New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[HeavenShallBurn]

God I'd hope they do this (in a wind tunnel that is). The engineer's will calculate the minimum velocity required, but I'd sure as heck hope they test it...

Rejoice for your hopes are met! All aircraft going into production are extensively tested often for several years. And not just in computer or wind tunnel models. Before that aircraft gets certified the first few pre-production models are tested in every mode and stage of flight, sometimes to destruction in order to test their reliability.

Damn, I sound like a Boeing rep Buy Lockheed Martin!

 

[Sadrik]

I have not read through this huge thread but felt like I had to comment on what I thought of the changes.

Are these changes for changes sake?

I mean reducing the number of slots and making some of them required while others are optional?

This does nothing for reducing the christmas tree effect.

Of which I would define as having bonuses coming from multiple items that all stack together to break the average assumptions of the game.

Quite honestly I don't care how many slots there are. When writing 4e, dealing with the bonuses issue it could have been done in many other ways but they seemed to select the most game rulesy fix. A cloak or an amulet can only do this, a feet slot item can only do that etc. Wrong approach entirely in my opinion.

My fix to the 3.5e item bonus problem is a problem of bonus stacking not of arbitrary item slots.

 

[Dragonblade]

I have not read through this huge thread but felt like I had to comment on what I thought of the changes.

Are these changes for changes sake?

I mean reducing the number of slots and making some of them required while others are optional?

This does nothing for reducing the christmas tree effect.

Of which I would define as having bonuses coming from multiple items that all stack together to break the average assumptions of the game.

Quite honestly I don't care how many slots there are. When writing 4e, dealing with the bonuses issue it could have been done in many other ways but they seemed to select the most game rulesy fix. A cloak or an amulet can only do this, a feet slot item can only do that etc. Wrong approach entirely in my opinion.

My fix to the 3.5e item bonus problem is a problem of bonus stacking not of arbitrary item slots.

It sounds like you didn't really read the article. Bonus stacking will no longer be an issue in 4e. Only 3 types of items are "required" for a PC to be able to handle monsters of his level, and the math behind what magical bonuses are needed for balance will likely be explicitly laid out in the DMG.

Per Mike Mearls (in a post on another thread), even a newbie DM could strip all magic items from 4e without upsetting game balance in about 30 minutes simply by granting appropriate bonuses to the PCs at the level they would normally be expected to have a particular item.

This is a vast improvement over all prior editions of D&D.

 

[Thundershield]

I have not read through this huge thread but felt like I had to comment on what I thought of the changes.

Are these changes for changes sake?

I mean reducing the number of slots and making some of them required while others are optional?

This does nothing for reducing the christmas tree effect.

Of which I would define as having bonuses coming from multiple items that all stack together to break the average assumptions of the game.

Quite honestly I don't care how many slots there are. When writing 4e, dealing with the bonuses issue it could have been done in many other ways but they seemed to select the most game rulesy fix. A cloak or an amulet can only do this, a feet slot item can only do that etc. Wrong approach entirely in my opinion.

My fix to the 3.5e item bonus problem is a problem of bonus stacking not of arbitrary item slots.

Seems like you should've read through it...

Anyway, here goes: All of them are optional, even the "primary" ones. If you don't want magic items in your game, simply don't and give people an inherent +X bonus to attack, damage, AC, and defenses equal to what seems to be 1 per 4 levels.

And the reason they're dividing them into primary and secondary it to not have them stack up and break the game. This way only one item with consistently increase your attack and damage (weapon or implement), AC (armor), and Defense (cloak or amulet). Other items will them be able to provide other or similar boni temporarily, such as an item that temporarily gives you damage reduction or boosts your speed, or similar things.

Anyway, it's an elegant and transparent way of approaching magic items that makes it possible for DMs to tailor it to suit their playstyle, so if you don't like it, rework it. It's much easier now.

 

[JohnSnow]

This does nothing for reducing the christmas tree effect.

Of which I would define as having bonuses coming from multiple items that all stack together to break the average assumptions of the game.

Quite honestly I don't care how many slots there are. When writing 4e, dealing with the bonuses issue it could have been done in many other ways but they seemed to select the most game rulesy fix. A cloak or an amulet can only do this, a feet slot item can only do that etc. Wrong approach entirely in my opinion.

My fix to the 3.5e item bonus problem is a problem of bonus stacking not of arbitrary item slots.

Actually, yes, it does reduce the Christmas Tree effect.

A weapon or implement provides attack and damage bonuses.

Armor improves your AC.

The "Cloak/Amulet" slot improves all your other defenses, as well as providing some other snazzy magical affect.

