New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

First I think combat will last long enough to see a difference between /encounter and /at will. It is also mentioned in races and classes, that at least for mages, per encounter abilities are the main weapons. per day are for special situations and at will abilities are as reserve. (fighters at will powers seem a bit stronger though)

second I share your concerns, that splatbooks will once again imbalance the game, but this time I see a big difference: hopefully, the balance between classes and weapons and the math for multiclassing and attack vs armor etc is correct. So splatbooks are not needed as fixes for those things, so you can run the game without those books. (it was not that bad in 3.x if you constantly reminded your players not to specialize too much in single skills/combat options) And every splatbook with fixes opened new room for exploits :/

last: the core books set standarts: there are only two races of elves, player character races should be of equal power, only primary slots can have magical +X. Sure, some books will begin to make exceptions, but here the DM can easily say "stop".

 

[Stogoe]

No, here's what YOU don't get.

There are only three numerical bonuses in the entire realm of magical items. Three only, and no stacking.

The rest of them are "Walk on walls for one encounter per day" or "Breathe water for one encounter per day" or "The Gauntlets of Ogre Strength give you a double damage maneuver that you could use instead of your class maneuvers." More options, and not making your numbers bigger.

I suggest you go back and actually read the Design & Dev article before you try to join the discussion.

And 'gear up'? 'Gear up'? This simple, naive statement opens a whole can of worms about the (non)existence of magic shops and how many items your particular DM gives out. I'm not even going to touch that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

No DM in his right mind allows his players to gain access to all those pretty items. IF they happen to find items which combine very well, and they realize how to use them in the right situation, the players deserve to have an easier encounter.

If all encounters are equally difficult no mater how well equipped they are, then something is actually wrong with the math. A certain standard must be chosen, or do you like entries in the monster manual like this (in 3.x terms): CR 15. +5 if in antimagic zone, -3 if players have item x, -2 if players have item z, +1 if a mage is in party, -5 if enemy is an elf. Halflings may jump on it and kill it immediately -> CR -15

 

[Sadrik]

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.

I doubt it will be as binary as: give bonus/not give bonus.

 

[Kraydak]

No, here's what YOU don't get.

There are only three numerical bonuses in the entire realm of magical items. Three only, and no stacking.

The rest of them are "Walk on walls for one encounter per day" or "Breathe water for one encounter per day" or "The Gauntlets of Ogre Strength give you a double damage maneuver that you could use instead of your class maneuvers." More options, and not making your numbers bigger.

I suggest you go back and actually read the Design & Dev article before you try to join the discussion.

And 'gear up'? 'Gear up'? This simple, naive statement opens a whole can of worms about the (non)existence of magic shops and how many items your particular DM gives out. I'm not even going to touch that.

We have seen comments about Flying Carpets. This means that there will be people who can't fly, and can afford magic items that let them fly. If flying is at all reasonably available, flying is not optional. Flying is that powerful. A lot of mobility items are nice, but not needed until you hit a critical mass of people who have that form of mobility, at which point they become required because you *assume* you have the tactical flexibility that they grant.

 

[Remathilis]

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."

Well if any new option is > not having an option, then yes.

If having a situational benefit =/= having a permanent benefit, then no.

Imagine back to 3.5. Which would you rather have?

a. )Gauntlets of Arrow Snaring: 2/day use snatch arrows feat (4,000 gp)
b.) Gloves of Dexterity: +2 to dexterity score (4,000 gp)
c.) No Glove Slot Filled

A and B are clearly better than C, since both grant a tangible benefit to the wearer. In most games, B > than A, since the ability to grab (and thus stop) a nonmagical projectile twice in a day is not equal to a +1 AC, +1 reflex save, +1 dex-based skill checks, +1 initiative, and +1 ranged attacks.

Now, in a hypothetical situation where two PCs (each wearing a set of appropriate gloves) come under missile fire from some gnoll archers. The first PC (a) uses his two charges to completely negate two separate non-20 arrow attacks. After that, he's done, and those gauntlets become equal to Option C (none). The second PC's gloves are only granting him a minor bonus (+1) to his AC against the arrows, but this minor bonus persists the entire encounter (assuming the gnolls are not defeated in two rounds, the net benefit of a +1 to AC begins to improve over negating two whole attacks for every round after the second). Furthermore, his bonus extends to his initiative roll to act against the gnolls and his ranged attacks to return fire.

Now, on the second round, a gnoll jumps into melee. PC A still has a snatch arrow charge, but against the gnolls battle axe, its useless (equal to option C), while PC be is still grooving on that +1 to AC vs. that gnoll in melee.

This was the dilemma facing a 3.5 character. Nobody ever said "I don't want magic gloves, they make my hand's chafe". They said "why should I buy/make/acquire a set of gauntlets that grant me a limited benefit in a limited situation when I can have a set of gloves that grant me a bonus over a huge amount of rolls for as long as I wear them?" Fourth has removed option b from the equation (by regulating things like AC bonuses to armor and ranged atk bonuses to weapons) so you now get options A and C. A is useful against those gnoll archers for two rounds (and is certainly doing better than a PC with no gauntlets) but after two rounds (and against the melee gnoll) options A and C are equal.

That is the balancing factor: limited uses, limited situations. In a situation where having the magical item is useful (such as negating the gnoll archer's arrows) its nice to have. When dealing with a situation where the item no longer works (two uses) or is ineffectual (melee gnoll) its not any better than having nothing at all.

 

[Corinth]

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.

The ability to act in a manner that provides an advantage that your foe doesn't have, to take away your foe's advantage, or to change the fight entirely is nothing short of fundamental to a successful adventurer's operation. Items do this, and that means that they can be--and will be--collected and hot-swapped as required to meet current conditions.

 

[Corinth]

And 'gear up'? 'Gear up'? This simple, naive statement opens a whole can of worms about the (non)existence of magic shops and how many items your particular DM gives out. I'm not even going to touch that.

Players can still have their PCs craft items. Trade for items will remain legal. That removes the control over gearing up from the DM's hands and puts it into the players' hands. It also makes gear expendable and replaceable for everything short of an artifact. Welcome to August 2000.

 

[Thaniel]

I'm seeing a lot of ranting about the "No rings below Paragon level" tidbit of info we've received. Has it not occurred to the detractors (and I'm guessing it hasn't) that the reason 'Heroic' characters can't use rings is because rings (and all rings) have magic inherently tied to powers that aren't usable before Paragon level?

For example, let's take a hypothetical Magic Ring (in 3.Xe) that doubles the damage bonus granted by Improved Weapon Specialization. To a 6th level fighter, that ring is absolutely worthless. The "No rings below Paragon level" doesn't say that the character can't WEAR the ring. That would be a hard trick to pull off. It merely means that they get no benefit from it, similar to our hypothetical ring.

 

[Remathilis]

Players can still have their PCs craft items. Trade for items will remain legal. That removes the control over gearing up from the DM's hands and puts it into the players' hands. It also makes gear expendable and replaceable for everything short of an artifact. Welcome to August 2000.

I remember wizards crafting magical items in 2e (High Level Campaigns) and we've been trading magical items since BECMI (+1 full plate for a ring of fire resistance? sold!)

Welcome to 1989.