New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[Lord Sessadore]

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.

This is, of course, my opinion based on the information we've been provided - I think you're thinking these secondary items are much more powerful than WotC is designing them.

My extrapolation from the way they've been talking about magic items and their seeming attitude toward the game is that they might give you a minor advantage in a specific situation, or a nice advantage for one encounter once a day.

I don't think there will be any items that have the ability to "change the fight entirely" - at least not beyond the opponent's ability to counter. I'm assuming you're talking about flight here (and, in any case, it's the easiest example to think of). It appears that flight will be a much more high-powered capability than it was in 3.X, and I think this is true of many abilities associated with spellcasting. Their article on magic item levels said that flying carpets were 18th level. Just about Epic, and judging by the rest of their magic items talk, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a limit on the amount of time it could be airborne in a day, meaning you couldn't fly in every encounter. Of course, we don't know if that number is solid or not, but I think I've made my point. As far as I can see, you're exaggerating the potential of these secondary items.

~LS

 

[Voss]

I think he's spot on. A +1 or +2 bonus (or even higher) can be negligible compared to some of the options that can come in through the secondary items, particularly when they are interacting with other game elements. And WotC has a long history of missing the subtle interactions.

Think about items like metamagic rods, and the complete debacle that is the humble Nightstick, or the Amulet of Throwing Giant Scorpions around. No enhancement bonuses to be seen, but they make a huge difference or help break the game entirely. And yeah, I know they aren't the answer to everything, but they blow some encounters and situations right out of the water.

 

[AllisterH]

I think he's spot on. A +1 or +2 bonus (or even higher) can be negligible compared to some of the options that can come in through the secondary items, particularly when they are interacting with other game elements. And WotC has a long history of missing the subtle interactions.

Think about items like metamagic rods, and the complete debacle that is the humble Nightstick, or the Amulet of Throwing Giant Scorpions around. No enhancement bonuses to be seen, but they make a huge difference or help break the game entirely. And yeah, I know they aren't the answer to everything, but they blow some encounters and situations right out of the water.

It should be noted that the first two issues deal with increasing the power of magic spells, which already were the most powerful, versatile effects in the game. WOTC has said that 4E _HAS_ taken a nerf bat to this though....

Well, I have a thread on this but I can also ask it here. We've been talking theoretical but let's look at the possible options.

Assuming you were using the Magic Item Compendium, but had to follow the rules of 4E, what would be the most powerful set of secondary items a person could wear? What's the best set of gear a person with half that money could wear?

For example, in the arms category, the best a character could have is either the Bracers of Dawn or the Overbearing Shield.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

No DM in his right mind allows his players to gain access to all those pretty items.

You do realize that you've essentially stated that no DM in his right mind would play 3e.

Because this is the most significant flaw with 3e when it comes to magic items: Item Creation and the ability to trade in magic 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.

And this is the problem with the Big Six. Not that they ever existed in 3e, simply that the designers did not anticipate (for whatever reason) that players would zero in on those six items as the best possible place to focus their resources. It was not anticipated that players would all have the Big Six constantly enchanted to a bonus appropriate for their level.

The Big Six in brutally efficient combination broke the 3e math, and it was Item Creation and the trade in magic items that got them there.

If all encounters are equally difficult no mater how well equipped they are, then something is actually wrong with the math.

I remain highly skeptical that the math is "fixed," despite only having three "+" items. The example we saw showed some +2 items in the hands of 9th level character, and everyone says, "Oh, sure, that makes sense. I could live without a +2 bonus. A character with no items can hang with a character with items."

What of the +5 items? It doesn't much matter what you do with the math, a +5 bonus on a 1d20 is not irrelevant to the outcome.

If one fighter has a +5 sword and +5 armor and the other does not, the math is not fixed.

It seems to me that the game is "fixed" only in the sense that the DM could have a campaign with magic items or without, and it's equally balanced-- but that's mostly true of 3e already. "Everyone sucks!" is certainly balanced-- the math works just fine.

