New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

[Rokes]

Well, that 11th level character was a playtest character; if you want to playtest something ( namely, magic items ), you have to actually have someone using them.

That's not the complete truth. I would expect that they should also be testing characters w/o the "recommended" or "assumed" quantity/power of magic items. That is, of course, if they are serious about having viable characters w/o magic items like they've said.

 

[Voss]

Boo. Hiss. OK. The Christmas tree lost like 6". That doesn't make me happy.
And hurrah... worked into the system's math. Double boo.


And before people bring up the 'you won't be required to take secondary things'. Look at some of those things again. Gauntlets- help with attacks? Waist - temporary bonus to strength (and didn't they talk just a little while ago about no temporary modifications to ability scores? What the hell?) Do you really think players won't want that stuff? And think of it as mandatory? It may not be a 'huge decrease in power', as the article states, but that doesn't mean it isn't a decrease in power at all.
Another issue- what about obnoxious secondary items that are 1/day or 2/day? Take it off, swap it out for a different item that is 1/day or 2/day. That doesn't seem to be addressed.

And then there is the 'other stuff'. Only sometimes useful in combat? Bets that the smart players will stock up on that stuff if they can? (And since item creation is in, even if different, why wouldn't they?)

And no, I didn't expect magic items to go entirely. But this took the 10 out of 10 magic item problem in 3e and lowered it to maybe an 8 out of 10 problem. Yay.

I dislike the more or less mandatory expected bonuses at level X for the 'primary' items. The metagamey slots and rings and whatnot don't help, even if the slots are a bad legacy.

At least the rod/staff/wand consumables are gone.
And scrolls seem to missing too. Thats... something positive.

Not really. Boost class based defence factored on when each plus is supposed to show up.

Good idea. Leaves a place for magical swords of character, not just the horde of +1 swords that 6th level mooks (or whatever) distribute in droves because of mechanical considerations.

The idea I am probably going to implement (based on someone else's home-design game) is a character can only be attuned to 3 + (modifier of whatever the most common dump stat is) magical effects at one time: spells, items or whatever, including one shots, consumables and wonderous items. Or maybe just a set number like 5. And negative effects take priority, suppressing positive effects.

 

[Reaper Steve]

Various thoughts:

Irda Ranger: nice post #102!

Rings and level requirements: rings will be more powerful now. It's not that you have to be 11th level to use a ring of protection +1, it more that the Ring of Awesome doesn't even respond to someone who is not already on the road to awesome.

Number of item slots: seems appropriate. Much better than 'a limit of 5' or something else. (How can people state that level-limits on rings are gamist and bad and then at the same time argue for an arbitrary limit to the number of magic items a character can have?)

I think what has not been stated about +X weapons and armor is that there won't be vanilla +X weapons or armor. Each one will have something else to it that is probably more important than the +X, like +1 flaming longsword, +2 dragonhide, or as listed in the article, +3 rod of dark reward.

I also suspect that the 11th level character mentioned in the article may have more than his fair share of items for playtesting purposes. If not, no biggie, as D&D is about killing monsters and taking stuff. It seems like the new magic items rules will allow the characters to then actually use said stuff rather than sell it to by more +X attacks and +X protection.

 

[Nymrohd]

Considering it is a playtest character I will reiterate what a former poster said. Items need to be tested in practice. The default option would be to present a character from a playtest that uses a lot of items. Providing us with a character that uses few items in an article about magic items would be counterproductive. Since they explicitly state that secondary slots are slots you should not worry or feel compelled to feel, I think you are simply reading too much on one character's predilection to collect items.

I am not trouble by the 3 main slots at all as I have said before. What could potentially replicate the christmas tree effect on the other end of the attack/defense spectrum though are some of the secondary items. If Bracers of the perfect shot, Shadowfell gloves, Belt of battle provide temporary effects, then they are simply options that improve the game. If even one (doubly so if more than one) provides a static effect though, it implies that the power level is being determined again by multiple additive effects. In keeping with my cautiously optimistic attitude about 4E, I hope they are temporary boosts.

