New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[Shroomy]

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.

I think that the designers had to strike a balance between the desires of PCs for magic items that directly impact their abilities and the X-mas Tree/Big 6 effects of 3.x edition. I think that decrease and streamlining of the items is probably the best achievable result given this need.

 

[GlassJaw]

Another thought on the topic of item creation...

Overall, I feel that the arms race/numbers bloat problem isn't caused by item creation itself but the "static plus"/Big 6 items, and specifically, allowing the players to cherry-pick and create these items for themselves.

As Wulf pointed out, players (and humans in general) are always going to choose the easiest path to power. The Big 6 are by far the clear choice.

Removing item creation is certainly a step in the right direction but if you run a campaign of "standard" modules or an Adventure Path, you are still going to have to deal with these items.

I'd rather have a system in which players can create items themselves (but perhaps not as money-based as the 3ed system) but items that exist to solely provide a "plus" be toned down or removed entirely.

To implement this, however, the system would have to be created with this in mind from the ground up. For example, how would 3ed play, especially using published "standard" modules if you suddenly removed all static plus items on both sides - players and the monsters/NPC's?

I think it would work, but most likely not without some extra effort on the DM's part. Regardless, I think it would make for a really cool play experience...

 

[AllisterH]

Another thought on the topic of item creation...

Overall, I feel that the arms race/numbers bloat problem isn't caused by item creation itself but the "static plus"/Big 6 items, and specifically, allowing the players to cherry-pick and create these items for themselves.

As Wulf pointed out, players (and humans in general) are always going to choose the easiest path to power. The Big 6 are by far the clear choice.

Removing item creation is certainly a step in the right direction but if you run a campaign of "standard" modules or an Adventure Path, you are still going to have to deal with these items.

I'd rather have a system in which players can create items themselves (but perhaps not as money-based as the 3ed system) but items that exist to solely provide a "plus" be toned down or removed entirely.

To implement this, however, the system would have to be created with this in mind from the ground up. For example, how would 3ed play, especially using published "standard" modules if you suddenly removed all static plus items on both sides - players and the monsters/NPC's?

I think it would work, but most likely not without some extra effort on the DM's part. Regardless, I think it would make for a really cool play experience...

No, I disagree with both you and Wulf.

It isn't the magic item creation system that is the problem, but the magic spell system itself. Even in the Big 6 era, you could strip a cleric or mage of all of that gear and you wouldn't affect them that much.

Sure, their stamina goes way down, but all those magic effects from items are based on SPELLS which they have access to. The cleric no longer can do 4 encounters per day at the effectiveness of his magic item laden previous self but he probably can manage at least one or two encounters where mechanically, he's exactly equal to his previous self.

This is the main reason why a new edition is needed since once you touch the magic system itself, the ENTIRE system changes and buckles.

 

[broghammerj]

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.

Well, we really don't know if there is a mechanic to enchant clothing. Robes may be special. If clothing can be enchanted here comes my magical cod piece.

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.

Well, cheaper is relative to creation rules in 3.5. We don't know if those rules will be similar for 4E. I am not a game designer but I am sure if I got paid for it I could come up with a system to reflect cost increasing for each plus. Say when a shield or armor is created it must be attuned to the wearer by a mage for a cost which increases exponentially with each plus. Perhaps even found items must be attuned to the wearer. This would prevent dead PCs from being looted by their companions because the item would be too expensive for others to equip. Using this mechanic, it could even prevent a heroic characters from wielding a +5 sword. Carry more items than +5 the effect cancels one another out resulting in only a total +5 bonus.

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.

If you read my original post I said you can't stack items past a +5. Carry all the +5 suits of armor, amulets of natural armor, and ring of protections you want.....you still only get +5.

 

[pemerton]

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

<snip pithy example>

But in the real world, players don't want creativity if there is a path to power.

Wulf, first I should not that, as with some other posters, I think you have misread Mearls a little bit.

He is saying (i) that the Big Three are assumed, but there mathematical contribution is simple enough that you can take them out and add the numbers back in as inherent level bonuses. This doesn't make room for variable item ownership across a party, but (together with Wizard implements, Holy Symbols etc) it does mean that Fighters and spell-users are no different in terms of item dependence.

He is also saying (ii) that having secondary items does increase power, but it does so by increasing the power suite for a character, rather than making the numbers of their existing powers bigger. So such items don't affect the game to the same extent as the Big Three.

Now turning to the issue of buying and sellilng: assuming that (i) and (ii) above are true, players will do their best to get access to the best of the Big Three that they can get. Their hunger for secondaries might be less, if the sorts of abilities one gets from buying mundane equipment can also enhance the power suite (eg does having a castle and steward, or blowing money by living the high life, give rerolls in some categories of social challenge?).

So how to control Big Three access? My prediction is not that they will necessarily abolish magic item creation and trade, but that in some fashion access to items will be level-capped (the new rule for Rings is evidence of a general trend in this direction). Such a cap could be imposed by the Ritual rules, by putting magic item shops on other planes (a version of the Paragon-level capital city idea of a post above), etc.

In this case there would be no need for wealth-by-level guidelines either.

 

[AllisterH]

If you read my original post I said you can't stack items past a +5. Carry all the +5 suits of armor, amulets of natural armor, and ring of protections you want.....you still only get +5.

Not really and I'll use your example. The problem is that Armour Class is actually calculated from different sources as were Saves.

An amulet of natural armour increases your natural armour class by 4 but then you give the player a pair of ring of protection +5. So it raises the question of why my armour class can't improve especially if in the same party, another character has raised his dexterity by 5 points with the ability increase method and he has picked up an amulet of natural armour.

 

[Spatula]

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.

That doesn't jive with the idea that you can only use one ring at 11th and two at 21st. Unless there's only two rings in the whole game, one for paragon levels and one for epic levels.

 

[Andor]

That doesn't jive with the idea that you can only use one ring at 11th and two at 21st. Unless there's only two rings in the whole game, one for paragon levels and one for epic levels.

"Behold! It is the One Ring of Power!"

"What's that on your left hand?"

"It's the Other Ring of Power, shush, you're spoiling my drama."

 

[Greg K]

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.

I give my players a lot of freedom. However, I would not stand for players raiding a caravan that they were supposed to be guarding or stealing back the money. If they were to try such a thing, I would tell them that their characters were now NPCs. I would then offer them the option to create new PCs and act heroically.

 

[Incenjucar]

I give my players a lot of freedom. However, I would not stand for players raiding a caravan that they were supposed to be guarding or stealing back the money. If they were to try such a thing, I would tell them that their characters were now NPCs. I would then offer them the option to create new PCs and act heroically.

We all have our preferences.

I'd just switch gears to "evil campaign."