awesomeocalypse
First Post
One of the stated goals of 4e was to minimize or do away with the magic item christmas tree (the idea that each pc should/will accumulate dozens and dozens of magic items) as well as the related concept of items being as crucial to a character's performance as the abilities of the character themself.
As a huge fan of 4e, I have to say I think they failed utterly at this. 4e items may be somewhat weaker, less complex and more uniform in effect than their predecessors from previous editions, but they remain important enough to be crucial building blocks in all but the most simplistic builds, and the "slot" system combined with the expectation of treasure acquisition created by the parcel system means that building a character is still essentially akin to outfitting some sort of high-powered fantastical paper doll.
In fact the main effect of 4e's magic item system has not been to reduce the magic item christmas tree effect, but merely to make the items themselves seem relatively mundane. Since enhancement bonuses are assumed by the levelling curve, a +1 sword serves not provide any sort of actual "bonus", but rather merely to keep a character performing as expected for their level. A level 30 character will be far, far more reliant on magic items to keep pace with equal level monsters than will a 1st level character. And since WotC worked to make sure that item powers would not outshine character powers, the result is simply that most of the items out there with flavorful daily powers see little to no use, and apart from a few specific items with useful effects, most builds seem to gravitate towards items with properties that will provide constant bonuses, which result in more powerful characters, but little in the way of actual flavor.
Simply put, I'm not particularly satisfied with 4'e approach to items. It is an improvement on 3e only in that they tend to be slightly less fiddly, and there are fewer easily-acquired game breaking options (for instance, creating tons and tons of scrolls in order to break the Vancian system in half is no longer an option, thankfully). But it has failed to make items less integral to character performance, or to slow or halt the rate of constant magic item acquisition. Characters are still more or less expected to toss their father's +1 longsword for a higher bonus at the first chance they get (I'm aware DMG2 has rules for levelling an item rather than replacing it, but those are alternate rules, and strike me as an awkward fix for more than 1 or 2 items per character), and high level characters are expected to have a Batman-esque personal armory of magical gear.
Many people might see this as fine. The magic-item-christmas-tree is, by now, a D&Dism with a good amount of tradition around it, and its crossed over to certain other media and kinds of fiction, particularly computer and video games. If you play WoW or Diablo, for example, then characters dripping with magical items which are constantly being replaced by better ones might not strike you as strange or problematic. There's even something to be said for the constant stream of mini-rewards that the system creates--4e is set up so that characters get something cool practically every session, and items are one way to keep those cool somethings coming.
But while I actually do play and enjoy Diablo and WoW and other games, and while there are many D&Disms that I enjoy or see as integral to the game, I have to admit that this is one aspect of the game that's always rubbed me the wrong way. I think this is because I don't look to WoW or Diablo or other games to inform my D&D, and I don't tend to primarily even look at other D&D adventures or campaigns or editions to inspire me.
No, by and large I would say that my D&D games are inspired by fantasy fiction, primarily novels (not D&D novels, either). And in most non-D&D fantasy fiction, magic items operate nothing at all like they do in 4e D&D, or any other edition for that matter.
In most fantasy fiction, magic items are rare, and they are powerful. They are virtually never just replaced because a hero "found something better", because a.) they are awesome to begin with and b.) the hero isn't just walking around finding magic items all the time. Magic items are integral pieces of characters, plots and even entire settings. And even the greatest heroes won't have more than 2 or 3--Gandalf, for example, has a magic staff (which seems to be more of a class feature), a magic ring and a magic sword. King Arthur has a magic sword and a magic scabbard. Bilbo and Frodo have a magic sword, magic armor (while, basically "magic" within the context of LotR) and a magic ring. Harry Potter has a wand (basically a class feature, but his is special), a broomstick and a cloak. Elric has a magic sword and a magic ring. Perseus gets his sword, shield and helmet, each of them a gift from the gods. Many more character, from Conan to Rand Al'Thor either never use magic items, or use them only as specific plot devices rather than as consistently useful tools.
But while these fictional characters only ever have a few items, those items are powerful and important. They are invariably among the greatest such items in the world, and often hold significance that goes far beyond their immediate usefuleneess to the bearer. Harry Potter's wand is a special wand that allows him to stand up to Voldemort, his cloak is a rare and ancient artifact, and even his broomsticks are, at the time he gets each of them, the best in the world. Frodo and Bilbo's ring is the point of the entire book series, but even Sting and their Mithril Armor are, if not exactly legendary, shown to be every bit as effective as any other sword or armor in the books. Frodo never finds a Sting +3 or an adamantine coat of armor to upgrade his old ones, because his old ones don't need upgrading.
In my own games, I'd much prefer magic items follow this model rather than the existing D&D paradigm. Magic items should be very rare, and even legendary heroes should only have a few. But the few they have should be important and awesome and never in need of upgrading. There shouldn't be magic items that feel mundane, no swords that are "just +1". If its a magic item, it should be impressive and cool and desirable and getting it should matter.
