New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[rkanodia]

Do you have that quote handy?

From http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=217331&page=2&pp=30

The key is that, in most cases, magic items give more options, rather than improvements to existing options.

Strictly speaking, the fighter with no items is less powerful than the fighter with a ton of items, yet if the campaign tends toward few or no items, the game still functions fine. For instance, the math behind monsters looks to magic items only for the static bonuses that they grant.

 

[Cadfan]

You can't eliminate the magical item market completely as long as unwanted magical items exist, and as long as whoever makes magical items requires consumer goods.

Wizard: I finished my identification ritual. This flail is QUITE enchanted.
Rogue: Sweet! I've always wanted to lay eyes upon enchanted armament, and never thought the day would come! Can I see it?
Wizard: Sure, take a look.
Rogue: *swings the flail around a bit*
Wizard: Uh, are you sure you know what you're doing with that thing?
Rogue: I've got no idea! *swings flail wildly*
Fighter: *watches cynically* He's telling the truth.
Wizard: Do you know how to use a flail?
Fighter: Sure, I know how, but its not my favorite weapon. I'm a grandmaster swordsman, and that's a horseman's flail.
Wizard: Hey, warlock, do you know how to use a flail?
Warlock: feed me souls...
Wizard: I'll take that as a no. What are we going to do with it?
Fighter: Well... the Baron favors a flail. We could give it to him.
Rogue: What? No way! We're not giving this thing away! Do you know how rare these are?
Fighter: The baron breeds excellent warhorses. Maybe we could trade.
Wizard: This is worth more than a warhorse, I assure you.
Fighter: Uh, he's also got... what else does he have that we might want?
Warlock: a soul...?
Wizard: Right. I seem to recall that he also has huge piles of money.
Fighter: Money? Are you suggesting that we take this rare object of high value that we cannot particularly use, and exchange it for cartloads of currency, which we might then exchange for goods and services we actually require?
Wizard: Yes.
Fighter: Ingenious!

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

No.

You don't get to cry out "My playstyle is being stepped on!" while at the same time calling for my playstyle to be stepped on, and claim to be in the right here. You believe, with no supporting evidence, that WotC will not deliver what they state in the article. Fine. You want low-magic-items games to be the norm. Fine. But, then when they hand you a compromise that can give us both what we want, you can't throw it in their face and say "Not good enough."

They've given us both a great compromise. I can play my way, and you can play yours. Is that really not good enough? Do I not get to play my way for you to be happy? You say you are giving them the benefit of the doubt. Well, if that is true, then isn't it true that you shouldn't be assuming they're going to fail?

 

[Bishmon]

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.

True. But the current system is already arbitrary. People have just gotten used to it. I mean, in 3E, I can use a magic shirt, but not if I have a magic vest on also? I can't use a magic necklace if I already have another magic necklace on, unless I ad hoc it into a bracelet and put it on my wrist? I can use two magic rings, but not three?

I don't think it's any more arbitrary. It's just different.

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.

You wouldn't necessarily have to completely get rid of the magic item market. But maybe the increased rarity means only very large cities and metropolises can feasibly support a magic item store or two. And maybe the limited number of shops makes the rates unfavorable to the PCs, so instead of expecting to just slay some stuff, get some random drops, sell those, and buy what they actually want, they'd be more interested in short adventures to explore rumors of treasure, or track down a powerful item they want for their character from an evil person known to have one, etc. Maybe they'll trade an unwanted magic item with an NPC adventurer they run into at a local guildhall. Or maybe they can get a better rate on their unwanted magic item if they first do a favor for the prospective buyer.

But I'm just thinking out loud at this point. I certainly haven't given detailed thought on all of this.

 

[Bishmon]

No.

You don't get to cry out "My playstyle is being stepped on!" while at the same time calling for my playstyle to be stepped on, and claim to be in the right here. You believe, with no supporting evidence, that WotC will not deliver what they state in the article. Fine. You want low-magic-items games to be the norm. Fine. But, then when they hand you a compromise that can give us both what we want, you can't throw it in their face and say "Not good enough."

They've given us both a great compromise. I can play my way, and you can play yours. Is that really not good enough? Do I not get to play my way for you to be happy? You say you are giving them the benefit of the doubt. Well, if that is true, then isn't it true that you shouldn't be assuming they're going to fail?

Honestly, I'm not sure where you're getting most of this from. Since you've already taken my comment to mean...that...I'm not sure what me saying anymore to you would really help, you know? So take care, man.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Honestly, I'm not sure where you're getting most of this from. Since you've already taken my comment to mean...that...I'm not sure what me saying anymore to you would really help, you know? So take care, man.

That's fine, I just think it needed to be said.

