D&D 4E The 'Big 6' in 4e

[Nifft]

If the Big 6 go away, I won't miss them at all. Stat boosters in particular are the crack of D&D. I'm tired of them (as a DM and as a player).

Cheers, -- N

 

[Gloombunny]

I would need an extremely good reason why no one has thought of such incredibly obvious magic items to buy that they wouldn't exist in the world.

How about "magic doesn't work that way"? I mean, wizards don't use their magic to heal people, even though that's a pretty obvious and desirable thing to do, because their magic isn't capable of it. Just because D&D3 assumed that the laws of magic are such that gauntlets of ogre power and headbands of intellect are feasible to make, doesn't mean that D&D4 will operate under that assumption.

 

[Gloombunny]

Magic changes sound interesting in 4E. I think that a +x sword though is still the stuff of gaming. Remember when you got your first frostbrand or +1 flaming sword? Those are still cool no matter how old you are.

But look at your own examples. They aren't cool because they have a + on them, they're cool because they're a frostbrand and a flaming sword. My hope is that, while 4e will still have magic swords, the magic will exclusively be in the form of interesting and flavorful benefits like "flaming" or "extinguishes fires near you when drawn", and not just generic increases in accuracy and damage.

 

[Samnell]

How about "magic doesn't work that way"?

I've long thought the inability of wizards to heal was exceptionally lame too. I want a rules reason in my rules, not a setting stipulation.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The MIC re-opened the slots that the Big 6 currently occupy, 4e looks like it will just delete the Big 6 altogether, well most of 'em anyway.

That seems like a pretty dodgy contention. Thus far, we know at least that we have magic weapons and magic armor (and thus probably magic shields). That's one third of the big six that will be there in some form or other. As to the so-called cool abilities replacing enhancement bonuses, as a DM who just ran a game involving an archer with a +1 holy flaming frost shock bow shooting arrows from an (MIC) quiver of energy: acid, I'm not convinced that what you call cool abilities are really an improvement on enhancement bonuses in any way except power.

As for flavor, it seems just fine to have swords that are sharper and more durable rather than having everything be flaming or holy or something else. One flaming sword is cool. When everyone has flaming swords, it is commonplace.

Right, so they are a cool option and not something that opponents of equal CR assume u have.

Huh? We do play the same game, right? A character with a greater truedeath crystal is in a far better position vis a vis undead than a character without them. Do you seriously think that what you are calling cool options have no impact on game balance such that it doesn't matter if you have them or not? If they didn't have a dramatic impact on the fights that they are keyed towards they wouldn't be cool (and overpowered)--they would be useless. And trust me, if whatever they use to approximate the CR system doesn't make assumptions about whether or not characters will have helpful items, it won't work. If a Dreadwraith (or a group of wraiths in 4.x possibly) is a challenge for a 12th level party with a truedeath crystal, but a challenge for a 16th level party without a truedeath crystal and no challenge for a 16th level party with truedeath crystals, then you're in exactly the same situation that you are right now--with a few exceptions:

1. If all items are highly tailored towards specific types of encounters, it will be much more difficult to generically evaluate the strength of encounters or creatures. If the party's power varies unpredictably depending upon the type of encounter it faces, then it is almost by definition more difficult to predict the results of the encounter.

2. If magic items exist and are useful then the number and strength of magic items that a party possesses will by definition effect the kind of encounters that a party can handle. If the game has magic armor and magic shields then they either A. won't effect the damage output of your enemies or B. will noticably effect the damage output of your enemies
If A, then the game doesn't really have mechanics for worthwhile magic armor and thus doesn't have it in any meaningful sense.
If B, then any kind of challenge evaluation system will have to take it into account or the challenge evaluation system won't work.

Dont most of those items have the '24 hour attunement period' written into them? IDHTBIFOM, but I'm pretty sure the BoB does. That ends the magic item rotation right there.

It would if it were actually written into the items. However, in the magic item compendium, even some of the Minatures Handbook items that used to have that restriction lost them (Belt of One Mighty Blow for instance) though other items kept it (Bracers of the Quick Strike). Most of the new items do not seem to have that restriction. For the majority of them, it doesn't matter because the items are not so powerful or efficient that they break the game if they get used every fight--or even multiple times between fights. For the extremely powerful and efficient items (read as heinously broken), such as the belt of battle, however, such an oversight is game-changing at every level.

 

[Quartz]

I'd love if magic weapons became something more interesting.

"I have a Sword of Sundering."
"I have a Flaming Sword."
"I have a Sword of Smiting."

No bonus to hit, bonus to damage is through energy (such as +1D6 fire damge) or smiting (+1D6 damage against an enemy twice per day), or decent bonuses to special maneuvers.

I suggested something similar a few weeks ago.