jgbrowning
Hero
Exception-based design them.
joe b.
joe b.
The Magic Items that WotC cannot publish
- Thread starter hailstop
- Start date
Windjammer
Adventurer
Yes, it's one of these moments one fights off the impression 4E is Rabban and 5E will be Feyd-Rautha.
In the immortal words of Frank Herbert's Baron Harkonnen... said:
Very weak excuse not to put the book out.
In the first place 'DM only' is a myth. Players will buy what they find interesting. The fact that is is for a DM only isnt a consideration. In my group (6 people), a cool magic item book would prolly sell 3 maybe 4. That is more than any book other than the PHB1, PHB2 and martial powers. 4 is more than anything other than the PHB1.
Second, stop gimping the DM. They should be making ways to make the DM better not more irrelevant. My 3.5 campaign went to 18th level and was unbalanced from about 2nd. Guess what, I can DM and kept it together. Making books or Dragon articles on what happens when things go out of whack and how to rebalance are far better than 100 pages of weaksauce magic.
Third, there is no functional reason that their cannot be a third tier of items between normal items and artifacts. The arguement that then the items will become general use and overshadow the normal items is the concern of the DM, not WOTC. If they were to put the possible effects on game balance in the book, a decent DM should be able to handle it. The DM saying 'NO' is not always a bad thing.
In the first place 'DM only' is a myth. Players will buy what they find interesting. The fact that is is for a DM only isnt a consideration. In my group (6 people), a cool magic item book would prolly sell 3 maybe 4. That is more than any book other than the PHB1, PHB2 and martial powers. 4 is more than anything other than the PHB1.
Second, stop gimping the DM. They should be making ways to make the DM better not more irrelevant. My 3.5 campaign went to 18th level and was unbalanced from about 2nd. Guess what, I can DM and kept it together. Making books or Dragon articles on what happens when things go out of whack and how to rebalance are far better than 100 pages of weaksauce magic.
Third, there is no functional reason that their cannot be a third tier of items between normal items and artifacts. The arguement that then the items will become general use and overshadow the normal items is the concern of the DM, not WOTC. If they were to put the possible effects on game balance in the book, a decent DM should be able to handle it. The DM saying 'NO' is not always a bad thing.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Well, in the real world, would anyone really pay all that much for a never ending flagon of ale (lets assume that it can't be used for industrial purposes)? Moreover, would you expect a prospective purchaser to be, say, a SWAT team member with no intention of giving up his job?
So given that... why should a flagon of ale procurement not be incredibly cheap? It was created for a specific client, most likely for a lot of money, but since then it'll just float around as a curio with it's value dropping with each cheap sale to a pawn shop. It's not going to be anywhere near the price of deathcut armor.
So the solution is to make it never fail. Then it's a dependable plot device. You can guarantee (almost) that PCs will control every dragon they meet. Now you just need to take that into account for your campaign. Assume that the PCs will have access to one or more controlled dragons and set things up appropriately.
That said, the 3 items listed as examples are
dragon orb: If it never fails, this is a plot device and needs to be written into the campaign. If it's random, then it's going to make it very difficult to run a game (unless your dragons are weak or uninterested in fighting, or otherwise not a direct challenge to the PCs anyway).
necklace: sounds like a run-of-the-mill magic item. maybe a high level one, but still.
sword of the 4 elements: again, run-of-the-mill magic item. again high level.
The only way the sword is problematic is if whomever is using it is repeatedly using up all 4 of its charges in every combat, and doing so because it's more effective than anything else he could do.
Last edited:
ExploderWizard
Hero
Even with the little bugs I love my monster builder ( it is beta after all) . I want the CB to be as customizeable.
I'm really, really surprised at how many people are taking what, to me, seems to be a reasonable point by a game designer, and spinning it into 'This is why 4 sucks and is stupid'.
As I see it, the game designers are creating rules material for the broadest possible use. This is NOT the 'lowest common denominator', but simply material that is, by and large, setting neutral.
You can use Forgotten Realms feats in your game. You can use Eberron magic items in your game. You can use the same races in any game.
Similarly, they are trying (even the game designer in question admits not always successfully) to produce rules material that will not be unbalancing in your local game, providing you follow the guidelines for magic items in parcels and the general treasure guidelines.
Having deliberately tried to do both of those things, they are of course restricted to not being able to include items which have an elaborate backstory tied to a particular game world, or having an elaborate history, or having an extensive settings-grounded series of powers. It doesn't make sense to include magic items with powers that activate when worn by people of a particular dynastic bloodline, or curses that activate when a prophetic enemy appears, since those items will be of little use to people who don't use that setting.
How many people playing Trollhaunt were thrilled when Sunwrath can always tell you the direction to the Barony of Therund?
