Response to recent article by James Wyatt on DMG

[amysrevenge]

The notion that magic item access must be strictly controlled at all times shows a 3E (or earlier) mindset. In 3E, magic items allow PCs to break or bend the rules in a meaningful and game-changing and largely unlimited way (or at least only limited by the nature and number of magic items they can get their grubby little hands on).

In 4E, magic items enhance a PC's exisiting abilities in a designed-for way (there is an expectation that by level X most PCs will have a +Y weapon/implement for instance, and monsters are balanced against this). Any other game-altering abilities are useful only a severely limited number of times, no matter how many items the PCs possess.

Access to higher-level magic items is still controlled by the DM - they should only appear as treasure. However, the system kind of expects that you'll have a full array of items of your level or lower (cloaks, rings, helmets, etc.) that give the standard bonuses to defenses and attacks, regardless of what higher level items you might discover as you adventure.

 

[Regicide]

This. Since there are no enhancement bonuses for shields, the question of whether or not they stack is sort of moot.

Which is odd since even a non-magic shield offers better protection than a suit of leather armor, or at least it should.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Which is odd since even a non-magic shield offers better protection than a suit of leather armor, or at least it should.

I don't think it's odd at all. The magic shield still functions as a shield, and it still gives the wielder a nifty power or ability; it just doesn't have a magical enhancement bonus. It just can't add +6 to your AC, the way a magic suit of armor can; I don't really have a problem with that.

I can see a houserule that adds enhancement bonuses to shields that doesn't stack with the enhancement bonus to AC, just for those people who envision their character with a shield but no armor. It would require upping the costs of the shields, but I think it's certainly doable--as long as it doesn't stack.

 

[Zetesofos]

However, also keep in mind that Cloth armor is now a integral part of the equipment. So, if you don't want to wear chainmail, but need a AC buff, you can just get a +X shirt. I think they kept shields from getting enhancement bonus to AC to keep those effects from stacking, simple as that.

 

[clearstream]

It's intended pretty lightly I think. Don't forget that the DM is a player.

-vk

 

[Staffan]

Which is odd since even a non-magic shield offers better protection than a suit of leather armor, or at least it should.

What it means is that the difference between a sword'n'board guy and a greatsword guy remains constant throughout the levels: S&B gets +2 to AC, and greatsword gets +1 (on average) damage. In 3e, the x1.5 Str bonus for twohanders in combination with rapidly increasing Strength meant that shield guys needed something that would compensate for the extra damage.

 

[IanB]

I've been running very popular campaigns most of my life (I'm 40) and I think allowing players to create any magic item in the game is insanity.

Are they popular because of that, or are they popular despite that?

 

[IanB]

I don't think it's odd at all. The magic shield still functions as a shield, and it still gives the wielder a nifty power or ability; it just doesn't have a magical enhancement bonus. It just can't add +6 to your AC, the way a magic suit of armor can; I don't really have a problem with that.

I can see a houserule that adds enhancement bonuses to shields that doesn't stack with the enhancement bonus to AC, just for those people who envision their character with a shield but no armor. It would require upping the costs of the shields, but I think it's certainly doable--as long as it doesn't stack.

I think he means it is odd from a realism perspective. D&D has always undervalued how useful shields are in terms of not getting hit, especially compared to the lighter armors. (At this point it is more a feature than a bug.)

 

[Regicide]

I don't think it's odd at all.

What I'm saying is that I'd rather have a shield than some leather armor if someone was coming at me with a sword in real life. That a shield doesn't give more AC than leather amour just seems strange. But yes, I know, DnD isn't a model of real life. I don't consider 4E to even be a model of any fantasy novel I've ever read either.

 

[Arbitrary]

Item creation isn't scary in 4th edition at all. Players are assumed to find higher level items adventuring and item levels actually reflect strength instead of being fairly random in 3rd. Item after item after item was undercosted and a few were overcosted. If, at level 4, the party decides to burn all their cash on +1 necklaces, so what? They are going to find better out adventuring than they can ever make themselves. All item creation does is allow them to blow cash to fill item slots with lower level gear than they find.

During the Heroic tier a character can only use one daily magic item per day, two at the Paragon tier, and three at Epic. Filling slots other than weapon/armor/shield likely is only providing more options and not much more character power.