New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[TwoSix]

I suppose. But that seems like a pretty defeatist approach to design. I mean, everything's a matter of taste, and there's no way the designers could do anything right by everyone so what's the point to it all?

But the designers are tasked with coming up with fun, creative ways of running a game that closely matches what most people want the game to be. They can't just write their decisions off as matters of taste if they want to have a successful game. There's gotta be more design to it than that, otherwise any average joe could be a designer for WotC.

In my opinion, from a design standpoint, there's three key benefits to limiting the magic characters wear. First, it helps get rid of the Christmas Tree effect. Characters are no longer decked out in magic items like hockey gear, which I'd imagine would help the verisimilitude of a number of players on a number of levels during the game. Second, it would re-value magic items as something special, something wonderful, which I think most would say is a good thing. And third, it would be much, much closer to fantasy literature, which is probably a major source for a lot of people in where they get their expectations for the game.

The only significant drawback I see is that players like being rewarded, and they like cool magic items, so the more the merrier. That's a valid point, I'm not dismissing it. But I think there's a number of ways to replicate that sense of reward that doesn't devolve into characters hauling around backpacks of cheap magic items looking for a Magic Depot to sell them at.

And you're not wrong in any of that. But there's no reason that 6 slots re-values magical items as wondrous and special and 9 slots is Magic Depot.

 

[JohnSnow]

Am I in the minority on this? How about no limit? As long as the bonuses don't stack...

Doesn't address the issue of a PC with lots of items. Which is the comment that I was specifically addressing.

I'm fine with "no limit." And it seems to me that "the bonuses don't stack" is precisely what we're getting with Fourth Edition.

But if you want PCs to only have 6 items, it's not going to solve your issue. So, for that, it's a simple issue of restricting the number. It won't effect game balance. Set the limit wherever you want (or set no limit at all), but be aware that if you eliminate the Core 3, you have to account for those assumed bonuses.

 

[Bishmon]

And you're not wrong in any of that. But there's no reason that 6 slots re-values magical items as wondrous and special and 9 slots is Magic Depot.

This is kind of the premise of the whole deal, you know?

If you limit the number of magic items a character can wear, presumably you're also going to limit the number of magic items he has access to. That makes magic items rarer, which increases their luster. Also, if they have access to fewer magic items, they have fewer unwanted magic items to sell. In fact, if magic items are rarer, their might not be a notable magic item market at all.

Those are precisely the reasons that take magic items from Magic Depot to wondrous and special. Maybe it's not about the six slots I've thrown out there, or the 9-11+ that 4E will have, but it's about having the expected basics, an implement, armor, and cloak, and a couple of other special magic items instead of having the basics and another magic item for each part of the body that can conceivably hold one.

There's certainly plenty of discussion on how to walk the road from Magic Depot to Wondrous & Special, and how far down that road to in fact walk, but I think the basic idea is evident.

 

[pemerton]

That's just an off-my-head example of some sort of system that could allow for a reasonable number of magic items with a high level of collection and reward that doesn't result in characters hauling around backpacks of unused magic items on their trek to a Magic Depot.

In my opinion, from a design standpoint, there's three key benefits to limiting the magic characters wear. First, it helps get rid of the Christmas Tree effect. Characters are no longer decked out in magic items like hockey gear, which I'd imagine would help the verisimilitude of a number of players on a number of levels during the game. Second, it would re-value magic items as something special, something wonderful, which I think most would say is a good thing.

<snip>

I think there's a number of ways to replicate that sense of reward that doesn't devolve into characters hauling around backpacks of cheap magic items looking for a Magic Depot to sell them at.

I don't quite follow. Suppose it were the case that a PC can only use 6 items at a time - how would this stop that PC carrying round spare items in his/her backpack (and swapping them in and out as necessary)? To make magic items "special", and get rid of the "Magic Depot", it seems to me you have to do something about the supply of items in the game.

 

[Bishmon]

I don't quite follow. Suppose it were the case that a PC can only use 6 items at a time - how would this stop that PC carrying round spare items in his/her backpack (and swapping them in and out as necessary)? To make magic items "special", and get rid of the "Magic Depot", it seems to me you have to do something about the supply of items in the game.

Heh. I just beat you in with a post that addressed that.

Presumably, if a character is wearing fewer magic items, he'll also have access to fewer magic items. It's not just scaling the character back a little bit, it's scaling the magic item system back a little bit. Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer with that.

Edit: As for the swapping, I think that putting a rule in place that made it so a character needed a day to attune himself to an item's magic would work nicely to prevent abusive swapping of per day/per encounter items.

 

[ThirdWizard]

But the designers are tasked with coming up with fun, creative ways of running a game that closely matches what most people want the game to be.

Is it your contention that they haven't?

In my opinion, from a design standpoint, there's three key benefits to limiting the magic characters wear. First, it helps get rid of the Christmas Tree effect.

Are you sure that getting rid of the Christmas Tree is what most want? Or is it something WotC sees as something many want, but ultimately not the best direction to take the base game in? If the second is true (and I think it is) then a better option is what they've done - allow the easy removal of the Christmas Tree from the game by groups who don't want it, which is something 3e had a lot of trouble with.

