What's wrong with the magic item Christmas tree?

[billd91]

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

I disagree that it gets to that point. Take an 18th level fighter with a +4 flaming burst long sword and a belt of giant strength +4 (to make a fairly arbitrary not terribly unrepresentative choice). Of his bonus to hit, 18 comes from his level, 2 for Weapon Focus (and greater weapon focus), maybe 3 or 4 comes from his inherent strength. He gets a relatively small 6 of his attack bonus from the magic items.

A magic item may make a pretty big difference between something that has full DR against such a fighter, but chances are he's still getting some damage past the 10 to 15 points of DR anyway.

As far as defensive items, his AC will be more significantly increased by magic because of multiple, cooperative defensive bonus types. But unless his armor and shield (if he uses one) are both highly enchanted, his armor bonus probably still makes up the plurality of his AC bonuses. His inherent save bonuses, even on the weak save, can still total higher than the +4-5 his cloak of resistance will give him... assuming he didn't dump stat his Dex or Wis.

There's no way the comparison is between Tony Stark and Iron Man. It really is more of a Batman issue (considering he really can't duke it out with the likes of Superman or Wonder Woman without equalizing gadgets). Possibly Hawkeye/Green Arrow at the most extreme, I'd say, because neither seems to prove as ineffective in a fight as Iron Man sans armor.

 

[Stoat]

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.

It's also worth noting that 3E added several new classes of magic items in particular Amulets of Natural Armor, Cloaks of Resistance and boosters for all six stats.

That said, the Christmas tree effect doesn't bother me too much.

 

[billd91]

It's also worth noting that 3E added several new classes of magic items in particular Amulets of Natural Armor, Cloaks of Resistance and boosters for all six stats.

That said, the Christmas tree effect doesn't bother me too much.

Ah, yes. The booster for the additional stats. In 1e/2e, the stat boosters (other than books) were mainly for strength or dexterity. Adding easy boosts to spell-casting stats is another way the balance was changed in 3e.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I disagree that it gets to that point. Take an 18th level fighter with a +4 flaming burst long sword and a belt of giant strength +4 (to make a fairly arbitrary not terribly unrepresentative choice). Of his bonus to hit, 18 comes from his level, 2 for Weapon Focus (and greater weapon focus), maybe 3 or 4 comes from his inherent strength. He gets a relatively small 6 of his attack bonus from the magic items.

Well, one, the belt at 18th is going to be +6, but minor quibble, as is the likelihood that the fighter has other magical attack bonuses.

The bigger point is that a 30% absolute swing is very, very far from "relatively small." It's pretty huge, in fact. Just consider that it can be the difference between needing a 12 to hit or needing an 18. That's a big difference.

As further illustration, the difference between an 18th level fighter and an 18th level bard (BAB only) is "only" +5. Again, a very significant difference.

 

[Morrus]

There's nothing "wrong" with it. It's a flavour thing; some folks like it, some don't. I personally don't. But I don't think it's wrong to like it.

 

[billd91]

The bigger point is that a 30% absolute swing is very, very far from "relatively small." It's pretty huge, in fact. Just consider that it can be the difference between needing a 12 to hit or needing an 18. That's a big difference.

Relative to the +23-24 he's getting from his inherent BAB, feats, and strength, it's small. Drop those down to, say, a 10th level fighter with 1 point less in feats and strength, and the fighter with the lower inherent bonuses is hurting even more. Magic gear makes a difference, but it usually isn't more important than the character himself.

 

[Dice4Hire]

It bothers me a bit when the charaters have great difficulty being effective without a long list of magical items.

I would prefer to see characters with 3-5items, that have interesting histories and powers, that augment the character, that make the character more unique, rather than be necessary for the character to survive and prosper in their adventures.

Unfortunately, for my game of choice, that has never really been true, and the christmas tree effect is needed to make the character more effective. or just plain effective.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Relative to the +23-24 he's getting from his inherent BAB, feats, and strength, it's small.

No, it's really not. A 25% increase (+24 to +30) is not small. I'm really not certain how to convince you of this, but perhaps a game designer will chip in.

And, again, that's ignoring the fact that the relative increase is less important that the absolute increase.

An 18th level fighter with a +24 attack bonus needs a natural 20 to hit an AC of 44 (a spell-using CR 20 dragon, for instance), whereas the fighter with an additional +6 in gear needs a 14. That's 5% to 35%. That's seven times as likely to hit with an attack.

Magic gear makes a difference, but it usually isn't more important than the character himself.

You are confusing "bigger bonuses" with "more important." The 18th level fighter above has zero chance to do meaningful damage to the dragon without gear, but a decent chance to do it with gear. Same 18th level fighter ... but the magic makes all the difference.

Now you can say, "Okay, but if he doesn't have the gear, he doesn't need to fight a CR 20 dragon," and that's true. The problem is that his 18th level wizard buddy without gear will crush anything that's an appropriate challenge for the 18th level fighter without gear.

The reliance on magic items in 3E D&D is definitely real, and definitely a problem. (Again, depending upon your definition of "rpoblem.") The author of Trailblazer makes an interesting argument that the problem is overstated, but IMO his analysis is too narrow, as it applies to "what's okay for this one character," without paying any attention to "now what happens when we consider the group as a whole."

 

[Dausuul]

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

The Christmas tree effect presents some mechanical hassles, but it's mainly a style issue.

Hassles include the following:

• DMs must worry about the players' gear "keeping up with their level." This is especially a concern in 3E where some classes are more tree-dependent than others; if you don't provide enough WBL, the fighter falls (further) behind the wizard. In 4E, it just means the monsters' power level inches ahead of the PCs', so encounter difficulty is harder to calculate.
• Attempting to control PC access to items through pricing leads to hyperinflation as the PCs advance through levels. This is particularly visible in 4E, where they had to invent a whole new "epic currency" for characters who routinely drop 25K on a single healing potion.
• Interesting and unique items tend to be ignored in favor of the standard tree ornaments. A broom that sweeps on its own is fun to have, but when you're an adventurer choosing between that and +1 to hit, it's a no-brainer.

Stylistically, I don't like the number-crunching attitude toward magic items engendered by the Christmas tree, and I think it also pushes item design in a bad direction... bland mechanical functionality instead of strange and exciting in-game utility.

(As a note, the Christmas tree has nothing to do with PCs having lots of items per se. It's the integration of those items into the core math of the game, via the "+X item" mechanic, such that PCs are expected by the game to have certain gear at certain levels. If "+X items" were done away with, the Christmas tree effect would vanish with them, regardless of how much loot the DM handed out.)

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

It's also worth noting that 3E added several new classes of magic items in particular Amulets of Natural Armor, Cloaks of Resistance and boosters for all six stats.

It bothers me a bit when the charaters have great difficulty being effective without a long list of magical items.

I would prefer to see characters with 3-5items...

I only quote the two above posts because they help illustrate one point I would like to make first. I believe the "Magic Item Christmas Tree" definition has incorrectly come to mean "Too Many Magic Items." Before the term came into being there was a scale ranging from No Magic -> Low Magic -> High Magic -> "Monty Haul." Debates on the "right" place to be on the scale have raged through all of us, including the very creators of the game.

The "Magic Item Christmas Tree" was, as I understand it, the defintion of a phenomenon particular to the inception of 3E D&D. Plussed weapons, armors, shields, rings of protection, amulets of natural armor, and an array of stat boosters came to dominate the character sheet over all other types of magic items. The majority, if not all, of the character's magic item slots were filled with items that made them more effective in combat (mostly). And later rules allowed you to convert that belt of giant strength into a hat of giant strength for a little extra cost so you could get the most "usefulness" out of your magic item slots. Why take a more flavorful item (e.g. a hat of disguise) or a more conditional item (even if it "popped" bigger than a flat bonus), when you could fill your magic item slots with more consistent bonuses to those important stats? Obviously this phenomenon didn't happen to everybody, but enough people experienced it for it to earn its own name.

4E promised to lessen this phenomenon. The solution was to originally create only three slots that could be filled with mundane statistical bonuses, leaving the remaining slots for more "fun" magic items. I think this only partially addressed the phenomenon and later works (AV) worked against this principle.

Edit: Although another development of inherent bonuses may improve this further. I've yet to explore those enough to know how that could effect player choice.

that have interesting histories and powers, that augment the character, that make the character more unique, rather than be necessary for the character to survive and prosper in their adventures.

That being said, I do not like the Christmas Tree Effect as I've described it above and agree with Dice4Hire and others that I would like to see magic items with "interesting histories and powers, that augment the character, that make the character more unique, rather than be necessary for the character to survive and prosper in their adventures." The exact number of magic items matters less, but ingrown in the desire for uniqueness is a desire for less than more. The "more" aspect is better covered in my opinion by having magic items that grow in strength and number of powers a la Earthdawn's threaded magic items. I think 4E Artifacts could fit the bill very well if someone were to put more effort into using them as the sole basis for magic items in a D&D campaign, whether officially or fan-created (edit: probably best in conjunction with inherent bonuses).