"Unpublishable Magic Items: the Love that Dare Not Speak its Name!"
The Magic Items that WotC cannot publish
- Thread starter hailstop
- Start date
pawsplay
Hero
fuzzlewump
Explorer
@Samursus
That's an interesting idea. I think artifacts would only affect the experience players get if it acted on its own, not if it just being used. Unless, one character with the artifact is approximately equal to or better than two characters, then maybe it should take a share of the experience. Most artifacts published do not have that much power.
As far as inputting magic item information into the monster builder until we have some kind of magic item creator as part of the adventure tools, that seems like a good idea to get a clean power card as well as possible narrative description to be printed.
That's an interesting idea. I think artifacts would only affect the experience players get if it acted on its own, not if it just being used. Unless, one character with the artifact is approximately equal to or better than two characters, then maybe it should take a share of the experience. Most artifacts published do not have that much power.
As far as inputting magic item information into the monster builder until we have some kind of magic item creator as part of the adventure tools, that seems like a good idea to get a clean power card as well as possible narrative description to be printed.
Here's my take on this whole issue.
First of all, it's possible that what's being asked for here has a fundamental flaw. If the goal is to have "cool" or "unique" magic items, and the definition of "cool or unique" includes both (a) being more powerful than regular magic items and (b) being rare or unusual, then any attempt to codify rules for such items will just lead to players choosing them all the time (because they are more powerful) and then they wouldn't be cool, unique, or unusual - they would just be yet more items that everyone has to have to keep up. (And of course everyone on the boards would be screaming about "power creep".)
Of course one solution would just be to make it harder for the PCs to get those items, like making it harder to produce them, making them cost more, or preventing you from buying them. But that means you have to have the DM say "No, you can't have that item." And I think that's what the author means by going against the "say yes" philosophy.
Second, let me clarify what I think the original author's point was about the magic items. Let's make up an example of a magic item with a "cool power" - let's say it's a rod that you point it at an undead monster, and you automatically control it, and this power is usable as often as you want and doesn't wear off. In some campaigns, this could be completely useless (like if there are no undead monsters). In other campaigns, it could make the entire adventure trivial (say, if the goal was to enter an ancient tomb and all the monsters you were fighting were undead, you could just control them all.) And it's possible to come up with a campaign where that item could make it much more interesting (say, you have a cemetery where you can spawn undead and control them, so you can have an army of undead and if they're dead you can spawn more, but you have to protect the cemetery etc. etc.)
The point is that the design goal is to have the magic items be as broadly useful as possible, and not have lots of hidden "traps" for either the players or the DM. You don't want the player to spend lots of money on an item that proves to be useless, and you don't want a DM to spend hours coming up with an adventure (or $20-$30 to buy a module) and then the player walks in with an item from New Splatbook #37 and trivializes the entire adventure.
The goal, rather, is to have a "baseline" of items that create a baseline power level, and then DMs who don't want to bother modifying the rules can still have a reasonably balanced baseline, while DMs who do can modify it to suit their tastes.
I think that one thing that might help make this discussion more productive is some clearer examples of what we are talking about. What kinds of items with "cool powers" were in previous editions that were removed from 4e (or people want to add but can't), and what barriers does the system provide to bringing them back in?
First of all, it's possible that what's being asked for here has a fundamental flaw. If the goal is to have "cool" or "unique" magic items, and the definition of "cool or unique" includes both (a) being more powerful than regular magic items and (b) being rare or unusual, then any attempt to codify rules for such items will just lead to players choosing them all the time (because they are more powerful) and then they wouldn't be cool, unique, or unusual - they would just be yet more items that everyone has to have to keep up. (And of course everyone on the boards would be screaming about "power creep".)
Of course one solution would just be to make it harder for the PCs to get those items, like making it harder to produce them, making them cost more, or preventing you from buying them. But that means you have to have the DM say "No, you can't have that item." And I think that's what the author means by going against the "say yes" philosophy.
Second, let me clarify what I think the original author's point was about the magic items. Let's make up an example of a magic item with a "cool power" - let's say it's a rod that you point it at an undead monster, and you automatically control it, and this power is usable as often as you want and doesn't wear off. In some campaigns, this could be completely useless (like if there are no undead monsters). In other campaigns, it could make the entire adventure trivial (say, if the goal was to enter an ancient tomb and all the monsters you were fighting were undead, you could just control them all.) And it's possible to come up with a campaign where that item could make it much more interesting (say, you have a cemetery where you can spawn undead and control them, so you can have an army of undead and if they're dead you can spawn more, but you have to protect the cemetery etc. etc.)
The point is that the design goal is to have the magic items be as broadly useful as possible, and not have lots of hidden "traps" for either the players or the DM. You don't want the player to spend lots of money on an item that proves to be useless, and you don't want a DM to spend hours coming up with an adventure (or $20-$30 to buy a module) and then the player walks in with an item from New Splatbook #37 and trivializes the entire adventure.
The goal, rather, is to have a "baseline" of items that create a baseline power level, and then DMs who don't want to bother modifying the rules can still have a reasonably balanced baseline, while DMs who do can modify it to suit their tastes.
I think that one thing that might help make this discussion more productive is some clearer examples of what we are talking about. What kinds of items with "cool powers" were in previous editions that were removed from 4e (or people want to add but can't), and what barriers does the system provide to bringing them back in?
Or, just to give another example:
There are examples of magical items in 4e that did have "cool effects" that are flavorful and weren't "arbitrarily limited" in how often you could use them. For example, pre-errata Bloodclaw (trade hit points for damage - certainly the idea of sacrificing something of yoursle fot gain more power is a popular theme in fantasy fiction) and pre-errata Veteran's Armor (spend an AP to regain a daily so you can use the same daily over and over again and make it your signature move.) And what was the result? People complained that they were too powerful, so they nerfed them. If they did make a book of "cool new items that are more powerful than regular magic items," how would they avoid that fate? Should they go the route of the HERO System, and put a warning symbol that says "Warning: this item may break your campaign; use at your own risk?"