So the Christmas Tree isn't necessarily bad, but they decided to make it easily removable. Where they should be lauded here, they have gained nothing but scorn. They might as well have just left it alone, apparently. Few seem to be noting how easily they can run their preferred low-magic-item play style but are instead complaining that their preferred play style isn't the standard in the game.

Well, quite frankly: tough. Your play style doesn't trump mine, and in 4e we can both play the way we want to. I can play badwrongfun and you can play badwrongfun and neither of us will muck the other's game up. People's constant complaining that my game isn't mucked up isn't really winning brownie points on my perspective.

 

[Bishmon]

So the Christmas Tree isn't necessarily bad, but they decided to make it easily removable. Where they should be lauded here, they have gained nothing but scorn. They might as well have just left it alone, apparently. Few seem to be noting how easily they can run their preferred low-magic-item play style but are instead complaining that their preferred play style isn't the standard in the game.

Please stop with the 'if your opinion is different than mine, you're just complaining that you're not getting you way'. That's not gonna do any good. I've already said why I think what I think is better for the game. If you disagree, fine. But please don't acribe motives to my opinions.

The only other thing I'll comment on in your post is about how supposedly easily removable magic items will be from the system. Call me a cynic, but I'll need to see it to believe it. I'm willing to give WotC some benefit of the doubt, but I'm also not willing to accept it as a foregone conclusion merely because a designer said so.

 

[TwoSix]

There's certainly plenty of discussion on how to walk the road from Magic Depot to Wondrous & Special, and how far down that road to in fact walk, but I think the basic idea is evident.

That's all fine. I don't think cutting down the slots NECESSARILY limits the magic depot; after all, they could have just introduced scads of potions and scrolls. But it certainly doesn't hurt.

My personal magic number for slots would have been 8, incidentally...Weapon, Armor, Shield, Helmet, Cloak, Gloves, Belt, and Boots. But I'm OK with what we got.

 

[Benimoto]

If you limit the number of magic items a character can wear, presumably you're also going to limit the number of magic items he has access to. That makes magic items rarer, which increases their luster. Also, if they have access to fewer magic items, they have fewer unwanted magic items to sell. In fact, if magic items are rarer, their might not be a notable magic item market at all.

Of all the ideas for limiting magic items more than the current system, I like your idea best. In this thread I've seen a lot of people saying "gah, I hate it" without clearly articulating what the problem is, or how it might be fixed. You certainly seem to have a good idea of what you want and a reasonable plan on how to achieve it. With that in mind, a few problems off the top of my head that I see with your idea.

Mainly, given that so many people seem to be chafing at arbitrary limits on things, you must realize that the "3 secondary items only" idea will not be popular. Look at all the people complaining that you can't wear a cloak and a necklace, or that rings only work once you're 11th level. Having a limit of three magic items is, in the current jargon, pretty arbitrary and gamist, while having a limit by slots is more simulationist.

I certainly don't see that it will ever make magic items rare enough that there's no noticeable magic item market. If the PCs get a magical mace, and nobody wants to use a mace, then they're always going to want to sell or trade it. Without any sort of a magic item market then any treasure the PCs find that they can't use is worthless. If the items are to have any sort of value at all then the PCs are going to expect to be able to both buy and sell them.

I like your system, and I hope it will be easy to adapt to it for the (apparently large) number of people who want fewer magic items, but I don't see it as a total cure-all. Further, I admit that I kind of prefer the 4th edition system outlined. I don't really want a world where I can't wear my new magic belt because I've already got a helmet, boots and a shield.

 

[Azgulor]

False dichotomy. The "Christmas Tree Effect" is about the fact that any random PC is going to have multiple magic items that show up when a detect magic is used. If there's no guaranteed "multiple magic item dependency," then there's, by definition, no Christmas Tree Effect.

In Fourth Edition, there's only going to be 3 required items: Weapon (or implement), Armor, and Cloak (or necklace). That's hardly a Christmas Tree.

Sorry, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The Christmas Tree Effect definition I listed has existed pretty consistently for years. Magic Item dependency has nothing to do with the Christmas Tree Effect. Hell, the Christmas Tree Effect pre-dates 3e - it's a D&Dism that's gotten progressively worse. And it negatively (IMO) affects the game. If you want to change the definition to align it with what WotC has done, that's your perogative.

Hard-wiring the magic items, i.e. forcing the players to rely on them, is definitely a problem within 3.x, esp. at high levels. Assuming that a 4e character "must" have 3 types of magic items, then yeah, you can argue a decreased reliance on magic items from 3.x. (Which is what the actual design objective was listed as being.) Whether the decrease is enough is open to opinion. However, the sample character presented is covered head-to-toe in magic items. From where I sit that's a friggin' Christmas Tree, amigo.

The rules might dictate he only needs 3 of those items, but I bet 4e players won't part with their "non-essential" magic items any easier than they did in previous editions. I've known players who defined their characters by their equipment long before 3.x, and I doubt it's going to become a rare phenomena. Since 4e seems to be even more concerned with player rewards than prior editions, I'm betting magic-item load-outs like the example will be the rule, not the exception, in most 4e campaigns.