Thoughts on dealing with the magic item christmas tree

[ProfessorCirno]

I'd advise caution in anything that tools with the math underlying 4e - it's a fickle thing.

I'm my experience, 4e mandates the christmas tree just as much if not more then 3e did, it's just that the gifts are all sweaters now.

 

[Lanefan]

You can always spice things up by giving out magic items that don't directly relate to bending noses into faces or keeping your own nose straight...

Throw a [device of levitation or a folding boat or a brick that turns into a cottage when buried or a 2-way communication device or all of these] into the party and let 'em play with it. That way, they still get the fun of finding neat stuff without butchering the combat math.

Lanefan

 

[Dragonblade]

Use the inherent bonus system found in the DMG 2 and just get rid of standard magic items altogether. And make the few items that are found more like artifacts just without the bonuses (since they are now inherent).

These make items more rare, powerful and unique, and you don't have to worry about breaking the math. You can even do away with the rules for moving on if you want the items to be less transitory.

 

[FireLance]

I thought the "Christmas Tree" was trimmed because the number of items that the PCs required based on standard assumptions was cut down to three in 4E. Using the inherent bonuses variant rule in DMG2, you could theoretically cut it down further to zero, but it might be a good idea to ensure that your players are on board with the sparser magic item game first.

If you still want to give out plussed magic items such as weapons, armor and neck slot items, I suggest using inherent bonuses as a start, and giving all plussed items a fixed +2 bonus at all levels which stacks with the inherent bonus. The inherent bonuses will enable all the PCs to keep up with the math, and the fixed +2 bonus will give the PC with the item an edge without enabling him to overshadow the other characters (as might happen if there is a six-point differential).

 

[JohnSnow]

But that is exactly what happens now. Magic items give potent "bonuses" that, since they are accounted for by monster defenses, are in no way bonuses at all. They are mandatory. A level 30 character without magic items is vastly weaker relative to his enemies than is a level 1 character.

I'd much rather have items that *do* "break" the math, or at least bend it a little. in that they provide an actual bonus which places a character above the curve in a given way.

Honestly, this is easy (I think).

First use DMG2's inherent bonuses. Now you don't NEED the items to make the system math work. Just leave magic items that have non-numerical bonuses. Combats become a bit less swingy, with the lack of extra damage on crits, but otherwise, the system runs as normal. Of course, you still have all the levels of the non-numeric bonuses. A cloak of flying is still a high-level item.

Then, if you want to start "breaking" the math a little, you have, as I see, it a couple options:

1. Introduce items with bonuses that max out at +3 and stack with all other bonuses.
2. Introduce items with bonuses that max out at +5 but provide the same bonus as something else, like feats, or attributes.

The net result is that someone with a magic item gets to cheat the system a bit. But it's not much more significant than attribute and feat-based bonuses. As an aside, a damage bonus is less difficult for the system than a to-hit bonus.

 

[karlindel]

I think it's an excellent idea for what you are trying to do. Despite what you say about it not working with the current edition, I think it's a very easy house rule to implement. All you need to do is give the DMG's inherent bonuses to the player, and have any item bonuses to attack/AC/defenses/etc stack with the inherent bonuses.

You would also want to account for the gold distribution, as the PCs will no longer need gold to spent on purchasing and upgrading magical items (and won't be able to do so). Obviously, the magic item parcels also need to go away. One benefit of this system is that characters are more likely to make use of alchemical items and potions that require daily item uses, to make up for the lack of permanent items that do so.

I have to disagree with others that the proposal will break the 4e math. Quite frankly, you will often have one character whose attacks, defenses, or AC are 1 or 2 points higher than another characters with the current system. All it takes is one PC getting a +2 weapon/armor/amulet while any other PC's is non-magical, or one PC getting +3 while another PC has only a +1 of that type. That happens in my campaign all the time, and it's never been a problem and seldom been an issue (there was a tiny window with the Plate+Shield user having an AC much higher than the rest of the party, but most that was the plate and shield rather than the magic). I would recommend limiting numerical bonuses to +1, though, to avoid opening too wide a gap and to make the items awesome for their powers rather than the numerical abilities.

I think it sounds like a fairly good idea, myself, and I might try it out in a future campaign to see how it works in practice.