New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots

Sitara · Jan 24, 2008

Ugh. basically the fact that the article states pc's are expected to have a +2 armor at 9th level, and that this is factored into the math of the game just flat out sucks.

So basically, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Peter LaCara · Jan 24, 2008

Bishmon said:
To be clear, since I'm gonna get some sleep, my beef is with the number of magic items still being worn by characters. Like I've said, I think it's ridiculous for characters to suit up with magic items like they're sports gear. I've read a couple of 'solutions' for this:

-Only a couple slots are 'necessary', therefore you can just not equip stuff in the other slots. I've addressed partly why I think is rubbish. There's also the obvious encounter balance problems involved with cutting a character's magic items.

-As a DM, don't give out as many magic items. Unless I significantly reduce the number of magic items, or limit the types of magic items given out ("We found another pair of magic gloves? That's the tenth pair this dungeon!"), characters are still eventually going to fill their available slots with magic items. Those items will probably be crappier than a by-the-book character because of the lack of selection, but they'll still be wearing 10 magic items. That doesn't solve my beef, and creates encounter balance problems to boot! Not my ideal solution.

And the thing is, I don't want to run a low-magic game. Far from it. I just think it's absurd that characters would wear 10 magic items. And the designers seemed to agree with me with their talk of reducing the Christmas Tree effect. In my opinion, they didn't do a thing to address that. Instead, they've just given characters more viable options with which to decorate their heroes with. Instead of characters picking seven standard items and three optional ones, they'll now be picking three standard items and seven optional ones. That's great, it solves one problem, but it doesn't solve the problem I was hoping they were going to solve.

Okay. I've been lurking for a while, and I just cannot deal with this anymore.

Your problem is that you want magic to be special, and feel that characters carrying around 6-8 items each makes those items less special. And yet you say you don't want to run a low-magic game. So, what, you want to give out the same number of items as before, but players just throw them out because they already have 5 items each? This makes items more special.... how?

The way to make items more special is to just not hand out that many, I guess. You make sure characters are kept up to date on their primary 3 (or you work out the friggin' math and incorporate it into the basic level scheme), and then maaaaybe hand out a quirky and interesting secondary item every once in a while.

But for some reason, you throw out giving out less magic as a viable solution. I mean, honestly, is there ANYTHING AT ALL Wizards could have done to appease you that doesn't change things in a completely boneheaded way that doesn't even solve the problem you think you want solved?

Oh, and for those of you who say that they should have dropped +1 swords... you can't do that. I have fewer sacred cows than most, I think, but you cannot play D&D without +1 swords. Futz around with draconic magic, completely rearrange the planes, or whatever other nitpicky thing ENWorld seems to want to latch onto this month, I don't care. But if I can't have a longsword +1, I'm not playing D&D.

If you'll notice, the vast majority of the items that they previewed have some other neato effect. If you really want, you can do the "no magic" option of just giving the PCs the bonuses for free, and then having whatever magic swords you find just having the extra "snappy" effect. There. Problem solved.

Rouens · Jan 24, 2008

First off I like this new way of looking at items. Second From 6-9 stat boosting items to 3 and the rest optional sounds like an definite improvement while the feel of the game is the same. I like items that do tricks and I prefer those, but give an magical sword too and while we are at it an armour too. So if you get a +1 sword/armour/cloak at say 4th level then it's gona last at least 5 more levels.

When are the people happy? If there are no magic items at all or just no stat boosters? A certain amount should always be there. It's D&D! Don't you like when you came from a game and after a "epic" battle you found a +x Sword/wand/armour/cloak just to boast your char a bit. It's up to the DM if he gives those items at the same level.

I think if only the 3 primary count only those should have upgrades everyones and awhile. Like others said only give the three primary to every player if you don't want a magic heavy game. Give a optional only rarely and be happy! This is D&D a game of sword and sorcery. Magic is all around us.

Ruin Explorer · Jan 24, 2008

Frankly, I think this is ghastly.

I was under the distinct, WotC-given impression that they were getting rid of the "Christmas Tree" effect, wherein every character in space is laden down with a dozen magic items to power them up.

