New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[Bishmon]

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

Not when a presumably average hero is walking around with nine items on his person and bemoaning the fact that he doesn't have a tenth yet.

You can say that only three are required, as if that somehow mitigates this character walking around with nine items on him, but I'm not even sure that'll be true regardless. I think it's more likely that the definition of what is required will likely change. "You're a fighter and you don't have the headband that allows you to force a reroll on a will attack each encounter?" "You're a rogue and you don't have the boots that let you move faster and shift farther?" "You're a paladin and you don't have an item that lets you fly?"

I suppose I can hope that these supposed 'optional' items are so ridiculously weak that they are in fact effectively optional, in that they really add next to nothing to a character's power. Even if that held true in the core books, which is very unlikely in my opinion, you can virtually guarantee that when the first magic item splat book comes out that the power level of those 'optional' items is going to go up. After all, people want cool magic items, and that 'coolness' is tough to pull off consistently in a nearly worthless magic item.

Anyway, it looks like it's again going to take house ruling to do away with the Christmas Tree effect, just like it did in third edition. Maybe not as much house ruling, there's no way to know yet, but house ruling nonetheless.

 

[Sadrik]

Good argument. I'm convinced.

Well, my original argument was right there and my "new" argument was the same as twosix's, non-existent.

 

[Andor]

Not when a presumably average hero is walking around with nine items on his person and bemoaning the fact that he doesn't have a tenth yet.

You can say that only three are required, as if that somehow mitigates this character walking around with nine items on him, but I'm not even sure that'll be true regardless. I think it's more likely that the definition of what is required will likely change. "You're a fighter and you don't have the headband that allows you to force a reroll on a will attack each encounter?" "You're a rogue and you don't have the boots that let you move faster and shift farther?" "You're a paladin and you don't have an item that lets you fly?"

I suppose I can hope that these supposed 'optional' items are so ridiculously weak that they are in fact effectively optional, in that they really add next to nothing to a character's power. Even if that held true in the core books, which is very unlikely in my opinion, you can virtually guarantee that when the first magic item splat book comes out that the power level of those 'optional' items is going to go up. After all, people want cool magic items, and that 'coolness' is tough to pull off consistently in a nearly worthless magic item.

Anyway, it looks like it's again going to take house ruling to do away with the Christmas Tree effect, just like it did in third edition. Maybe not as much house ruling, there's no way to know yet, but house ruling nonetheless.

If I understand you correctly (and if I do not please explain how) you are saying that the proposed 4e system is unsatisfactory to you because it allows for the possibility of a high level PC owning several magic items?

I'm hoping I have that wrong because otherwise you would seem to be stating that having more than a couple of magic items per PC is badwrongfun, regardless of the group or campaign, and the the rules of the game should, indeed must, preclude the possibility of anyone, anywhere enjoying themselves in such a twisted and abhorrent manner.

It's not enough that you could easily houserule a limit on magic items in your campaign. It's not enough that you could simply give out fewer magic items (or turn some down as a player.) The only way you can possibly enjoy 4th edition is if even people you will never meet are not allowed to have more items than they have limbs. And presumably the formation of game police to make sure no one houserules away those limits.

Incidently if 'literature' is the driving force behind your hatred of items I'll just point out that at about the time of Shelobs lair Frodo was carrying the one ring, Sting, the mithral shirt, Galadrial's Phial, a magic walking stick, an elven cloak, and rope of climbing. 7 items.

If I have misinterpreted your point please elucidate how, because I don't see another way to interpret your stance.

 

[Remathilis]

Bah. This would be SOOOOO much easier if the designers just listened to me and catered to my wishes!

 

[Bishmon]

If I understand you correctly (and if I do not please explain how) you are saying that the proposed 4e system is unsatisfactory to you because it allows for the possibility of a high level PC owning several magic items?

It's not so much the possibility, it's more the eventuality of it.

I'm hoping I have that wrong because otherwise you would seem to be stating that having more than a couple of magic items per PC is badwrongfun, regardless of the group or campaign, and the the rules of the game should, indeed must, preclude the possibility of anyone, anywhere enjoying themselves in such a twisted and abhorrent manner.

That's a pretty wild mischaracterization. I'm not sure how I even implied anything about badwrongfun. If someone wants to run a game where every hero extremity contains a different magic item, fine, great. I just don't think it should be the standard.

And one other thing. It seems that if someone is against the idea of everyone wearing 10 magic items, it's assumed they're for heroes only wearing 'a couple'. It's like 'if you're not at this extreme, you must be at the other extreme'. No, I want the middle ground.

It's not enough that you could easily houserule a limit on magic items in your campaign. It's not enough that you could simply give out fewer magic items (or turn some down as a player.)

Of course I can house rule the game, I even said as much! "...it looks like it's again going to take house ruling to do away with the Christmas Tree effect..."

I also find this comment kind of ironic. "You can just house rule!" Well, yeah, so could you, if it happened to be different.

The only way you can possibly enjoy 4th edition is if even people you will never meet are not allowed to have more items than they have limbs. And presumably the formation of game police to make sure no one houserules away those limits.

Another wild mischaracterization. This one's just bizarre. Game police? You got that out of my comments?

Incidently if 'literature' is the driving force behind your hatred of items I'll just point out that at about the time of Shelobs lair Frodo was carrying the one ring, Sting, the mithral shirt, Galadrial's Phial, a magic walking stick, an elven cloak, and rope of climbing. 7 items.

I'm guessing this is the most extreme example that you could come up with on the spot, right? I guess I'm supposed to ignore the entirety of the rest of fantasy literature because this one character had this many items? I mean, really, what does this one example prove? Certainly nothing more than me saying "Random Hero from Fantasy Book B only had two magic items! Check and mate!"

And the ironic thing about this comment is that I've repeatedly said I would have liked to have seen characters limited in some way to having around six magic items. So your Frodo example, you know, kinda fits that.

Listen, man, this isn't some confrontation. We don't need to aggressively come at each other, to butt heads in an attempt to out-argue the other guy. I prefer one thing, you prefer another. That's fine. If we can't discuss that without wild mischaracterizations or ascribing motives, let's just not discuss it. It's D&D magic items, it's not worth that level of discourse.

 

[Sadrik]

Aw crap, I put my cloak on to go outside, now, I have to take off my necklace.

 

[Greg K]

The thread is here. Mike's post is about halfway down. On the first page.

Thanks

 

[TwoSix]

And one other thing. It seems that if someone is against the idea of everyone wearing 10 magic items, it's assumed they're for heroes only wearing 'a couple'. It's like 'if you're not at this extreme, you must be at the other extreme'. No, I want the middle ground.

Yes, but what is the middle ground? It's not 12 (3e). It's not 9, 10, or 11 (4e heroic, paragon, epic). You said it's not a couple (2-3)? So is it 5? Or 6? I'd just like to see a number so I understand where you're coming from.

 

[Mirtek]

And any DM who lets his characters change boots between encounters is inviting this problem into his campaign.

Lol, didn't even think about this until now. Boots with x/day powers and the fighter telling the party to wait with opening the next doors because he has to change his shoes first

 

[TwoSix]

Well, my original argument was right there and my "new" argument was the same as twosix's, non-existent.

You're right...neither of us has an argument; it's purely taste-driven. I agree with the designer's rationales, and can easily fit it into my games. You feel differently. Fortunately for me, the way I like is in the book.