I'm not sure there's an easy solution here, but here's one I've been thinking about. Note that this would be incompatible with 4e as written, and is not intended as an actual house rule for any existing edition. This is simply a thought experiment as to what a fix might look like for future editions.
What if, instead of characters getting lots and lots of level-appropriate items, which are gradually replaced as the characters become stronger and more powerful items become level-appropriate, there was no such thing as a "level-appropriate" item, merely magic items, which are all awesome, and characters would only get a couple over the course of their entire career, never to be replaced.
So, in 4e terms, what if each character got only 1 item per tier. It could be a weapon, armor, a ring, whatever. They'd get roughly 1 every 10 levels.
However, each item would be potent, posessing both interesting properties and powers all their own, and each item would be unaccounted for by the system's math.
So, in other words, let's say that there aren't swords ranging from +1 to +6, some with powers and some with properties. Every magic sword would be +2 to hit, with some sort of interesting property, and some powers to boot. However, the math for levels 1-30 would assume no magic items at all. So a character with a +2 sword would be +2 ahead of the curve on attack bonuses forever. That magic sword would always be magical, always giving them a leg up, while characters without a magic sword would still be performing as the game assumes they would. And since a character would only have 1 per tier, the properties and powers could be more potent and interesting, since each player would only have to keep track of one to three items for 30 levels of play.
All items would work like this. So armor would be +2 or whatever forever, always placing that character's defences ahead of the curve.
Lower level characters would have 1 magic item, and that item would be awesome and would *matter*. It would feel like an honest-to-god magic item like characters get in the books, not a placeholder to be upgraded once the characters were of sufficient level. And even at high levels, characters would simply be like Gandalf--3 items, all of them legendary artifacts at their disposal.
This would also incentivize some sort of diversity in what gear people look for. Strikers and damage dealers would obviously look for a magic weapon first, but defenders might want a magic armor or shield to begin with, and controllers and leaders might look for rings or amulets that would enhance their powers in ways beyond straight damage or defense. And even at high levels, since each character would only have 3 items, you'd have diversity--a ranger might have 2 magic swords and some armor, a paladin might have a armor, a shield and a sword, while a wizard might have a staff, a ring an amulet. Each character would be ahead of the curve in a few key ways...but not every way, because they could only have 3 items.
Anyway, this is just something I've been mulling in my head, and its obviously a massive departure from the way the game works now, but I'm interested to hear what you guys think
As a huge fan of 4e, I have to say I think they failed utterly at this. 4e items may be somewhat weaker, less complex and more uniform in effect than their predecessors from previous editions, but they remain important enough to be crucial building blocks in all but the most simplistic builds, and the "slot" system combined with the expectation of treasure acquisition created by the parcel system means that building a character is still essentially akin to outfitting some sort of high-powered fantastical paper doll.
In fact the main effect of 4e's magic item system has not been to reduce the magic item christmas tree effect, but merely to make the items themselves seem relatively mundane. Since enhancement bonuses are assumed by the levelling curve, a +1 sword serves not provide any sort of actual "bonus", but rather merely to keep a character performing as expected for their level. A level 30 character will be far, far more reliant on magic items to keep pace with equal level monsters than will a 1st level character. And since WotC worked to make sure that item powers would not outshine character powers, the result is simply that most of the items out there with flavorful daily powers see little to no use, and apart from a few specific items with useful effects, most builds seem to gravitate towards items with properties that will provide constant bonuses, which result in more powerful characters, but little in the way of actual flavor.
Simply put, I'm not particularly satisfied with 4'e approach to items. It is an improvement on 3e only in that they tend to be slightly less fiddly, and there are fewer easily-acquired game breaking options (for instance, creating tons and tons of scrolls in order to break the Vancian system in half is no longer an option, thankfully). But it has failed to make items less integral to character performance, or to slow or halt the rate of constant magic item acquisition. Characters are still more or less expected to toss their father's +1 longsword for a higher bonus at the first chance they get (I'm aware DMG2 has rules for levelling an item rather than replacing it, but those are alternate rules, and strike me as an awkward fix for more than 1 or 2 items per character), and high level characters are expected to have a Batman-esque personal armory of magical gear.
Many people might see this as fine. The magic-item-christmas-tree is, by now, a D&Dism with a good amount of tradition around it, and its crossed over to certain other media and kinds of fiction, particularly computer and video games. If you play WoW or Diablo, for example, then characters dripping with magical items which are constantly being replaced by better ones might not strike you as strange or problematic. There's even something to be said for the constant stream of mini-rewards that the system creates--4e is set up so that characters get something cool practically every session, and items are one way to keep those cool somethings coming.
