New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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.

The impression I get is that the intent with the non-'big 3' items is that their combat usefulness ranges from very minor/situational to non-existent (utility).

 

[Lenaianel]

the charater in the article have these magic item (not counting the big 3)

Bracers of the perfect shot
Wavestrider boots
Shadowfell gloves
Diadem of acuity
Belt of battle
Bag of holding

Do these items make an encounter easier : yes probably for some of them
Do these items make an encounter unfair (as too easy for the character) : i don't think so

Looking througt the magic item compendium we can try to see how powerful these items are

Bracers of the perfect shot compare to Bracers of accuracy (Lvl8 item)(3charges a day , 1 charge : ignore Cover (except total), 2 charges : ignore concealment (except total), 3 charges : ignore cover and concealment (except total) . Useful but you can go without

Wawestrider boots : assuming some sort of water related movement power it's situational : can go without

Shadowfell gloves :compare to Gauntlets of ghost fighting (lvl8 item) : ignore incorporeal miss chace, +1d6 damage against incorporeal creatures : useful but situational

Diadem of acuity : : probably perception bonuses of some sort (initaitive bonus maybe) : i can't tell

Belt of battle : : lvl 13 item : +2 to initiative, 3 charges/day , 1 charge : extra move action, 2 charges : extra standard action, 3 charges : extra full round action : Useful, even very useful but that item could have been toned down (it would be a 20th level item in 4E)

Bag of holding : nothing to say


None of these items seems powerful enought to change the odds in a fair encounter.

Comments ?

 

[Rallek]

I don't think that the concern is that any given item is too powerful, but rather that certain items will "combine" in a way that is overly beneficial to a particular class/build. When I say "overly beneficial" what I mean is that a build using items with the proper synergistic abilities will be notably more powerful than that same build without. As splat books hit the market, and the number and variety of "optional" magic items expands, this will almost certainly be the case. Consider an "archer" build with items of the following type/ability. (I assume that these are times per day or times per encounter effects)


Boots: allow spiderclimb or levitation
Bracers: allow a ranged weapon to "autocrit"
Gloves: ignore some kind of miss chance
Belt: allow an extra move action
Headband: reduces range-to-hit penalties


Now some of that can be said to be situational, but there is no doubt that in a large number of common scenarios an archer with those items (in addition to the mathematically assumed weapon/armor/cloak) would perform much better than an archer without them. So while the assumptions may not be built into the math, there are (or rather, will be) combinations that are advantageous enough for given "builds" that PCs will feel the need to have them all, or a variation of them. We have heard from the developers that the "core" books assume the "big 3" magic items and nothing else. Now the question becomes that once "ideal" combinations of extra magic items come about, will supplements begin to assume that every archer has an uber boots-belt-glove combo, and design encounters with that as the new assumed standard?

 

[Lenaianel]

Seeing how items are designed in the Magix Item Compendium (and assuming 4E follow that design) i believe most of that sort of "crazy combo" would be a 1 or 2 /day occurance

 

[Rallek]

I'm not so sure. The developers have been pretty vocal about making the encounter the base unit of play, that leads me to believe that there will be more 1/encounter abilities as opposed to 1/day abilities. I could be wrong about that, but that is the general impression I am left with at this point.


As far as my feelings about the synergistic potential for optional magic items goes, well I'm using the past to predict the future. I saw what happened with splat books released by WoTC and 3rd parties in 3.Xe, and I'm going to assume that those same general trends will likely occur in 4e. This leads me to believe that very soon there will be "optional" magic items that badly distort the math. I also think that we are one "Complete Role" supplements away from a feet that boosts your use of per encounter abilities. There has been a great deal of talk about 4e making combat faster and smoother to run. Based on the various bits and pieces we've seen, I think this translates directly into setting up PCs, NPCs, and Monsters in such a way as to limit the number of rounds that combat lasts. When combat is sufficiently "short", there isn't much distinction between a 3/encounter ability and an at will ability.



