New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[ThirdWizard]

I think the standard will be all the slots filled.

But, they've left the rules open for those groups who want less.

Note that I said "groups" who want less. I have to wonder if people worried that their players won't want to play in such a setting are approaching the low-magic-item issue from the wrong side of the equation. If your group is in agreement with play style, why worry about it, after all. The best way to approach the situation of others in your game wanting more magic items is to discuss what kind of campaign you want to play. 4e will allow either way, so long as everyone wants similar game styles.

 

[Thundershield]

What I see in this thread is people defending one playstyle and others complaining about it breaking with their playstyle. But it's not really about playstyle. It's about playability.

When they said they wanted to get rid of the Christmas Tree Effect (CTE), they meant that they wanted to cut away all the "necessary" items. Items that the system expected you to have, and to such a degree that a person without these items could not function properly (particularly as soon as you hit mid- to high-level play). They didn't promise to remove magic items entirely from the game or make them rarely-seen wonders, because that would only cater to such a playstyle and even get in the way of other playstyles.

Instead they wanted to make it simpler for players, and by reducing the number of item slots, they have done so. They wanted to reduce the way stacking magic items could be abused, and by differentiating between primary and secondary slots, they've done so as well.

Really, when it comes down to it, don't ask yourself if this is what you want it to be, because the answer will likely not be satisfying. They can't make a system that takes everybody's playstyle into consideration. Some like lots of magic, and others like little or no magic. No, rather ask yourself if you can create your game and use your playstyle with this system.

Can you drown players in magic items and still keep the game fairly balanced? Considering the 9 items slots and the way things don't stack, easily! Can you reduce the amount of magic or eliminate it entirely? Considering you can easily see what boni the magic items would give a character, simply transfer these to inherent abilities of the characters and you can ditch the magic items entirely. Granted, some things can't quite be translated (flying carpet translates to, uh, large ears?), but that's what flavors that game, then.

Really, ask yourself if you can play the game you love with this system. It's playability that counts. Whatever the system implies is for newbies to rely on, and veterans such as us can then modify it (and much more easily in 4E it would seem) to fit whatever campaign we wanna play.

 

[Dragonblade]

What I see in this thread is people defending one playstyle and others complaining about it breaking with their playstyle. But it's not really about playstyle. It's about playability.

When they said they wanted to get rid of the Christmas Tree Effect (CTE), they meant that they wanted to cut away all the "necessary" items. Items that the system expected you to have, and to such a degree that a person without these items could not function properly (particularly as soon as you hit mid- to high-level play). They didn't promise to remove magic items entirely from the game or make them rarely-seen wonders, because that would only cater to such a playstyle and even get in the way of other playstyles.

Instead they wanted to make it simpler for players, and by reducing the number of item slots, they have done so. They wanted to reduce the way stacking magic items could be abused, and by differentiating between primary and secondary slots, they've done so as well.

Really, when it comes down to it, don't ask yourself if this is what you want it to be, because the answer will likely not be satisfying. They can't make a system that takes everybody's playstyle into consideration. Some like lots of magic, and others like little or no magic. No, rather ask yourself if you can create your game and use your playstyle with this system.

Can you drown players in magic items and still keep the game fairly balanced? Considering the 9 items slots and the way things don't stack, easily! Can you reduce the amount of magic or eliminate it entirely? Considering you can easily see what boni the magic items would give a character, simply transfer these to inherent abilities of the characters and you can ditch the magic items entirely. Granted, some things can't quite be translated (flying carpet translates to, uh, large ears?), but that's what flavors that game, then.

Really, ask yourself if you can play the game you love with this system. It's playability that counts. Whatever the system implies is for newbies to rely on, and veterans such as us can then modify it (and much more easily in 4E it would seem) to fit whatever campaign we wanna play.

Well said! In fact, Mike Mearls even said in the other thread that a newbie DM could reengineer 4e to remove items entirely in about 30 minutes. Thats impressive.

 

[Thundershield]

QFT

Also, many of those secondary items will more than likely have charges that renew each day, meaning they are "temporary" effects. For example:

Bracers of Quick Strike: 1/day one extra melee attack.
Gloves of Fortunate Striking: 3/day, re-roll a "to hit" roll.
Belt of Giant Strength: 3/day +2 to hit and damage (and str-related checks) for 1 round.
Boots of Haste: up to 10 rounds of +6 squares to movement.

Unlike weapons, armor, or cloak/amulets and rings, these effects work for limited durations or limited times per day. Thus, they boost your power level, but not as dramatically as a +2 thundering warhammer or a cloak of survival would.

While I fully agree with this and do think that secondary items will be somewhat like this, I do hope they won't be "per day" as you put them here. That would simply keep the 5-minute workday around as a lingering shadow, waiting to step onto the scene again...

 

[Rokes]

Well said! In fact, Mike Mearls even said in the other thread that a newbie DM could reengineer 4e to remove items entirely in about 30 minutes. Thats impressive.

The questions remains whether or not they'll provide those newbie DMs with the tools to do it in 30 minutes (i.e. provide the math behind the assumption of wealth)

Mike? Scott? (of course if I were them, I'd be too busy to wade through 12+ pages)

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Yep, sounds good on paper, doesn't it? I'll believe it when I see it 1 year after 4E has hit the market, and the predominant playing habits for that edition have formed and spread via the internet and virtual tabletop gaming.

