New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.

The big six weren't ability boosters. They were, IIRC, the magic armor (and shields), Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, magic weapon, Cloak of Resistance and stat-boosting items. It didn't always amount to six for each character; a fighter could use all but one of those (Con-boosting items and Cloaks of Resistance took up the same slot).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

ok, thx for clarification!

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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.

Personally, I despise magic shops. But if 4E wants them, it's possible to make it so they don't break the system.

For example: make Miscellaneous Six so low-priced that you can't trade them in for the Big Three. The Leprechaun Pipe sells for 50 GP, and you need 5,000 GP for the +1 armor.

And the Big Three need such limited availability that Heroic-tier PCs can't just buy their way to more valuable items than they should have at their level. Perhaps the only people who would have Paragon-tier items to sell are in the capital city, which is a journey the PCs won't be able to make until they're Paragon-tier.

While the DM can try to control how much gold the PCs have, that just isn't possible in any world with a degree of freedom for the PCs. The PCs can always choose to raid the caravan they're supposed to be guarding, or try to steal back the money they paid to the armorer. Limiting what the PCs can do with that money is a far better solution. That's why 3E's assumption of a magic shop in every village was such a disaster, and why BECMI never had that problem IME. You had a lot of money in BECMI? You might buy a ship and hire a crew to go explore The Savage Coast. Or you might save up to build a castle. But the game was clear that there were no magic shops.

 

[glass]

But instead, they've provided the standard.

This, you have said repeatedly. Despite the fact one example character is in no way evidence of what the standard is (or even if there is a standard!). Everything else they have said indicates that for secondary items, at least, there is no standard.


glass.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Personally, I despise magic shops. But if 4E wants them, it's possible to make it so they don't break the system.

For example: make Miscellaneous Six so low-priced that you can't trade them in for the Big Three. The Leprechaun Pipe sells for 50 GP, and you need 5,000 GP for the +1 armor.

I'm not sure that solves the problem. It just means the players will be as attentive (and dependent) on looting 50 gp Leprechaun Pipes as they (currently) are about 50 gp gems.

You get the behavior you reward for: If there is a reward for looting, PCs will loot.

If there were no Item Creation feats and no demand for gold pieces to drive that mechanic, the players would not care one whit whether or not the goblins they just vanquished had 2d6 gold pieces each.

Of course the classic treasure hoard is an important part of the game, but I'd prefer that it was a story element rather than simply a path to upgrading the Big Six (Big Three).

Limiting what the PCs can do with that money is a far better solution. That's why 3E's assumption of a magic shop in every village was such a disaster, and why BECMI never had that problem IME. You had a lot of money in BECMI? You might buy a ship and hire a crew to go explore The Savage Coast. Or you might save up to build a castle. But the game was clear that there were no magic shops.

Could not agree more. This, to me, is the best solution (although perhaps not a popular one). PCs should not be money driven-- that is, there should be no direct connection between money and mechanics. I would much rather that PCs were adventure driven.

Of course it is important to find something for the PCs to do with their money-- that is, assuming it is important to your players that they ever find any money-- but it is imperative to sever the connection between money and mechanics.

I am hoping that the Item Creation Rituals are much more adventure driven (and I strongly expect they will be).

 

[Professor Phobos]

This is why I like Reign so much. It offers a mechanical reward for losing your money in-between adventures for whatever reason, simulating the "eternally poor" band of traveling adventurers in fiction.

 

[Remathilis]

Limiting what the PCs can do with that money is a far better solution. That's why 3E's assumption of a magic shop in every village was such a disaster, and why BECMI never had that problem IME. You had a lot of money in BECMI? You might buy a ship and hire a crew to go explore The Savage Coast. Or you might save up to build a castle. But the game was clear that there were no magic shops.

Ok, but what if your character has no interest in settling down into a castle or buying a boat and exploring foreign lands? What if he's perfectly happy to continue to wander, explore, and stay close to "home". What if the DM's campaign doesn't allow for or hasn't room for landed PCs or "lets go sail to the savage coast" games?

