New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[Brother MacLaren]

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

Did you ever play BECMI?

Only one stat-boosting item in the entire game (Gauntlets of Ogre Power), and that overlapped, did not stack. So if your Ftr had an 18 Str, you didn't need the Gauntlets, and if you had 16 or 17 Str, you got a marginal benefit.
All ability scores capped at 18. No matter what.
No Natural Armor or weird bonus types.
Fixed cap of AC -10 (equivalent to 30).
Saves became relatively easier to make with level (basically every spell was DC 18 or so). I think Rings of Protection gave a saving throw bonus as well as an AC bonus, but I don't think the rings above +1 appeared until the Companion Set (levels 15-25); IDHTBIFOM. I also don't recall what the AC bonus of the rings did and didn't stack with (I don't think they stacked with magic armor).
NO MAGIC SHOPS. You got the items that the DM handed out.
More difficult to craft potions, scrolls, wands, and magic items. Wands were really valued, because casters were more limited in their spells.

Players wanted magic swords and armor, of course, but it would have been just as easy as in 4E to say "okay, no magic swords or armor, but your hit rolls, damage, and AC improve by 1 every 4 levels."
Players also enjoyed the neat magic items that 4E is trying to bring back. Flying Carpet, Horn of Blasting, Medallion of ESP, and a bunch of other things.

In this one regard, at least, 4E is going in the direction of BECMI. I approve of that.

 

[Ahglock]

There is no such thing as "optional" when it comes to personal power. Those that strive to maximize their character's personal power will be the norm, the standard against which all others compare, and that means that players that fail to fill their character's slots with all of these items--and, at that, the best attainable--shall be penalized for failing to meet this de facto standard of performance.

Bingo!

Double Bingo.

Unless the "optional" slots had no combat effects at all this will occur. So when your bracers are bracers of I make a mean ham sandwich, and your boots are boots of pine fresh scent, all "optional" slots aren't optional when trying to optimize your character.

 

[JohnSnow]

Double Bingo.

Unless the "optional" slots had no combat effects at all this will occur. So when your bracers are bracers of I make a mean ham sandwich, and your boots are boots of pine fresh scent, all "optional" slots aren't optional when trying to optimize your character.

And any DM who lets his characters change boots between encounters is inviting this problem into his campaign. The boots we've seen on an 11th-level character are wavestrider boots, which probably provide some special movement modes related to water. That's hardly combat advantageous, except under very rare circumstances. Those boots of levitation, on the other hand, might be pretty handy, but by 13th-level, I doubt they're game breaking.

In Fourth Edition, all items of the same level have the same cost (Design & Development - Magic Item Levels).

The DM, and only the DM, will have total control over the number of magic items in his game. Three are necessary to make the math work. All the others are "extra" - as in "DM's option."

 

[Ahglock]

And any DM who lets his characters change boots between encounters is inviting this problem into his campaign. The boots we've seen on an 11th-level character are wavestrider boots, which probably provide some special movement modes related to water. That's hardly combat advantageous, except under very rare circumstances. Those boots of levitation, on the other hand, might be pretty handy, but by 13th-level, I doubt they're game breaking.

In Fourth Edition, all items of the same level have the same cost (Design & Development - Magic Item Levels).

The DM, and only the DM, will have total control over the number of magic items in his game. Three are necessary to make the math work. All the others are "extra" - as in "DM's option."

I'm not talking about changing boots between encounters. Boots of striding and springing, movement oriented and yes help in a fight. Bracers of precision I'm guessing help in a fight somehow. These things might not provide a +2 your whatits combat ability, but they still increase your combat ability.

By not giving a +2 and instead improving movement or maybe giving a re-roll or whatever precision does they are harder to balance. And since they aren't factored into the balance when designing encounters that means the DM like in all other editions and well all other games are basically back to eyeballing encounters when determining if its too hard or just right.

I'm not to worried about the last part since I can't think of a game with any level of options available to the PCS that actually had a built in encounter design system that actually worked out of the box. Like every other system they will provide some guidelines which hopefully will be enough to adjust to your own campaign and PC play style.

 

[JohnSnow]

I'm not talking about changing boots between encounters. Boots of striding and springing, movement oriented and yes help in a fight. Bracers of precision I'm guessing help in a fight somehow. These things might not provide a +2 your whatits combat ability, but they still increase your combat ability.