Apparently WotC lied when the suggested this, because all they've done is go from 12, to 9 (oh great) magic items, and made the "Christmas Tree" effect EVEN MORE present, and just a bit more orderly. Now there's yet another level of power-gaming, because people will expect to have an item in a slot (rather than feeling lucky that they do), and get upset when it's not the "right" item for their "spec".

Gah.

As for the apologists, WotC may claim having "empty slots is cool", but their example character has precisely one empty slot and that's for a level-limited item when he's only just hit that level. No doubt every freakin' NPC in space will be laden down with similar items.

I'm not saying it couldn't be worse. It could be so much worse. It's not good, though, and most importantly, it doesn't strike me as an improvement over 3E, merely a move sideways and maybe even a little backwards.

Rallek · Jan 24, 2008

The following is my take on the “need to be level 11 to use rings” strangeness.

Party kills a wizard flavored baddie. Party consists of 5 lvl 8s, Baddie is lvl 11 and surrounded by his lvl 6 lackeys. After the battle, Bill takes the big bad’s shiny gold ring. Putting it on, he finds that nothing happens. Still, the ring is shiny and has a nice emerald on it, so Bill keeps it anyway. A few (in-game) months later, Bill kills one more orc, and promptly becomes invisible. Guess he hit lvl 11.

Perhaps Bill can only level over downtime. Ok, same deal as above, except this time Bill kills that one final orc, goes back to town, spends a week in training and promptly wakes up invisible. Guess he hit lvl 11 overnight after his training.

In both cases the same problem applies, Bill can find the ring before he is lvl 11, he can wear the ring (one assumes), but the ring has no effect on him. If all rings in 4e need to be “invoked” in some way before their powers manifest, that is fine. However, I find it strange that rings that take effect when worn are gone now.

The problem is the same when Bill wakes up one day to find that he has become some kind of undead in his sleep. Again, it turns out that he leveled during the night, and his long-inactive ring finally turned on, making him into some kind of vampire or lich thing. Oddly the wizard baddie that he took the ring off of wasn’t undead, despite being requisite level and wearing the ring, guess he was an NPC and his stat block didn’t require the ring’s effects to be noted…

There are certain gamist ideas that need to be embraced, or at least tolerated to make D&D function as a game. However, I think the bizarre possibilities opened up/caused by the arbitrary “level for use” requirement on rings is not one of them. I honestly think that this just hurts the game.

Maybe no character would know what “level” they are in-game, but it seems that that kind of meta-thinking has to be present in the world if a character gains that 11th lvl, and suddenly magic rings work for him. Maybe he doesn’t know that yesterday he was lvl 10 and today he is lvl 11, but he certainly knows, in the context of the in-game world, that he was “heroic” yesterday, but today finds him a “paragon”.

Just my opinion.

Lurks-no-More · Jan 24, 2008

Ruin Explorer said:
Frankly, I think this is ghastly.

I was under the distinct, WotC-given impression that they were getting rid of the "Christmas Tree" effect, wherein every character in space is laden down with a dozen magic items to power them up.

And they're done that. You no longer can load up every damn slot on your body with an Item of +x to Ability, as you could do in 3.*. You have three primary slots for doing that, with no overlap, and secondary slots for giving you things to do instead of boosting your ability to do the same thing over and over again.

Apparently WotC lied when the suggested this, because all they've done is go from 12, to 9 (oh great) magic items, and made the "Christmas Tree" effect EVEN MORE present, and just a bit more orderly.

No, you just expected something different than what they are giving. People are too hasty to assume WotC lies and/or is incompetent or malicious, when their own expectations and hopes aren't met.

Now there's yet another level of power-gaming, because people will expect to have an item in a slot (rather than feeling lucky that they do), and get upset when it's not the "right" item for their "spec".

Honestly, how is this different from every other edition of (A)D&D, really? In 1e AD&D, players of high-level characters could expect to have magic weapons of certain power, because otherwise they'd be butchered by demons or whatnot. Magic items, as a category of things, have never, ever been something you're "lucky to have" in (A)D&D; individual, powerful items, yes, but magic items as a whole, NO.