I played a game in the Hollow World, where magic, even civilization is rare, but treasure is kinda plentiful. I had bags of gold, an entire collection of magical swords and axes (who needs that stuff when you have blackrazor? ) and absolutely nothing to spend/use it on except my own upkeep. We often started "ruining" local economies by dumping excess magical junk and gold at the local shaman's to allow for trade, commerce and war. The DM was less than amused, but what could we do?

While I personally don't like the idea of "Ye Olde Magik Shoppe" in every village, I do think there would be a viable buy/sell/trade market for magic and I was was happy to see 3e support it (in principle). However, in execution, it left much to be desired.

 

[Belorin]

Magic Items
Posted By: WotC_Logan, 10/15/2007 5:27:39 PM


I'm working on magic items right now. A previous version of the rules had magic items that were just too complex and too numerous, so we're stripping off a couple layers of complexity. You won't be a magic item Christmas tree any more, but you might be a Christmas shrub or a Charlie Brown Christmas tree.

The items are generally focused on one thing to keep players from forgetting what the items do. We don't want too many conditionals, nor do we want effects that fight for the same ground as powers. In 3.5, if a fighter had a magic item with an activated effect, it was easier to remember and use because he didn't also have powers.

Though we're still working on magic items, the really cool parts of items are alread done, in a sense. We've removed or changed items like headband of intellect and ring of protection so they're no longer required just to get the numbers you need. The items like that that are still around fill just a few slots. We've also gotten rid of the need for tons of expendable items. They'll still be around, but you'll no longer need to buy a wand of cure light wounds every adventure.

From Logan Bonner's blog at WotC.

One of the biggest discrepancies I think people make is when talking about any 4E article is that they use 3.x items, monsters, etc as a comparison for what ever the article is about. Which is why I searched out LB's blog, it states that magic items have been reworked, so even if an item has the same name as one in 3.x it may not function the same. Example, rings, rings are now restricted to use of one at paragon tier and two at epic, why?
It could be that rings have now been patterned after the Rings of Power from Tolkien or mythology and folklore or they may have just removed items that duplicate spells, powers or other magic items.

Bel

 

[GlassJaw]

I've gone through most of this thread but I might have missed if this statement was discussed (from the front page):

Just give PCs steadily increasing, additional bonuses to their AC, saving throws, and attack and damage, directly proportionate to the enhancement bonus they're "expected" to get, and eliminate the enhancement bonus those items provide.

To which Mike Mearls responds:

Yup, that's pretty much the intent. We went out of our way to embrace transparency in the rules, to better help DMs understand how magic items interact with PCs, how they interact with the system math, and what happens when you start to change things.

His answer was a little vague but overall, this bothers me somewhat.

If it's understood that the Big 6 caused an arms race/numbers bloat problem, then why replace those "expected" bonuses at all, regardless of their source? I understand why Mike had to do it with Iron Heroes (those classes had to "compete" without magic items) but if you are creating a new scale (i.e. 4E), why keep those sources of bonuses at all? If you are creating a new system, there should be no "expected" bonuses at all. Remove the magic items that were troublesome in 3ed (the Big 6) and but don't replace them with an equivalent bonus from another source.

That just seems like semantics to me.

 

[Lab_Monkey]

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.

I think you've solved your problem in your own post. Swashbuckler type characters could wear magically protected clothing which provide the equivalent of 3e bracers of armor, similar to the wizard's magic robes. Same goes for the fighter that wants to carry only a sword and shield.

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.

The difference here is that +3 armor and a +2 shield are far cheaper (and therefore can be attained at an earlier level) than +5 armor. Add that to inexpensive items that stack like a ring of protection and an amulet of natural armor and you've recreated the christmas tree effect. By siloing defense enhancements into a single item you avoid this problem.