There are examples of magical items in 4e that did have "cool effects" that are flavorful and weren't "arbitrarily limited" in how often you could use them. For example, pre-errata Bloodclaw (trade hit points for damage - certainly the idea of sacrificing something of yoursle fot gain more power is a popular theme in fantasy fiction) and pre-errata Veteran's Armor (spend an AP to regain a daily so you can use the same daily over and over again and make it your signature move.) And what was the result? People complained that they were too powerful, so they nerfed them. If they did make a book of "cool new items that are more powerful than regular magic items," how would they avoid that fate? Should they go the route of the HERO System, and put a warning symbol that says "Warning: this item may break your campaign; use at your own risk?"
Tallifer
Hero
Except it seems that some people here did not ask for a new kind of thing. They simply want "magic items" to be more powerful and have a story.
The Adventurer's Vault 2 has many items with names, stories, new abilities, item sets, group sets. The Dragon Magazine details intelligent items. The Dungeon Master's Guide, Open Grave and Draconomicon detail very powerful and storied artifacts.
"I want a car to go sailing."
"Um... there are many good cars here, but not that go sailing. How about a yacht?"
"No, a yacht is too different and strange. I just want a car. But it has to be better than any of these normal, boring cars."
"Well... we could sell you this yacht and call it a car."
"Also I want to get it as cheaply as a car."
Windjammer
Adventurer
I'm not sure you're aware of how these items in 3E actually work. The remainder of my post (cross-posted from this discussion) will address this, and compare it to how this works in 4E. The gist of it is this:
D&D 3.5 Magic Item Compendium said:
The book then presents a table with ca. 30 entries of the stock enhancements that the system presupposes the PCs to acquire from level 1 to 20, complete with appropriate body slot entries for items receiving that enhancement and the price boost of the item receiving the enhancement.
What that means is the following. From this point on, the DM can pretty much use, and come up with, any item he finds or can think of, and plaster the system-requirements onto them as an added bonus to whatever crazy other stuff the items do. The list works such that any combo of "stock effect + crazy stuff" he can dream of is possible. Heck, that's the reason why I can inject all the retro stupid that is Jeff Rients' "minor magic items" in his Miscellanium of Cinder into my 3.5 game without wrecking the system's hardwired assumptions as to what magic items (minimally) do.
By contrast, try to throw a sword of rat-farting into a 4E treasure parcel, and the system simply won't compute ("##error - hand slot entry: useless"). For 4E does it the other way round than 3.5. The authors of 4E don't ever give you a list of stock effects - just as they don't ever give you a template for building a new class or a new power - and instead feed you all the possible combos they can think of in their books. As a result, 4E books are (a) filled with endless repetitions of the same item over and over and over (20 tomes for the wizard instead of: 1 with a list of customization options) and (b) never once explain to the GM how he can handle the magic item system creatively once he has filled its base expectations.
In short, 3.5. respects the GM to tinker with the magic item system as he feels like, whereas 4E books are as opaque on the matter as possible. At least, as far as the gist of their printed output goes, for there's some good advice by Mearls on the issue online.
That's not actually true Windhammer.
Simply use the DMG2 inherent bonus feature and then you can pretty much slap ANY feature on a magic item and the system won't care.
Hell, as long as the sword doesn't "break" the + for its level, you pretty much can add ANY effect to a sword such as rat farting.
Really, 4e's system is very explicit as to what bonuses are supposed to come from "gear".
The problem with the sword of rat farting is that most players (99%) will sell said sword and pick up one that does something cooler such as turn on fire etc.
Simply use the DMG2 inherent bonus feature and then you can pretty much slap ANY feature on a magic item and the system won't care.
Hell, as long as the sword doesn't "break" the + for its level, you pretty much can add ANY effect to a sword such as rat farting.
Really, 4e's system is very explicit as to what bonuses are supposed to come from "gear".
The problem with the sword of rat farting is that most players (99%) will sell said sword and pick up one that does something cooler such as turn on fire etc.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
And the system will probably present you an way overpriced magic item.
Of course, it is by "RAW". Maybe the price is accurate for the fantastic reality "simulated" by the system. But that doesn't mean it is balanced from a gaming point of view.
An at-will dragon-dominating item can be fine in your or in my campaign. Or it can totally wreck it. There are many dragons with XP values and levels published that do not take this type of power into account.
In a way, all the magic items in 4E are designed that you, as the DM, don't really have to know them or know that the PCs have them. They will give benefits within predictable margins. But an item of dragon control - that's something the DM needs to know about because if he ever wants to use a dragon, that item will change how things run.
That alone doesn't mean these type of items can't exist. It just means if they exist, they are not items that are "random loot" (or in treasure parcels), or that the players can create themselves with a common ritual. It is something the DM places for story purposes, just as with an artifact.
Windjammer
Adventurer
Thanks, I had indeed not known that! See, in the link I posted Mearls proposed loading all offense and defense +1's when you reach levels 3, 8, 18, 23, 28. In DMG 2 he divides them up so that you get the offense +1's a level earlier than proposed (at level 2, 7, ...), and the defense +1's a level later (at level 4, 9, ...).
Whether you get as much mileage out of these two lines of text as the section on customizing and re-pricing the entire magic item system in 3.5 MIC, I'm not sure. But you're right, it's certainly a good start.
PS. I take it your misquoting my nickname happened by oversight and wasn't done out of spite.
Similar Threads