 

[Benimoto]

True. But the current system is already arbitrary. People have just gotten used to it. I mean, in 3E, I can use a magic shirt, but not if I have a magic vest on also? I can't use a magic necklace if I already have another magic necklace on, unless I ad hoc it into a bracelet and put it on my wrist? I can use two magic rings, but not three?

I don't think it's any more arbitrary. It's just different.

I see it as a little less arbitrary only because with slots, particularly with the 4e revamp, you get a general sense that the magic items can't be too close to each other and still work. It's not perfect, but it's something. Maybe it is just that I'm used to it, but I can imagine a character in such a world being able to figure it out and theorize about it. It's kind of a physical-based arbitrary as opposed to a pure number arbitrary.

You wouldn't necessarily have to completely get rid of the magic item market. But maybe the increased rarity means only very large cities and metropolises can feasibly support a magic item store or two. And maybe the limited number of shops makes the rates unfavorable to the PCs, so instead of expecting to just slay some stuff, get some random drops, sell those, and buy what they actually want, they'd be more interested in short adventures to explore rumors of treasure, or track down a powerful item they want for their character from an evil person known to have one, etc. Maybe they'll trade an unwanted magic item with an NPC adventurer they run into at a local guildhall. Or maybe they can get a better rate on their unwanted magic item if they first do a favor for the prospective buyer.

But I'm just thinking out loud at this point. I certainly haven't given detailed thought on all of this.

It's possible. As a DM who often works pretty hard to get his players to follow the shreds of plot or story in his games, that sounds to me like a lot of time and energy spent pursuing magic items as opposed to more interesting stuff. In fact, that's kind of why I prefer the present system of plentiful, not-particularly-special items: because it means that as a DM I don't have to think about them that much and can spend my time on more interesting stuff. The rarer and more special the items become, the important they are in the game and the more the game becomes about them.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

I think you clarified a reason I am not "feeling" the informatin on magic items.

All the goals you listed above I agree with. And as a DM/player we with worked within a framework to meet those goals and enjoy our game. (Because we could revalue and have our magic items special by the way WE played). Now that will be built into the rules. Good idea and effective. But, it takes away our latitude in play style. And with the solutions built into the game for us, it will make it harder if OUR play style is out of the range of that solution.

Man I hope that made sense, but anyway reading your post clarified it for me...THANKS!

 

[Andor]

Honestly, I'm not sure where you're getting most of this from. Since you've already taken my comment to mean...that...I'm not sure what me saying anymore to you would really help, you know? So take care, man.

We're getting it from the simple fact that you are looking at a system which appears to be easily adaptable and complaining that you do not want it to be adaptable, you want it to exactly reflect your own prejudices. If you don't know where I'm getting this it is from: But they haven't provided the option. If they had provided options, I could say, "Hmm, I like that one, I'm going to use that one in my campaign" and be done with it.

But instead, they've provided the standard. And since that's the standard, if I want to do something differently, I've got to do the work. If I want tables for random treasure, I've gotta make them for my game. If I want fewer slots, I've got to house rule them and communicate those to my players. If I use published adventures, I have to modify them."

That seems to me to state very clearly that you know you can adapt the rules to your own playstyle, you just don't want to. You'd rather everyone else do the work to adapt from your style. Some of the rest of us are okay with concept of the happy compromise.

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.

I don't think your presumption follows at all there. It's like argueing that because men only have two hands no one would ever own more than 2 guns. Most shooters I know own several.

If your problem is really with the existance of a magic system which allows magic items to be easily produced than you should address that directly, because I think limiting application in order to limit supply is perhaps not the most efficient way to reach your goal.

You might want to take a look at Earthdawn. In that system most magic items are not manufactured per se, rather they aquire powers as their legend grows. A sword made by a wizard? Big deal, dime a dozen. But the sword that slew the great blue dragon Valhuuzichik? The blade that pierced the heart of the demon of the bloody crossroads? Now you're talking...

 

[Ahglock]

Especially since Mike Mearls explicitly that the math behind the monsters only takes the weapon, armor, and cloak into account - Monster Manual monsters have been tested for their difficulty against a character who is otherwise naked.

And that is the only thing I take issue with. I never had a Christmas tree problem, sure maybe they looked like one but no one cared and they had fun, so 9 item s, 12 items whatever. But saying monsters are balanced around these 3 items, oh yeah you can have 9 items seems silly. If the other 6 items were pure non-combat items it wouldn't throw off that 3 item balance thing, but they do have combat effects just not a +X to your combat stat type effects on combat. So in effect there 3 item balance thing is thrown off from the get go. It is not a huge issue because it basically puts the DM back where he always is, with a crappy CR system.

Its just a silly statement, monster Manuel monsters are tested against something you wont see in the game a PC with just these 3 items.