Sorry, the only items we have are bracers of the perfect shot and a belt of battle. I admit that I don't know what bracers of the perfect shot DO, but I can hazard that they might allow a character to designate a single shot per encounter as a critical hit. That sounds like a perfect shot to me.

And it's hardly unbalancing if the character can crit once per encounter on purpose, cuz he might very well do it by accident.

See, I have faith that the designers are professionals who know their jobs. I know that they know the game, and how it works, better than a couple of self-appointed experts on an internet message board.

 

[Greg K]

Trust Mike guys. He learned how hard it was to strip items out of the Core Rules when he designed Iron Heroes.".

Well, I wish I could. Unfortunately, last thing that Mike worked on that I liked was The Book of Iron Might. As such, I am now wary of anything he works on.

 

[JohnSnow]

Well, I wish I could. Unfortunately, last thing that Mike worked on that I liked was The Book of Iron Might. As such, I am now wary of anything he works on.

Funny comment to read from a guy with 3 Monte Cook quotes in his sig.

So, let's see. That means you hated Iron Heroes, which I assume means you're not opposed to magic items in general, or that book would be right up your alley. Unless you just oppose it because it's a variant PHB.

I guess you're saying you hate Mike's work at WotC. Well, considering we haven't seen much of it, I guess you're entitled.

Quite honestly, I don't care if you trust Mike or not. Personally, I think there's ample reason to. But if you don't like 4E, well, you can always keep playing Third Edition. Of course, Monte won't still be making stuff for it...

 

[Azgulor]

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.

I think you've made an argument for differing views on "decreased reliance on magic items", but not the Christmas Tree Effect.

The Christmas Tree Effect is I cast Detect Magic and the PCs light up like Christmas tress b/c of they myriad items they posses.

You can make compelling arguments from both sides of the aisle as to whether magic item dependency has been reduced.

Based on an example character with 8 different magic items effectively covering his entire body...unfortunately that's a very weak case for reducing the Christmas Tree effect.

 

[pemerton]

Actually, no, not really. Its more that I think that if the PCs are going to earn an item, the best way of showing they are worthy of it is to face it. (Barring one-use consumables, of course. But thats its own issue, since stockpiling potions helps really break the game). I think, if they are getting the +2 axe from the orc, the orc should get the actual bonus from the axe. So, if the party is fighting two 7th level orcs (and whatever else to make it an appropriate encounter) the two orcs should be whatever is appropriate for 7th level orcs, and the one using the +2 axe should have the bonuses that a +2 axe gives. Without... weird metagame side effects that increase the orcs level in some weird way.

The point being, in 4e monster design, level is simply a metagame device for interacting with a monster stat table and an XP table. So if the stats change, the level changes and hence the XP.

Suppose (for the sake of argument) that a 7th level Brute has a to-hit bonus of +10. Your 7th level Orc with that bonus (but who the GM has decided is unarmed) loots a dead body and picks up a +2 axe. The Orc now has a +12 to hit. To find out how many XP the Orc is worth, we now look at the table again, see that a Brute with a +12 to hit is 8th level, and award XP accordingly.

If in the above scenario the XP didn't change despite the fact that the monster gets tougher, then in effect you would be doing what I suggested above: using the magic item as part of the reward, in lieu of XP, for the tougher fight.

That makes even less sense. Picking up or putting down an axe changes his level and hit points, and whatever else? Attacking an NPC in the shower actually changes his level?

First, just to make sure we're on the same page, I asuume you know that in 4e there are no monster hit dice of the sort that previous versions of the game have had. Hit points are level and role dependent and called out in a table, the same as to hit bonuses and damage ranges.

So the question about hit points is this: what happens if the Orc above has the to hit bonus of an 8th level Brute, but the hit points of a 7th level Brute. how many XP is the Roc worth? I assume the table will handle this by suggesting a range of hit points for each level, or otherwise giving some guidance.

On the other hand, if the table tells us to add or subtract hit points, that's not necessarily absurd: someone's capacity for self-defence may well be less when they are unequipped.

Undoubtedly this would destroy any simulationist reading of hit points. But that's already been well cofimred by Chris Sims on the Healing thread.

 

[Greg K]

So, let's see. That means you hated Iron Heroes, which I assume means you're not opposed to magic items in general, or that book would be right up your alley. Unless you just oppose it because it's a variant PHB...

I liked the goal of IH. However, I didn't like the classes (too much built into them for my tastes), skill groups, tokens, and several other bits.