New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Campbell!

While I like what I see for the most part I have a couple issues:

• Having ring slots only open up as you level just doesn't seem right to me. It messes with my suspension of disbelief in all kinds of ways.

But what if Rings are really powerful and thus automatically moderate* or better magic items (*under 3.5 terminology).

I mean you don't say its the right of any PC to own a +5 vorpal sword at 1st-level even though they could physically wield one. You don't say its the right of any PC to possess a ring of wishes at 1st-level.

I think you are getting into a tizzy over nothing. 3.5 had Minor, Moderate and Major magic items. This seems little more than an extension of that.

 

[Destil]

A friend of mine, a very brilliant man, pointed out that at the core one of the big problem with d20 was that there was a two-tiered power system, you have levels, but you also have a vaguely point-based (GP) system on top of it for magic items.

His suggested fix was to find how much of a 'level' each item was worth. For instance to have a system where you could say that a 5th level fighter with a +1 sword and +1 armor was about the equivalent of a 6th level fighter without them, so both items would be listed as "+1/2 level" instead of having a GP cost.

Given how uniform the math in 4E is this is an idea I was really hoping someone in R&D would come up with, unify the level based advancement and magic items instead of being forced to have an "Expected" wealth by level.

Now if you also add in the ability to say that your stats should be X, and that for every Y points over or under in total you are considered one level higher or lower, we could really have a nice uniform power system. I'll be trying to work something like that out once 4E comes out, though reverse engineering out the "Expected Items" could be a pain...

 

[Bagpuss]

The Ring thing bothers me most. I really don't like the idea of level requirements to use items.

 

[fuindordm]

Boy, there's a surprising amount of hate being piled on this article. I, for one, like it.

Christmas tree: as the designers have pointed out before, there is very little wiggle room between making magic items necessary and making them useless. There have also been many indications in the past that +X items are still present in some form. Players don't just want items that give them something new to do (rope of climbing), they want items that make them better at what they do best (+6 wand).

In essence, as others have pointed out, they have wrangled the bonuses such that your +X implement improves your primary attack by some moderate amount, say 10-20%. Furthermore, that magic implement is the only way to improve your attacks with magic. All other bonuses must be earned the hard way: by leveling.

So it sounds to me like they've managed to preserve the fun of finding magic items while reducing their impact. Players were moving in this direction on their own: +1 keen flaming burst swords always seemed to be more popular than +3 swords, didn't they?

Rings & Things: Personally, I think limiting the use of certain magic items to high-level characters is a pretty nifty idea. It spices up the magic item rules, and by no means prevents me from breaking them when I want to. I look forward to seeing Rings of Power (shooting stars and elemental command come to mind) as the default rather than the exception. I especially look forward to IOUN stones, not Ioun stones--D&D's implementation of these items has always been a yawner.

If you really want that ring of feather falling, just make it a pair of winged boots or something. Rings have always been a symbol of command, alliance, and perfection--let's juice them up instead of watering them down!

Etc. I have a new character concept I'm itching to try: the ranger/wizard who dual-wields sword and wand!

 

[Kraydak]

Well, beyond the absurdity of "you don't need secondary slot items", and surprise at the number of magic item slots left (I was expecting 5ish total), I'm interested by the fact that shields don't count as weapons for magical purposes. You might be able to count enchanting a shield's offensive stats as the implement slot, and a shield's defenses as the arm slot. If you can't though shield bashing either just died (no magical boosts to offense or loss of the arm slot) or became absurd (turning a secondary slot into a primary slot allowing you to hold an extra implement).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Given that 4e is still a d20 game, I fail to see how NOT having a +2 armor is going to be acceptable by the standard rules. +2 armor is the equivalent of a 10% miss chance in most level appropriate cases. What could they possibly do to the system to make that not so?

This means that a character is going to get hit 10% more often and take 10% more damage, etc.

yes, and when you take away your opponents magical sword, you are back to standard.

in 3.x you could buy a +2 shield and a +2 armor for the price of a +2 weapon. so taking away both defensive items and weapons changed your effective hp.

This is not the case anymore, so the new system is a great improvement. At least, that is what i read out of the article.

also your math is wrong. you don´t get 10% less damage if AC goes up by +2...

consider AC 18 vs AB +0 you are hit 15% of the time, with +2 armor your AC is 20, and you are hit only in 5% of all cases, so your hp are effectively trippled...

 

[Campbell]

Hi Campbell!

But what if Rings are really powerful and thus automatically moderate* or better magic items (*under 3.5 terminology).

I mean you don't say its the right of any PC to own a +5 vorpal sword at 1st-level even though they could physically wield one. You don't say its the right of any PC to possess a ring of wishes at 1st-level.

I think you are getting into a tizzy over nothing. 3.5 had Minor, Moderate and Major magic items. This seems little more than an extension of that.

I would have no problems with certain types of items not being level apropriate. I just don't like a given item fuctioning differently for a 9th level character and a 11th level character. Ioun stones all being too powerful for most low level characters really doesn't bother me. I admit it's a fine distinction, but I never said I was completely rational being.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

from what we are told, although changes seem not so great, the math has changed in such a way, that magical items are not NEEDED to survive. Losing +2 AC from armor at LVL 11 is nothing compared to the loss of +around 10 armor (armor, shield enhancement, dex increases, no natural armor and no rings). This IS a huge change.

Being maxed-out with all slots optimally filled -- having that +10-15 AC at 11th level -- made CR-appropriate challenges a joke.

It wasn't that PCs were underpowered in 3.5 without the Christmas Tree; it's that they were overpowered with it.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I think it is an improvement. It may not be perfect, but it is an improvement.

I like the idea of creating primary slots for the important, memorable items and secondary slots for all the minor items. I like the clarification of the term "wondrous item". I like the removal of countless stat buffs and minor items that gave stacking bonuses to AC and the like. I even like the idea of rings being unlocked by tier. I like the idea that each slot has a specific category of effects that it can boost.

I would have preferred if there were fewer secondary slots. The current number does seem a bit high (maybe they can remove the Waist slot and fold the Arms and Hands slots together?).

Anyways, I was hoping that the math for magic items in 4E would be easy enough that I create a system (in this case, a race) so that a character without magic items can be balanced against a character who does have magic items. That seems to be the case, so I am happy.

But my brother mentioned something interesting... If magic shields no longer give a boost to AC compared to normal shields, is it possible that shields no longer improve AC at all? Do shields have some other benefit to defense than modifying AC directly?

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Removing the synergy of the slots is what will really make the difference. As for monsters/encounters factoring in certain + items, as the DM, you can always grant monsters that extra to hit or damage, or penalise them, if you want higher or lower magic for your party.