New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[Brother MacLaren]

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?

The complaint is there in Wulf's sig:

There is no such thing as "optional" when it comes to personal power. Those that strive to maximize their character's personal power will be the norm, the standard against which all others compare, and that means that players that fail to fill their character's slots with all of these items--and, at that, the best attainable--shall be penalized for failing to meet this de facto standard of performance.

If they design the "optional" items as so trivial that they don't really increase a PC's power (or, if they all cost actions and the opportunity cost of using them is very high), then it might work. But if items give a significant bonus without a significant cost, they cease to become optional. PCs with them will be much stronger than PCs without them (especially once the right combos are discovered), the DMs must make "level X" monsters tougher, and the baseline shifts.

Having played a druid, I can tell you this: "More Options" DOES equal "More Power." Versatility is powerful.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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

right.

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.

imagine a low magical campaign. Then, when you give out magical items, you give out really great items. (About double of the expected bonuses)

imagine a +4 armor at level 9. If you then face a standard monster which relies on physical attacks, the math still works out. Both of you hit less than expected. This is actually only true in an optimal case, but it is better than when the monster was balanced for no magic at all, because then, no matter how bad the magical item is, it gets unfair.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Having played a druid, I can tell you this: "More Options" DOES equal "More Power." Versatility is powerful.

But mostly because it leaves more room for creativity. And this is a design goal i can live with. The problem of the "big 6": they eliminated all creativity.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If they design the "optional" items as so trivial that they don't really increase a PC's power (or, if they all cost actions and the opportunity cost of using them is very high), then it might work.

No, it won't work-- at least, not if there is still a trade in magic items.

If Fred the Fighter finds a suit of +1 armor, and Bob the Bard finds a pipe full of magical tobacco that lets him summon forth a leprechaun 3/day to entertain him with ribald limericks, and the monsters are balanced with Big Three built in, then Bob is a goddamned fool if he doesn't sell his magic pipe at the first possible opportunity and buy himself a +1 chain shirt.

But mostly because it leaves more room for creativity. And this is a design goal i can live with. The problem of the "big 6" eliminated all creativity.

It seems the designers share this pollyanna attitude about the playerbase. But in the real world, players don't want creativity if there is a path to power.

Anecdotally, yes. In your campaign, sure. But in the giant, brutal, ruthless crucible of the players at large, no. That is the lesson proved by the Big Six/Item Creation.

 

[Andor]

No, it won't work-- at least, not if there is still a trade in magic items.

If Fred the Fighter finds a suit of +1 armor, and Bob the Bard finds a pipe full of magical tobacco that lets him summon forth a leprechaun 3/day to entertain him with ribald limericks, and the monsters are balanced with Big Three built in, then Bob is a goddamned fool if he doesn't sell his magic pipe at the first possible opportunity and buy himself a +1 chain shirt.



It seems the designers share this pollyanna attitude about the playerbase. But in the real world, players don't want creativity if there is a path to power.

Anecdotally, yes. In your campaign, sure. But in the giant, brutal, ruthless crucible of the players at large, no. That is the lesson proved by the Big Six/Item Creation.

I don't think I understand your point. In a game where standard access is given to magic items players will aquire the core 3 and be roughly balanced with each other.

In a corner caser light magic campaign the PCs will not have access to the core 3 and will be weaker in comparison to PCs who... are in a different campaign? Not sure how relevant that is. They will also be computably weaker than the monsters in a standard encounter which the GM can compensate for by A) Handing out non magic bonuses that just happen to fill the void left by the missing big 3, B) Weakening the encounters, C) Providing more healing or D) Nothing and the the PCs whine a lot.

I don't see any of this being a symptom of poor design. Am I missing something?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And i am glad, the rules suport some creativity over power.

And as a DM, you can encourage your players to be creative. The problem of 3.x is:
you can´t be consistent, since some items are essential.

 

[AllisterH]

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:



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.

Ah I see. My reading of Mearls post was that he was talking about the SECONDARY magic items and not the primary.

You were assuming that 4E would eliminate the NEED for ALL magic items. A valid idea though but which wouldn't be possible as long as there were +1 items and which I don't think WOTC was talking about. WOTC did say we were getting a shrub instead of a tree since last year.

I do see it as a good thing and a vast improvement that we have dropped from the big six (which even then, didn't apply to all classes) to the big three.

As for the optional secondary items being too powerful, I have asked a couple times posters worried about it to point out which items in the 3.5E Magic Item Compendium become the next "MUST HAVEs" based on the 4E rules.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I also would prefer not to call them big three. The "big six" (i hope we were speaing about the stat boosters) were eliminated, and the big three are even a less important than the old AC, attack and Saving throw boosting items.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As for the optional secondary items being too powerful, I have asked a couple times posters worried about it to point out which items in the 3.5E Magic Item Compendium become the next "MUST HAVEs" based on the 4E rules.

That seems like a bit of a silly question, to me, isn't that like asking which items from oWoD are likely to be problems in nWoD? I mean, quite possibly the answer is "none", but that it no way means that new items won't cause problems, does it? So why are you asking that question?

 

[AllisterH]

That seems like a bit of a silly question, to me, isn't that like asking which items from oWoD are likely to be problems in nWoD? I mean, quite possibly the answer is "none", but that it no way means that new items won't cause problems, does it? So why are you asking that question?

Not necessarily since we can see the "effects" which might be unbalancing. I'm one of those DMs that likes to head things off of the pass.

For example, with the arms slot in 4E replacing the shield/arms slot of 3.5, what effects previously seen as "not worth it" become "must haves".

An example is Flight. In the Magic Item Compendium, there are two Feet items that give Flight. The Winged Boots at 16K and the Cloudwalker Ankelets at 50K and for most campaigns I imagine, the Winged Boots are good enough.

However, as mentioned before, Flight doesn't change the combat math, but it does change the number of options which in a way does give more power which isn't as easily calculated.

Another example would be the Belt of Battle. In the Action Economy charwoman gene pointed out we have in 4E, Belts of Battle look like a must have (or at least, a heavily picked one).