 

[Just Another User]

So much for getting rid of the so-called Christmas tree effect....

They seems to have introduced the wardrobe effect. I mean, if a 11 character have so many magic items, what about a 20 level? or a 30? I can see a high level character with a a copule of dozen between headwear, foot wear and uh, neck wear wonder what to put on for his next adventure, or continuosly swappng betwen one item and the other depending on the situation, non necessarly a bad thing, but it could quickly become redicolous, or worse boring (expecialy if secondary items had "per day" abilities.)

 

[Thundershield]

Magic items should be classified by function. No matter what form they come in. Its not about what a ring does. Its about how you can't have a gradient of rings. Why not a neaklace of 3 wishes? or elemental comand? Or a ring that operates like a potion? Or a potion that operates like a constant item. Its the limitation of the form that irks me, not the mechanics of the effect. The effect of not being able to access a magic item until a certain level is awesome. I like it. But limiting that to a ring? Please, I want to be able to use it on hats, boots, belts, swords, etc.

Well, the seperation of function by item slot does make sense. It's what we expect. Let me whip up a few examples:

Goggles of Minute Seeing - Goggles go over your eyes, and you use your eyes to see, so a magic item that improves your sight would have something to do with your eyes. Makes sense.

Boots of Speed - Boots go on your feet, and you use your feet for locomotion, which is a common interpretation of speed, even if the effect of this magic item also increased the number of attacks you get (in 3.5, anyway).

Now, if we removed that and simply went with stuff on a whim (or even better, slapped the wholly random tables of 2nd Edition on this), we might end up with items like:

Nylons of Giant Strength - Really masculine, ain't they? Nylons really isn't something one would associate with neither giants nor strength, so if the party's Wizard identified these, he'd likely get quite a shock. But, hey, they might match your Tooth Fairy Full Plate.

Vorpal Potion - And this one does.. what? Cuts off your head if you drink it? Or can you knock peoples' heads off if you swing the potion vial at them?

Magic items are categorized like that simply because it makes sense and gives whoever finds it an intuitive idea of what it can do and how to use it.

The added benefit is, of course, that it ensures your character will at least be a little all-round and not solely have items that improve a single aspect, leaving him falling short in every other area. The variety of associated abilities for each item slot, however, means that you can still find something that will be relevant and useful for your character.

 

[SkidAce]

Rings are special. They are endless, without beginning or end. And their shape, a bound circle, allows them to contain magic far beyond any simple spell embedded in your common "magic" sword or item made of cloth. Where any other item or weapon would warped and destroyed by the restless force that is magic, the magics within a ring swirl silently, falling back upon themselves ... contained. Although less than an artifact, they are more than anything else you will encounter (other than perhaps the legendary Stones of Ioun).

Sauron knew this. It is no coincidence that he chose the form of the Ring when making his weapon. Nothing else would have contained his terrible power, or serve his terrible purpose.

But Rings cannot be worn lightly. Not just any soul has the wherewithal to withstand them; to command them. Only souls that have been tested, and proved themselves victorious again and again, have a hope of commanding the magic of a Ring. It is not a question of magical power, or command over vast sums of magical lore, but of personal strength. That resilient strength that can only be learned in overcoming adversity; in surviving the crucible. That strength that so few possess.

A few foolish men wear magical Rings that they inherited from their greater forefathers. They can not summon forth its power, and if they live even a year it is at the Ring's forebearance. They would do well to put the Ring in a safe place, where no can harm themselves attempting what should not be attempted.

Rings are true power given form. Only those with an even greater power inside them have a chance of commanding them.

And if you ever meet a man who commands the might of two Rings simultaneously, tread carefully, for you stand in the presence of greatness; such greatness as legends are made of.

Very well written. Seriously I do that kind of stuff myself. However, not seeing the sense in a rule and being Capable of Rule Zero/having an imagination are not mutually exclusive.

I have house ruled many things over the years and will continue to do so. But, I sometimes enjoy debating the pros and cons of an idea on message boards when I encounter them. And for some reason, the ring thing did provoke an extreme reaction from me. Can't explain totally, but it still bugs me.

 

[JohnSnow]

The questions remains whether or not they'll provide those newbie DMs with the tools to do it in 30 minutes (i.e. provide the math behind the assumption of wealth)

Mike? Scott? (of course if I were them, I'd be too busy to wade through 12+ pages)

If you would actually read Mike's response over in the other thread, you'll notice he talked about one of the design goals of Fourth Edition being to have the transparency of the math right there for all DMs to see. Complete with the assumptions.

Items won't be given just a cost, but a level as well. So you no longer have to guess what level PC a 5,000 gp item (or 10,000, or whatever) is appropriate for. They'll tell you right out that, for example, "a flying carpet is an appropriate item for 18th-level PCs." Or that a +2 flaming longsword is a 10th-level item. (Both these examples are from the earlier article Design & Development: Magic Item Levels).

That alone is more transparency than was present in 3e.

Trust Mike guys. He learned how hard it was to strip items out of the Core Rules when he designed Iron Heroes. And he's probably made a very good case to the other WotC designers that the best way to handle that in 4th Edition is to make the game more customizable "out of the box."

More transparent rules seems to have been their goal since the release of Unearthed Arcana. And it seems Fourth Edition will launch with that in mind.