The game does have magic items with powerful and multifaceted effects, and those items require a level of story-line enabled play, and a lot of DM intervention, and they are artifacts.
I think the game designer was simply admitting that the added level of complexity and DM discretion is worth it for artifacts, but does not justify this level of complexity for lesser magic items.
I'm not sure how so many people read this as:
"Look, even I admit that 4e is boring and lame, and I wrote it!"
when I read it as an interesting way to point out:
"The most interesting and fun magic items, like the most interesting and fun adventures, and the most interesting and fun characters, are those that your group creates, or modifies, or customizes, for your players and your game.
We could just print the magic items that we all use around our local games here at WOTC, but those magic items were developed for our particular game worlds, our particular campaigns, our particular storylines, and our particular players. They probably wouldn't be nearly as interesting to YOU, as they are to US, and that's fine.
In addition, they might be crazy-broken in your game, or stupid-weak. The awesome magical curse tattoo that I gave this guy wouldn't be much of a disadvantage if you slapped it on a high hit point barbarian who multiclassed into Warlock, but it is balanced for that character, since he DOESN'T have a raft of HP, and I knew that when I gave it to him."
As I see it, the game designers are creating rules material for the broadest possible use. This is NOT the 'lowest common denominator', but simply material that is, by and large, setting neutral.
You can use Forgotten Realms feats in your game. You can use Eberron magic items in your game. You can use the same races in any game.
Similarly, they are trying (even the game designer in question admits not always successfully) to produce rules material that will not be unbalancing in your local game, providing you follow the guidelines for magic items in parcels and the general treasure guidelines.
Having deliberately tried to do both of those things, they are of course restricted to not being able to include items which have an elaborate backstory tied to a particular game world, or having an elaborate history, or having an extensive settings-grounded series of powers. It doesn't make sense to include magic items with powers that activate when worn by people of a particular dynastic bloodline, or curses that activate when a prophetic enemy appears, since those items will be of little use to people who don't use that setting.
How many people playing Trollhaunt were thrilled when Sunwrath can always tell you the direction to the Barony of Therund?
The game does have magic items with powerful and multifaceted effects, and those items require a level of story-line enabled play, and a lot of DM intervention, and they are artifacts.
I think the game designer was simply admitting that the added level of complexity and DM discretion is worth it for artifacts, but does not justify this level of complexity for lesser magic items.
I'm not sure how so many people read this as:
"Look, even I admit that 4e is boring and lame, and I wrote it!"
when I read it as an interesting way to point out:
"The most interesting and fun magic items, like the most interesting and fun adventures, and the most interesting and fun characters, are those that your group creates, or modifies, or customizes, for your players and your game.
We could just print the magic items that we all use around our local games here at WOTC, but those magic items were developed for our particular game worlds, our particular campaigns, our particular storylines, and our particular players. They probably wouldn't be nearly as interesting to YOU, as they are to US, and that's fine.
In addition, they might be crazy-broken in your game, or stupid-weak. The awesome magical curse tattoo that I gave this guy wouldn't be much of a disadvantage if you slapped it on a high hit point barbarian who multiclassed into Warlock, but it is balanced for that character, since he DOESN'T have a raft of HP, and I knew that when I gave it to him."
Zaran
Adventurer
The reason why PCs don't want items like the Flagon is it cuts into RAW alotted items. It either costs them money which is meant for them to buy enhancement type magic items or it costs them magic item drops. If these items were given out in addition to keeping the PCs at the right level of power then they would be all for it.
When I was in college, I lived upstairs from a frat. Trust me. The Kappa Sigs would've sold every suit of Deathcut Armor in the Trollhaunt for a never ending flagon of ale.
A 4Eish solution, which I'm a little surprised WotC did'nt try, would be siloing off combat and utility items.
My solution would be to just add random utility items in on top of the combat stuff. Treasure parcels be damned.
No they wouldn't.
They would hawk it as soon as possible and get better stuff.
re: Character Builder and LFR
Given that the character builder has artifacts and those you certainly can't purchase (as well, are Eberron dragonmarks legal in LFR?), the idea that it is because of the character builder doesn't seem valid IMO.
Seriously, I can NOT see why if you want powerful, campaign changing magical effects, one doesn't use the artifact system. It's the best artifact system ever for any version of D&D so I'm quite confused as to the reluctance to use it.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
And there you go... I am kind of glad WOTC magic items are on the functionally bland side I can squash multiple together and mingle with story and boom I have magic items that make the players wish lists envious.
I can up there potency but I am hesitant .. for instance I need a burden of the one ring mechanic that rocks.... so that at-will invisibility to everything but un-dead ... becomes a real choice instead of an every battle always on.
anyone got ideas for cool detrimental effects and after effects for items.Similar Threads