But while I actually do play and enjoy Diablo and WoW and other games, and while there are many D&Disms that I enjoy or see as integral to the game, I have to admit that this is one aspect of the game that's always rubbed me the wrong way. I think this is because I don't look to WoW or Diablo or other games to inform my D&D, and I don't tend to primarily even look at other D&D adventures or campaigns or editions to inspire me.
No, by and large I would say that my D&D games are inspired by fantasy fiction, primarily novels (not D&D novels, either). And in most non-D&D fantasy fiction, magic items operate nothing at all like they do in 4e D&D, or any other edition for that matter.
In most fantasy fiction, magic items are rare, and they are powerful. They are virtually never just replaced because a hero "found something better", because a.) they are awesome to begin with and b.) the hero isn't just walking around finding magic items all the time. Magic items are integral pieces of characters, plots and even entire settings. And even the greatest heroes won't have more than 2 or 3--Gandalf, for example, has a magic staff (which seems to be more of a class feature), a magic ring and a magic sword. King Arthur has a magic sword and a magic scabbard. Bilbo and Frodo have a magic sword, magic armor (while, basically "magic" within the context of LotR) and a magic ring. Harry Potter has a wand (basically a class feature, but his is special), a broomstick and a cloak. Elric has a magic sword and a magic ring. Perseus gets his sword, shield and helmet, each of them a gift from the gods. Many more character, from Conan to Rand Al'Thor either never use magic items, or use them only as specific plot devices rather than as consistently useful tools.
But while these fictional characters only ever have a few items, those items are powerful and important. They are invariably among the greatest such items in the world, and often hold significance that goes far beyond their immediate usefuleneess to the bearer. Harry Potter's wand is a special wand that allows him to stand up to Voldemort, his cloak is a rare and ancient artifact, and even his broomsticks are, at the time he gets each of them, the best in the world. Frodo and Bilbo's ring is the point of the entire book series, but even Sting and their Mithril Armor are, if not exactly legendary, shown to be every bit as effective as any other sword or armor in the books. Frodo never finds a Sting +3 or an adamantine coat of armor to upgrade his old ones, because his old ones don't need upgrading.
In my own games, I'd much prefer magic items follow this model rather than the existing D&D paradigm. Magic items should be very rare, and even legendary heroes should only have a few. But the few they have should be important and awesome and never in need of upgrading. There shouldn't be magic items that feel mundane, no swords that are "just +1". If its a magic item, it should be impressive and cool and desirable and getting it should matter.
I'm not sure there's an easy solution here, but here's one I've been thinking about. Note that this would be incompatible with 4e as written, and is not intended as an actual house rule for any existing edition. This is simply a thought experiment as to what a fix might look like for future editions.
What if, instead of characters getting lots and lots of level-appropriate items, which are gradually replaced as the characters become stronger and more powerful items become level-appropriate, there was no such thing as a "level-appropriate" item, merely magic items, which are all awesome, and characters would only get a couple over the course of their entire career, never to be replaced.
So, in 4e terms, what if each character got only 1 item per tier. It could be a weapon, armor, a ring, whatever. They'd get roughly 1 every 10 levels.
However, each item would be potent, posessing both interesting properties and powers all their own, and each item would be unaccounted for by the system's math.
So, in other words, let's say that there aren't swords ranging from +1 to +6, some with powers and some with properties. Every magic sword would be +2 to hit, with some sort of interesting property, and some powers to boot. However, the math for levels 1-30 would assume no magic items at all. So a character with a +2 sword would be +2 ahead of the curve on attack bonuses forever. That magic sword would always be magical, always giving them a leg up, while characters without a magic sword would still be performing as the game assumes they would. And since a character would only have 1 per tier, the properties and powers could be more potent and interesting, since each player would only have to keep track of one to three items for 30 levels of play.
All items would work like this. So armor would be +2 or whatever forever, always placing that character's defences ahead of the curve.
Lower level characters would have 1 magic item, and that item would be awesome and would *matter*. It would feel like an honest-to-god magic item like characters get in the books, not a placeholder to be upgraded once the characters were of sufficient level. And even at high levels, characters would simply be like Gandalf--3 items, all of them legendary artifacts at their disposal.
This would also incentivize some sort of diversity in what gear people look for. Strikers and damage dealers would obviously look for a magic weapon first, but defenders might want a magic armor or shield to begin with, and controllers and leaders might look for rings or amulets that would enhance their powers in ways beyond straight damage or defense. And even at high levels, since each character would only have 3 items, you'd have diversity--a ranger might have 2 magic swords and some armor, a paladin might have a armor, a shield and a sword, while a wizard might have a staff, a ring an amulet. Each character would be ahead of the curve in a few key ways...but not every way, because they could only have 3 items.
Anyway, this is just something I've been mulling in my head, and its obviously a massive departure from the way the game works now, but I'm interested to hear what you guys think
Last edited:
