What's wrong with the magic item Christmas tree?

[Bullgrit]

Is there something inherently wrong or problematic about D&D PCs having a lot of magic items? Or is it purely a style issue -- some people want magic items to be "rare and wondrous", some people like a lot of magic gadgets and gimmicks in the game.

Now, assuming the magic items aren't "too powerful," (a nebulous term, to be sure), what is the real problem with a PC having many magic items?

I've participated in campaigns where the PCs had tons of magic items, and I've participated in campaigns where magic items were considered extremely rare. My preference is a campaign where magic items aren't very rare or very common, but I've not seen real problems with either extreme other than when a DM puts the PCs without magic weapons up against an opponent requiring magic items to hit.

So, is there a real problem with the magic item Christams tree concept, or is it purely a clash of styles?

Bullgrit

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I'd say that you'll want to define "inherent" and 'real problem."

I personally don't like the syndrome because it makes me feel like a character's gear is far more important to what the character can do than the character's abilities are.

But "real problem"? I dunno. I still play D&D (well, Pathfinder), so ...

 

[The Human Target]

Yeah its a style clash to me generally.

I prefer a rare magic item game because I like the PCs to gain their powers from race/class and not from stuff they find.

But I can't say in any way that magic items for the most part are "over-powered" or really hurt the game.

 

[AllisterH]

For me personally, it's a sense that I want the character to be that powerful and NOT the items.

For example, strip a 20th level mage of his magic items and he's still a 20TH level mage casting WISH, METEOR STORM, GATE and basically his capabilities are simply on another TIER compared to his 10th level self even if you gave the 10th level character the 20th level gear.

Switch that out for say a fighter and I'm seriously favouring the 10th level FIGHTER with REGULAR 10th level gear over the 20th level fighter with no gear (if the 10th level fighter actually had 20th level gear, I'm thinking it's a curbstomp in the lower level fighter's favour)

EDIT: There's a relatively popular manga/anime called BLEACH and in the latest issue, the bad guy "seals" the magic item of the commandeer of the good guy forces.

Said commander promptly starts wrecking the crap out of the bad guy's secret weapon and laughly points out (paraphrasing), "I'm the top dog not because I have the strongest magic item, but because I'm THE STRONGEST one period!!"

Completely cool scene and what every PC should be even without their magic items.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So, is there a real problem with the magic item Christams tree concept, or is it purely a clash of styles?

Bullgrit

It's mostly a style thing. Styles clash sometimes when the rules assume a certain standard of items in the campaign which are automatically factored in elsewhere.

This of course defeats the purpose of having the item.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Purely a style thing, IMO.

Personally, I like magic items that do cool stuff, but I hate magic items that are +X to whatever. But then, my preference runs toward Conan and Lieber, wherein the skill and badassery is in the hero, and the weapons are just tools. When you lose your +3 sword and pick up a random weapon, the math can really, really turn against you, which I find less satisfying than thinking that my character really just knows his way around weaponry.

On the other hand, if the DM told me the campaign was less Conan, more Greek myth, then a sword that straight up makes me a better fighter fits the milieu just fine.

 

[GnomeWorks]

As has been mentioned, D&D gets to the point where your gear is more important than you are.

It doesn't help that D&D items are pretty bland.

Perhaps part of the problem is the fact that D&D counts on players having magic items with the relevant pluses, so characters wind up tossing old items for new ones, regardless of the RP value of the old weapon (the old "toss your father's sword for a new one" thing).

I don't think I would mind the Christmas Tree effect so much if there weren't so much incentive to toss an item as soon as a better one came along... you might be relying on the items, sure, but at least they're the same items. Then you have more of a Batman effect, where the gadgets become part of defining the character.

 

[AllisterH]

I'm not sure Batman is a good example.

There have been MULTIPLE storylines where the authors explictly mention that Batman without his gear is STILL Batman a.k.a, "I can beat you down without my gear at all...."

The gear just makes the job EASIER.

A better example might be Iron Man. Without the gear, he's a recovering alcoholic.

Similarly, I'm not the Xmas tree effect works for a greek milieu either. Sure, Hercules had his invulnerable lion pelt but he got that by BEATING the lion WITHOUT the gear.

 

[billd91]

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the Xmas tree, as long as the PCs earned the items they've got. I'm not sure it's the style I like best, though.

But one thing about items, 1e and 2e were designed with the assumption that the fighting classes were more dependent on magic items than wizards. It's explicit in the 1e DMG and (at least) implied in the 2e DMG as well. The random magic item tables are significantly skewed toward magic weapons and armor (40% of the table combined in 2e) and away from wizardly items like staves and wands (4% of the table combined).

One of 3e's failings, I believe, is shifting the emphasis on magic items. In 3e, magic armor and weapons make up only 20% of the random treasure. Staves are that common themselves for major items. Add in the ease with which magic items could be created by a spellcaster, and that balancing element in 1e/2e goes out the window.

3e's other major failing with magic items, easy creation, is the other main element that contributes to Xmas tree characters. While the 1e/2e DM could control magic item access, 3e gave the tools for that to the PCs. 4e may make it easier for non-spellcasters to craft items, narrowing the imbalance between the two to a feat, but it doesn't really help the Xmas tree issue exacerbated by the items being simply too easy to make from the get go.

 

[Bullgrit]

. . . so characters wind up tossing old items for new ones, regardless of the RP value of the old weapon (the old "toss your father's sword for a new one" thing).

I don't think I would mind the Christmas Tree effect so much if there weren't so much incentive to toss an item as soon as a better one came along... you might be relying on the items, sure, but at least they're the same items.

Isn't this mostly an issue with older/classic editions, where there were no rules for upgrading/improving an already magic item? With the latest editions, there are rules for adding more magic to your personal item, yes?

Do PCs still wait to find a +2 item and then toss out their +1 item? Or don't most upgrade their +1 item to +2?

Bullgrit