These are simply my concerns about potential issues. It could all run like a swiss watch... then again it could very easily not. You seem to lean towards the former opinion, whereas I seem to lean towards the latter. Time will tell.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I don't think that the concern is that any given item is too powerful, but rather that certain items will "combine" in a way that is overly beneficial to a particular class/build. When I say "overly beneficial" what I mean is that a build using items with the proper synergistic abilities will be notably more powerful than that same build without. As splat books hit the market, and the number and variety of "optional" magic items expands, this will almost certainly be the case. Consider an "archer" build with items of the following type/ability. (I assume that these are times per day or times per encounter effects)


Boots: allow spiderclimb or levitation
Bracers: allow a ranged weapon to "autocrit"
Gloves: ignore some kind of miss chance
Belt: allow an extra move action
Headband: reduces range-to-hit penalties


Now some of that can be said to be situational, but there is no doubt that in a large number of common scenarios an archer with those items (in addition to the mathematically assumed weapon/armor/cloak) would perform much better than an archer without them. So while the assumptions may not be built into the math, there are (or rather, will be) combinations that are advantageous enough for given "builds" that PCs will feel the need to have them all, or a variation of them. We have heard from the developers that the "core" books assume the "big 3" magic items and nothing else. Now the question becomes that once "ideal" combinations of extra magic items come about, will supplements begin to assume that every archer has an uber boots-belt-glove combo, and design encounters with that as the new assumed standard?

Except, I have a feeling that you won't be able to use all of these items simultaneously. Many Magic Item Compendium items have charges/use per day, which has a two-fold effect: limits how many actions benefit from the power (obviously), and require an action to activate.

Both of these features will reduce especially synergistic combos of items from being auto-kill all the time, because you can't use them all the time or all at the same time. Also, it may mean a choice between activating a cool class feature or using a magic item. Opportunity cost seems to be another "under the hood" design principle of the new edition.

My only hope is that the DMG spells out these design principles for DM's creating items, and especially for 3rd party publishers who are adding them in their products. Comments along these lines about rules transparency being added to the game are very encouraging.

 

[Corinth]

Originally Posted by mearls
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.

/facepalm

This? It will fail, and it won't be pretty. No one in their right mind fails to gear up as best they can, so I fully expect properly-geared PCs to ROFL-stomp such encounters. It's this sort of thinking that makes me wonder what's going on at WOTC HQ, and if they really are paying attention to what's actually happening in the gaming world.

 

[Benimoto]

/facepalm

This? It will fail, and it won't be pretty. No one in their right mind fails to gear up as best they can, so I fully expect properly-geared PCs to ROFL-stomp such encounters. It's this sort of thinking that makes me wonder what's going on at WOTC HQ, and if they really are paying attention to what's actually happening in the gaming world.

Well considering they've been running playtests where at least one character has all but one available slot filled with an item, I think they understand that. I think their idea is that even the best available gear will not allow you to ROFL-stomp encounters. It may make some encounters easier, but since the gear is situational, unless you have the perfect set of gear for every available situation, you won't have that large of an advantage.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Looking through the 3.5 Monster Manual, I still roll my eyes at the pathetic ACs and HP of some of the mid-high level creatures, especially compared to the later Monster Manuals, where presumable the designers had a better idea of what dedicated minmaxers could do.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

No one in their right mind fails to gear up as best they can, so I fully expect properly-geared PCs to ROFL-stomp such encounters.

It's this kind of thinking that makes me wonder what is going on in the minds of the 4e bashers.

4e Magic Items don't give numerical bonuses (Except for the special 3). They give neat actions that swap in for other powers in the action economy. They don't add on, they replace something else.

 

[Bishmon]

4e Magic Items don't give numerical bonuses (Except for the special 3). They give neat actions that swap in for other powers in the action economy. They don't add on, they replace something else.

And if those new options are clearly better than that character's previous options?

It's not quite as black-and-white as "Since there's no numerical bonuses, they'll be fine and won't have much of an impact."