New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[Spatula]

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.

I have to agree with AllisterH that it's not item creation (which should be more adventure-driven, imo) or magic item trade that's the problem, but rather the nature of the 3E magic items. The "Big <#>" was always a part of D&D, but the ridiculous bonuses were not. In 1e & 2e, you could get a +1 to some stats from an item (STR excepted), and another +1 from a tome/manual... and that was it. Rings & cloaks of protection did not stack with each other(although they both provided bonuses to AC & saves, instead of just one or the other), and I dimly recall them not stacking with magic armor, either. There was no natural armor bonus. That said, the ogre/giant STR items were really disgustingly powerful.

The mistake in 3e was ramping up all the bonuses that you could get from items, allowing them all to stack, and creating an exponential pricing scheme where lots of smaller bonuses were cheaper, and more effective, than a few big bonuses.

 

[Greg K]

We all have our preferences.

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

And, I see know problem with that if that is what you want..

 

[broghammerj]

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.

No I get that. 3E delved into all sorts of different types of AC, natural armor, dodge bonus, etc. That was a problem people exploited in the system. For 4E I don't care where you derive your AC from. If I designed 4E there should be a limit to how much magical enhancement one PC can have (ie +5). Whether it comes from an amulet of natural armor, bracers AC5, shield +5, or ring of protection +5 doesn't matter to me.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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

Based on what follows in your post, I think I understood perfectly:

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.

Point already granted upthread. Campaign-wide, having magic items or not having magic items is an easy fix.

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.

Meaning folks will be primarily driven to the Big Three, followed by the best of the secondary option suite. If in fact one of the redesign goals was to drive players towards the less combat focused magic items, then on that point I think it is "poor design." But folks should note that's actually the first time in this thread I have made any such accusation, because as far as my personal preference goes, I like to accumulate power. I don't particularly want a Magic Item Compendium full of Leprechaun Pipes and other dross.

Again: Observations, not complaints.

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?).

Exactly.

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.

I predict a drastically curtailed ability to optimize your magic items, either through creation or trade. And for the record again, I think that's also a good thing.

Would I enjoy a Leprechaun Pipe if I found it, and couldn't sell it, couldn't churn it over into something more useful?

Yeah, probably. You might even get me to roleplay a little bit, if only to assume the role of my leprechaun as he regales the party yet again with the Old Man From Nantucket and the Hermit Named Dave.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

We all have our preferences.

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

I wouldn't even go that far -- could just be "outlaw campaign" or "political campaign." An outlaw campaign doesn't have to be an evil one, especially if the local regime is pretty despicable OR if the PCs justify their law-breaking in the service of a greater good. Comes up in all kinds of fantasy and sci-fi (thinking of, say, Star Trek III). Even beyond that, in a great many campaigns, politics exist in shades of grey. Switching from guarding a caravan to looting it could be a result of switching allegiances from one lord or kingdom to another, or perhaps a result of obtaining a letter of marque.

The "stealing from the armorer" scenario would be most likely to happen IME if the armorer was ripping the PCs off or had otherwise offended or insulted them. Perhaps he uses his guild power to shut down their competing shop, and the PCs send the rogue to loot his shop on their way out of town. I'd hardly consider that "You're all evil so now you're all NPCs." It's defiant, it's Chaotic, but it makes for a good story and it's not Evil.

I suppose that it is possible to have a game where PCs cannot break the laws, where rogues can never steal from shops or people, and where PCs can never make more money through any enterprise or scheme (even legal ones) than the DM intends them to have. In that case, the "wealth by level" guidelines work.