That's it. Every other item provides benefits that are situational, not, AFAICT, numerical.

So, 3 items, no stacking.

Still think they haven't fixed the Christmas Tree problem?

 

[Sadrik]

Zowey, it seems the only ones left on this thread are diggin' the changes.

I agree that it reduces the christmas tree effect by artificially setting limits on slots and what those slots can do. Like I said, "A cloak or an amulet can only do this, a feet slot item can only do that etc." If they had just done some stacking limits on items then there would be no, "You have to have a cloak to get this bonus."

And I don't really care if magic items are modular in the game and can be ported in or out. I want them in the game and to work appropriately. Rings only at higher level.

Also, items should be able to take on any form it wants. If I want boots that give +2 to reflex saves and gloves that give +2 to attack when wielding a sword so be it. They just wont stack with similar bonuses. That is how I would have resolved the issue.

Not by saying arbitrarily that all neck slot items only give a bonus to defenses and no other item slot can give bonuses to that. Bleh

 

[Remathilis]

Actually, yes, it does reduce the Christmas Tree effect.
A weapon or implement provides attack and damage bonuses.
Armor improves your AC.
The "Cloak/Amulet" slot improves all your other defenses, as well as providing some other snazzy magical affect.
That's it. Every other item provides benefits that are situational, not, AFAICT, numerical.
So, 3 items, no stacking.
Still think they haven't fixed the Christmas Tree problem?

The problem is there is a sliding definition of "christmas tree"

To some, its the stacking bonuses and bonus types that created an ever-scaling level of numbers to track (+6 armor, +4 shield, +3 natural armor, +2 deflection, +1 dex, +2 sacred, +2 dodge, etc)

To others, its having magical armor, shield, amulet, ring, boots, hat, cloak, etc on at the same time.

To the third, its having ANYTHING that adds a constant +X to any number (+1 longsword, +2 gloves of dexterity, +1 cloak of resistance)

The last group is having a conniption that magical gear is anything but optional or DM fiat.

And, of course, there is the aptly named "put me down for two or more of the above combined".

Since everyone took "Christmas Tree" to mean "My personal pet peeve about magic" its no wonder we all disagree on a.) whether WotC lived up to its promise and b.) whether it will really "fix" anything.

If you were in the first category, your the winner of the betting pool. Congrats.

If you were in group 2, you get the concession that there are less slots now and not all of them are as necessary as others.

If you were group 3, take solace its only 3 categories, not all 11 fighting for those boring +X slots. Six of them are actually for "cool" items.

If you were in group 4, you probably missed the memo.

 

[Stogoe]

To some, its the stacking bonuses and bonus types that created an ever-scaling level of numbers to track (+6 armor, +4 shield, +3 natural armor, +2 deflection, +1 dex, +2 sacred, +2 dodge, etc)
....
If you were in the first category, your the winner of the betting pool. Congrats.

Well, considering that they explicitly laid out WotC's Definition of CTE as your first option, it would be fully and completely foolish to expect that WotC's Definition of CTE would be anything other than your first option. I mean, come on.

 

[FourthBear]

Are these changes for changes sake?

I don't think that really fits these changes. None of them really thrill me, but I can clearly see the reasons for each change. Even the oddest bit with the level dependent rings, I can see what some of the advantages might be in terms of showcasing the special nature of magical rings or bringing the level mechanics to magic item usage. I do think they will reduce the Christmas Tree, but I think eliminating it would likely be unrealistic in D&D. Too many DMs, players and writers love creating and obtaining new magical items. Unless those magical items have no significant effect on a character's power, they will need to be somehow accounted for when deciding how the level dependent challenges are designed. I see this system as a way of guiding and controlling this to the extent it can, while making the classes of items and their bonuses clear enough that DMs can account for them in house-ruling. I do think it's a better system than previous editions, which either had no real guidelines or had ones that did not suit many campaigns. Is it as elegant or clever as I was hoping? No, but I can't think of anything better that wouldn't be soundly rejected by most players and DMs.

In terms of magic items, I think that guidelines in the DMG for the appearance and creation of magic items will be just as critical. If they can reduce the incidence of low level magic items in treasure lists and on NPCs, it will go a long way to helping magical items seem a bit more magical. Frankly, the Christmas Tree Effect was bad, but the piles of +1 leather armor and rings of protection +1 to be sold after an adventure was finished were just as rotten.

 

[Wolfspider]

Zowey, it seems the only ones left on this thread are diggin' the changes.

When it comes to D&D 4e, I've learned to choose my battles carefully.