It certainly doesn't appear to be the case that within a given 4e campaign, two different characters could have a different baseline of gear and the "math still works."

 

[broghammerj]

I'll throw out a few thoughts which may differ from much of this thread (I did read 16 pages..ugh)

By tying the +'s to specific spots you really can limit some character concepts. What if I want to make a swashbuckler type character who doesn't wear armor? No more bracers of defense really hurts him. Or perhaps an unarmored fighter who simply wields a longsword and shield? To make the concept playable, his shield certainly needs a defense bonus. We haven't seen if there are benefits for some classes for being unarmored. Wizards are addressed in that their robes can be "armor", but there are a lot of other non-armored characters around.

Who really cares if there is stacking as long as it's limited to +5.....Why is leather armor +3 and a magic shield +2 so dangerous? Achieves the same goal, but isn't so limiting.

Ring level restrictions....I'll echo what a lot of others have said. Seems pretty arbitrary. The previous poster who brought up the ring of warmth is spot on for a great ring for heroic level characters. Heck I would even argue that all body slots should have some items restricted or at least suggested for paragon and epic level characters. Why can't there be a super powerful belt that only and epic character can wear?

I agreed with many that DnD is defined by having +1 swords, but the more I think about it the more we should think out of the box. Would you really complain if you had a sword which was a flame tongue at heroic, allowed fire resistance at paragon, and allowed you to transform into a fire elemental 1/day as an epic character. The +1 sword would be left in the dungeon.

Lastly, as Jester said. Function should take precedent over body slots. You may like boots of speed but perhaps I like a similar concept of cheetah leather armor. Either way we could be restricted to one movement item.

 

[broghammerj]

Because this is the most significant flaw with 3e when it comes to magic items: Item Creation and the ability to trade in magic items.

Do we know item creation is limited in 4E? It may be appropriate for a 9th level character to have a +2 sword, but nothing will stop a character from purchasing or creating a +5 items ASAP.

The only way I could see this being prevented is limiting the PC from what could be wielded by level. Many that have already cried that ring restrictions are gamist or MMORPG-like would be unhappy. I would be cool with the concept

 

[AllisterH]

.

It certainly doesn't appear to be the case that within a given 4e campaign, two different characters could have a different baseline of gear and the "math still works."

Hmm?

The article explicitly states that you must have the primary 3 for your level and the secondary is all optional. Unless I'm reading it wrong, what WOTC is saying is that,
Level X characters must have 3 items, everything else is optional.

What exactly is your complaint?

re: Item slot restrictions.

I think they did this to make an endrun around future supplements. If you allow function to top form, you could end up with the same problem as 3.5 later supplements that introduced new types of bonuses.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Do we know item creation is limited in 4E? It may be appropriate for a 9th level character to have a +2 sword, but nothing will stop a character from purchasing or creating a +5 items ASAP.

The only way I could see this being prevented is limiting the PC from what could be wielded by level. Many that have already cried that ring restrictions are gamist or MMORPG-like would be unhappy. I would be cool with the concept

I think we already know that Item Creation exists, but is limited to Rituals-- but we don't know what those are.

With regards to the trade in magic items, we can extrapolate some things from the default "Points of Light" setting, but we don't know for sure.

The bottom line is quite simply this:

If it is in any way possible to purchase or create magic items, players are still going to be inclined (some say "required") to loot everything that isn't nailed down in order to afford to consistently maintain their BIG THREE at whatever enhancement bonus is appropriate for their current level.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You do realize that you've essentially stated that no DM in his right mind would play 3e.

Because this is the most significant flaw with 3e when it comes to magic items: Item Creation and the ability to trade in magic items.

this is my biggest grief with 3.x

a lot of players i played with began with baldurs gate always expected magic item shops to be everywhere. I was used to magical items beeing rare.

The problem in 3.x is exactly, that I could not easily restrict accessibility because gold + xp = magical item. (No ingredients or manual needed). And without defensive items the math didn´t work at all.