Irda Ranger · Jan 24, 2008

Rechan said:
I'd prefer the system build towards Fighter 2 being the standard, not being balanced to assume Fighter 3 is the norm.

1. Give every PC a cumulative +1 to Att, Dmg, AC and Defense every 4 levels to preserve design assumptions.
2. Remove all +x's from item descriptions.
3. Profit.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Jan 24, 2008

Ruin Explorer said:
Frankly, I think this is ghastly.

I was under the distinct, WotC-given impression that they were getting rid of the "Christmas Tree" effect, wherein every character in space is laden down with a dozen magic items to power them up.

Apparently WotC lied when the suggested this, because all they've done is go from 12, to 9 (oh great) magic items, and made the "Christmas Tree" effect EVEN MORE present, and just a bit more orderly. Now there's yet another level of power-gaming, because people will expect to have an item in a slot (rather than feeling lucky that they do), and get upset when it's not the "right" item for their "spec".

Slots exist since at least 3rd editions (previous editions I don't know that much about, but at least rings where always limited, if I am not mistaken)
3rd editions had 4-5 magical items that boosted your AC (Dex +X item, Magic Armor, Magical Shield, Deflection item, Natural Armor item) and one-two items that boosted your attack (Strength or Dex enhancement, magical weapon or ability score for magical effects) and 4 items that boosted your saves (3 stat boosters and Resistance +X item).
The wealth by level table (and the average treasure values per encounter) implied that you had or were able to get all of these items. And the CR system tried to take this into consideration.

4th edition has 1 type of item that boosts your attack (coming in flavour weapon or implement). 1 item that boosts your AC. 1 item that boosts your other defenses.
Suddenly, the whole host of magical items that boost your primary offensive and defensive capabilities can be easily adjucated. There are only 4 items. If you decide you don't like magic at all, just remove them and drop the enemies attacks and defenses by a number based on the expected values. (pretty easy with magical items level, by the way. You don't have to reverse calculate magical item cost and wealth by level to figure out what modifiers will change).
If you want to give your PCs tons of magical items, do it. Only 4 of them critically affect game balance.
If you don't like filling out all slots, don't add a magical item market to your game. Don't hand out magical items as if there was no tomorrow. Because if you do, regardless of slot or no slot, the PCs will want to use the items or at least sell them for something useful.

Gah.

As for the apologists, WotC may claim having "empty slots is cool", but their example character has precisely one empty slot and that's for a level-limited item when he's only just hit that level. No doubt every freakin' NPC in space will be laden down with similar items.

I'm not saying it couldn't be worse. It could be so much worse. It's not good, though, and most importantly, it doesn't strike me as an improvement over 3E, merely a move sideways and maybe even a little backwards.

The guys at WotC didn't lie. They did what they wanted. Remove the "BIg Six", reduce the Christmas Tree. But they couldn't throw all magical items and their meaning for game balance out of the game. And I am not an apologist.
And by the way, if they wanted to lie about it, they should have waited revealing this stuff after the release. Because then would people actually have been persuaded to buy the game due to a lie. This way, your accusation looks to me like nothing more like WotC hatred. Actually, due to the fact that I am pretty negatively affected by your accusations and generous use of words like "apologist" or "lying", I feel like being trolled.
You have strong feelings on 4E. But don't let your feeling lead to you attacking other people. Treat others as you want them to treat you. Stay calm. If you get upset about a thing that you do for your hobby, for fun, that's _not_ good. (This should also work as a reminder to myself.)

ThirdWizard · Jan 24, 2008

Rechan said:
I think that the game should be balanced for PCs having as many magical items as DMs choose, but requires none for the math to work.

I don't think your game would sell as well or be as popular among players.

Here's my problem. If I wanted to add +X items to a D&D without magic weapons and armor, then I would have to make a House Rule where all monsters at level Z added +X to attack and AC. So, you hoist the house rules on someone else. You bias the game against my play style for your own. That's no different than what you are complaining about.

They have made great strides to aid your play style. Great strides from 3e.