What's wrong with the magic item Christmas tree?

[RangerWickett]

I like the Batman comparison. Bats had plenty of toys, but almost none of the toys were "do something better" toys; they were "do something different."

Batman didn't have a gadget that made him faster, or stronger, or smarter. Instead, he had grappling hook to swing and cling, batarangs for ranged attacks, smoke bombs to distract folks, maybe a cloak so he can glide, night vision eyes, shark repellent, etc.

But if he loses all his toys, he still is just as effective at punching bad guys.

If D&D magic items worked the same way, it'd be great. Instead, the fighter needs his toys in order to hit bad guys.

 

[billd91]

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.

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.

You are really not getting what I'm saying at all. My post was in response to someone saying that gear becomes more important than the character. It clearly does not considering the +6 from gear in my example is substantially lower than the +23-24 he gets inherently. As I said, keep the gear the same and drop the character's own inherent power and he has even worse trouble. So, no, the gear is not more important than the character's inherent power.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

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.

Eh. Anything made by Hephaestus or his assistants could turn schmuckly-the-guy-with-a-few-stray-drops-of-divine-blood into Kick-arse McKillerson.

You could argue that Perseus is an example of magic items that do something interesting, but man was he weighted down with them.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

You are really not getting what I'm saying at all. My post was in response to someone saying that gear becomes more important than the character. It clearly does not considering the +6 from gear in my example is substantially lower than the +23-24 he gets inherently. As I said, keep the gear the same and drop the character's own inherent power and he has even worse trouble. So, no, the gear is not more important than the character's inherent power.

Can he do his most basic job (hit the monster) without the gear?

Not without rolling a 20.

Whether the gear is "more" important than the character or not is semantic and sort of silly. The gear is necessary within the structure of the game at that level. It is important to the character's performance the way oxygen is important for respiration. Without it, show's over.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You are really not getting what I'm saying at all.

No, I really do. I just disagree with you that you're making the relevant comparison.

If D&D magic items worked [like Batman's utility belt], it'd be great. Instead, the fighter needs his toys in order to hit bad guys.

Exactly.

 

[DaveMage]

I think magic items are fun - even when a PC is decked out in them.

Does having a lot of magic items sometimes overshadow the PC? Sure. But I'm OK with that as long as the player is having fun.

However, I think the key is to put a cap on what can be bought. If the PCs want to make their own items, fine, but IMC they're not going into a "magic store" and buying that +4 defending sword or stocking up on rings of wishes and +5 tomes.

 

[Lanefan]

I fully agree with Vyvyan Basterd regarding the definition of the magic item Christmas Tree: it does not just mean having a pile of magic items, it means having the same pile of magic items as everyone else and the game expecting this at the design level.

I have no problem at all with characters owning a pile of magic items.

Even better is if they own a pile of magic items and not all are directly related to their class or function. A Fighter with a +3 Wizardslayer Longsword obviously rocks. But a Fighter with a Mirror of Scrying, a Wand of Wonder, and one end of a set of Talk Rocks (talk into one rock and the holder of the other can hear you) rocks even harder.

Lanefan

 

[FireLance]

Hmmm, I was always under the impression that "The Christmas Tree" referred to the PC being decked out with magic items in all his slots so that when someone cast detect magic on him, he lit up like a Christmas tree. The fact that most PCs had the same items was a separate point entirely, and those items were called "The Big Six".

Anyhow, I agree with the posters who have mentioned that it's more of a taste issue. Some gamers prefer magic items to be more plentiful while others prefer magic items to be rarer.

On the issue of whether magic items are "necessary" - isn't that campaign dependent? Sure, if you want use the default assumptions for determining encounter difficulty for the characters (i.e. CR, monster level or XP budget) then you should follow the default progression guidelines. However, if you don't follow the guidelines, you can still run a good game by adjusting the encounter difficulty accordingly (like we used to do before we had these guidelines). Either that, or run a more sandbox game, so that eyeballing the encounter difficulty becomes the players' problem.

It might seem obvious, but if the system expects a level 20 character to have a +5 weapon in order to fight a level 20 monster, then a level 20 character that only has an ordinary weapon will have a harder time taking on that same level 20 monster. However, the character doesn't have to stop adventuing just because fighting level 20 monsters is difficult. Depending on the campaign style, the DM can plan for him to encounter a level 15 or 16 monster, or he can go look for a level 15 or 16 monster to defeat. Not following the default progression guidelines might mean more work, and you might make some mistakes when eyeballing encounter difficulty, but it shouldn't bring your game to a grinding halt.

 

[fba827]

For me it's a personal style preference.

1) I like the focus to be on the PCs (race/class/character and evolution thereof), not thier stuff. I'm not even talking about the +bonus, I'm more so referring to all the properties/effects that magic items tac on to weapon attacks and such. something that becomes a signature magic item for a pc, sure, but this slew of magical flares for each pc starts to overshadow what the pc could inherently do on his own

2) I get a little irked when an item gets to be considered such a pc signature item (maybe an heirloom or something they just use -all- the time) and then it gets dropped for a better item just like that with little sentimentality for what they had to leave

3) Some PC concepts just work better as 'minimalist' type personalities, yet the player may feel required to stock up on all these items for the sake of filling out thier christmas tree (even if it is just a psychological need as opposed to an actual need).

Having said all that, it really is just a personal style preference and nothing is inherently wrong or right with any view on the topic. Plus, lots of what I said really depend on the other players at the table, campaign, and so on.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

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.

Out of general curiosity, what's a "fun" magic item?

I ask this because I've found that most of the items in AVs 1 and 2 that are not routinely blasted as being broken or boring (like, say, the Iron Armbands of Power) have such niche uses that they're not likely to be useful in any given situation, and by the time I remember that my belt or gloves did something that would've helped me, two rounds have passed and the DM is rolling to see if the monster eats my spleen.

Brad