves math, and they'd be able to equip up to three other accessories that could do any of the wide range of secondary things 4E accessories look like they're going to do.

That's the middle ground I was hoping for, and the middle ground I was expecting with their 'Christmas shrub' comments.