And this is the problem with the Big Six. Not that they ever existed in 3e, simply that the designers did not anticipate (for whatever reason) that players would zero in on those six items as the best possible place to focus their resources. It was not anticipated that players would all have the Big Six constantly enchanted to a bonus appropriate for their level.

actually every high level NSC in the DMG 3.0 had those items. not all of them, but 2 or 3 of them. The Problem of the big six is, that they are good in all situations!

The Big Six in brutally efficient combination broke the 3e math, and it was Item Creation and the trade in magic items that got them there.

yes, and they are out of 4e

I remain highly skeptical that the math is "fixed," despite only having three "+" items. The example we saw showed some +2 items in the hands of 9th level character, and everyone says, "Oh, sure, that makes sense. I could live without a +2 bonus. A character with no items can hang with a character with items."

no, having a +2 armor vs +0 armor can be as much as a 67% damage reduction (criticals not factored in) so that armor is important for the fighters, but if this is the case, the exact same fighter without that armor would only have been hit by 18+

So this armor makes a very good fighter nearly invincible. But for a bad fighter the bonus is not that great.

What of the +5 items? It doesn't much matter what you do with the math, a +5 bonus on a 1d20 is not irrelevant to the outcome.

If one fighter has a +5 sword and +5 armor and the other does not, the math is not fixed.

if you are the only one in the world posessing a sword of that greatness, it should better give you an edge over the rest. otherwise a +5 sword would be senseless. The important fact is, that all other characters can have a fair fight if noone else has magical items, and the one having such a great weapon can really shine.

It seems to me that the game is "fixed" only in the sense that the DM could have a campaign with magic items or without, and it's equally balanced-- but that's mostly true of 3e already. "Everyone sucks!" is certainly balanced-- the math works just fine.

no, even a lvl 20 fighter can easily be hit by a lvl 1 commoner. (not considering combat expertise and fighting defensively and that hp represent dodging in a certain way)

You actually should be able to hit him, but not if he is aware of you. Defense and BAB should go up, and 1/2 per level seems exactly right to me. (look at gleemax, i expected this before R&C came out)

It certainly doesn't appear to be the case that within a given 4e campaign, two different characters could have a different baseline of gear and the "math still works."

no, but that actually should not work. look at any war. Those sides with better equippment mostly won. But then there were always some battles, where the underequipped won because of other circumstances. There is a point in 3.x, where that is no longer true.

You had to be constantly restricting the availability of magical items to the players. Sometimes you could only help yourself by ruling, that most players just don´t know such items exist, but having a bard and a mage with reasonable knowledge skills in the group makes this a bit hard to believe...

And to make it clear: secondary items also should have an impact on encounters, but they should not make all encounters equally easy. "Gearing up" and "buffing" IS a viable option, but it should not be the standard for every encounter. Only on the most important quests!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Hmm?

The article explicitly states that you must have the primary 3 for your level and the secondary is all optional. Unless I'm reading it wrong, what WOTC is saying is that,
Level X characters must have 3 items, everything else is optional.

What exactly is your complaint?

First, I don't have a complaint. I have some observations.

Second, I think we've seen them say consistently that you don't have to have magic items to feel effective. That is true only if there is a campaign standard, confirmed by this:

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.

Setting aside for a moment the case where there is not a campaign standard-- my fighter has +5 sword, armor, and resistance bonus and you don't-- it is curious that the monsters are balanced in a campaign both with +5 items, and without. That math doesn't work out.

If the default setting is balanced around magic items (and we have indications from Mearls that it's so, but that a newbie DM could run a magic-lite campaign with 30 minutes of work...) then there's a problem. If the monsters are balanced around magic items, then not having the new Big Three is sub-optimal.

Sub-optimal play is not the default. The players won't allow it.

While it's certainly true that only having to spend your cash on the Big Three instead of the Big Six is an improvement-- you'll have plenty of money left over for those other magic items they assure us are worthless-- it is my observation that that isn't exactly the fix that a lot of folks were anticipating.