Also most items that provide a permanent effect or that allow you to use a X/day effect in 3.5 require to be worn for 24 hours before they start giving said effect. I don't see why they would skip such an attunement period. Or they may skip it and say that once you have used an item in a specific slot, you cannot change it for another one for that day (latent magical energies that identify and attune with the soul of the wearer.)

 

[ThirdWizard]

That's not the complete truth. I would expect that they should also be testing characters w/o the "recommended" or "assumed" quantity/power of magic items. That is, of course, if they are serious about having viable characters w/o magic items like they've said.

They've mentioned doing that, though.

In the magic item slot article they decided to post up some magic items. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Andor]

Or the system just doesn't shovel out the magical items so you are assumed to have enough for all those magical items.

Bzzzt. The system doesn't hand out items at all. The GM does that. Some GMs will be stingier that Scrooge and some will shame Monty Hall no matter what the guidelines say.

Or just how many magical items you can get benefit from.

It's true that a game designer can try to reduce future abuses of his 'vision' for the system by limiting how items can be used. If we'll all think back that was actually the original intention behind the 3.x stacking and item slot rules and we all know how well those worked out.

A GM who wants his 2nd level PCs to feel like they can pimp slap Leonides will deck them out with too much loot regardless. And GMs who think Sam was pushing his luck getting an elven cloak and a box of magic dirt will still make their 15th level PCs scrounge behind the couch cushions for change to buy their beer.

For instance, in 3e, you can only benefit from two rings. But what stops you from putting four, or eight magical rings on your hands?

GMs who remember the potion miscibility tables.

 

[jester47]

This makes my Lame List.

LAME.

Magic items should be classed by function, not slot. If a necklace makes you climb better, so be it.

I mean really, what does it take to get magic items by function?

Whats up with the rings? Why cant you have a charged frikkin ring? A charged ring of invisibility. Not too expensive AND ITS A RING!

The christmas tree effect is not gone...

Monte Cook was right. The best way is function.

 

[Najo]

Rings are special. They are endless, without beginning or end. And their shape, a bound circle, allows them to contain magic far beyond any simple spell embedded in your common "magic" sword or item made of cloth. Where any other item or weapon would warped and destroyed by the restless force that is magic, the magics within a ring swirl silently, falling back upon themselves ... contained. Although less than an artifact, they are more than anything else you will encounter (other than perhaps the legendary Stones of Ioun).

Sauron knew this. It is no coincidence that he chose the form of the Ring when making his weapon. Nothing else would have contained his terrible power, or serve his terrible purpose.

But Rings cannot be worn lightly. Not just any soul has the wherewithal to withstand them; to command them. Only souls that have been tested, and proved themselves victorious again and again, have a hope of commanding the magic of a Ring. It is not a question of magical power, or command over vast sums of magical lore, but of personal strength. That resilient strength that can only be learned in overcoming adversity; in surviving the crucible. That strength that so few possess.

A few foolish men wear magical Rings that they inherited from their greater forefathers. They can not summon forth its power, and if they live even a year it is at the Ring's forebearance. They would do well to put the Ring in a safe place, where no can harm themselves attempting what should not be attempted.

Rings are true power given form. Only those with an even greater power inside them have a chance of commanding them.

And if you ever meet a man who commands the might of two Rings simultaneously, tread carefully, for you stand in the presence of greatness; such greatness as legends are made of.

Ok, I will give you this considering how cool you made their limitation sound. This idea makes the rings sound good.

 

[The Little Raven]

I mean really, what does it take to get magic items by function?

A lack of inspiration from mythological and literary sources, which don't often feature "Headbands of Overwhelming Strength" or "Gloves of Superior Intellect," but rather items that grant bonuses appropriate to the thematic nature of the item in question, like "Girdle of Giant Strength" or "Gauntlets of Ogre Power" or "Boots of Speed."

 

[jester47]

Yeah, but waiting until 11th level to use a ring?
Thats just... so...

UnFun.