WotC: Souldn't Magic Items Be Classified By Function?

[jester47]

So why the definition of magic items by form? This just seems too much of a limitation.

So is a cloak of invisibility going to be cheaper and easier to get than a ring of invisibility when they both really have the same game effect?

It seems that you would want to deliniate magic items by function, setting a number based on somthing that is the limit you can have. The form should simply determine where on the body it goes. I think 7 items is a good measure.

1) 7 is often a magical number
2) there are 5 appendages coming off the body, and two hands.

so maybe you could go as high as 9 but then you are back in Xmas Tree land.

Why not list by effect and form:
Effect: Constant Invisibility Form: Cloak
Effect: Constant Invisibility Form: Ring

Now if all constant effect items don't work until you are 11th level, then thats a different story. But as it stands, I still think that function should trump form when it comes to determining the power of a magic item.

 

[The Little Raven]

So why the definition of magic items by form?

For simply being based on function, I disagree.

Boots of speed are awesome and thematically appropriate.
Boots of intelligence are just a lame metagame creation necessitated by 3e's CTE balancing.

 

[Voss]

Thats a nice extreme absurdist case, Mourn, but you didn't really address the question.
What about torcs and armbands rather than amulets, a belt rather than a ring, that sort of thing.


@jester- sadly, I don't expect they'll 'allow' cloaks of invisibility. Not only will we have the ridiculous 'You must be this tall to ride the Ring' restriction, but certain effects will probably be fiated to only specific item types. Its already sort of present in the article. Defense bonuses get the 'neck' slot. Nowhere else.

Hurrah for flavor restrictions.

 

[Reaper Steve]

So is a cloak of invisibility going to be cheaper and easier to get than a ring of invisibility when they both really have the same game effect?

I suspect form will determine function. If they determine invisibility is provided by cloaks, I doubt a ring of invisibility will exist.

People are judging the 4E article through 3E glasses. I suspect that article is just the tip of the iceberg and we haven't seen the deeper changes yet.

 

[Rechan]

I suspect form will determine function. If they determine invisibility is provided by cloaks, I doubt a ring of invisibility will exist.

Or that a while a cloak of invisibility may let you Hide in Plain Sight, a Ring of Invisibility may give you Invisibility.

Or a Ring gives you Greater, while a Cloak just does the regular old "Now you see me now you don't".

Something else that is missed. Abilities, spells and items have been shuffled up and down the tier system. For instance, Carpet of Flying was said to be what, a 17th level item? Rings may operate on this same notion; a Ring of 3 Wishes would be an Epic item.

 

[The Little Raven]

Thats a nice extreme absurdist case, Mourn, but you didn't really address the question.

As his post's title question was "Shouldn't Magic Items be Classified By Function" and my response was, in essence, "I don't agree," I did address his question. Some people seem to think that magic should be able to be applied to any item for any function, regardless of whether it matches with it thematically. Thus, you get things like "boots of intelligence," which are possible by the letter of the rule, but are thematically bogus.

 

[Hjorimir]

I'm all for it, actually. Here are my reasons why:

1) I appreciate thematically appropriate items.
2) I think if you could have any item provide any kind of ability it would just lend it self to min/maxing and that's one thing I want to really put a limit on.
3) Limitations force players to make choices and some of those choices can prove to be very interesting. Heck, I just find the game more interesting when the players have to make tough decisions.
4) Lastly, I think these kind of limitations helps WotC balance the game.

 

[FadedC]

Well first off your assuming that cloaks of invisibility will exist. Given that cloak is a "required slot" that gives static bonuses and invisibility is a trick effect, I suspect that cloak of invisibility will not in fact exist in the first place and will be replaced by an item that fills a minor slot.

In fact the 3 primary slots do seem to be divided by effect. The weapon slot imrpoves your abilities, the armor slot protects you and the cloak slot presumably improves your magic resistance or something like that. It's the minor slots that are not as divided by type simply because they are......minor.

If your asking if somebody couldn't just subsitute a +3 wand that improves their casting ability with a +3 torc that improves their casting ability, that's not an unreasonable houserule, though it becomes harder to justify why you can't just use both.

 

[Voss]

If your asking if somebody couldn't just subsitute a +3 wand that improves their casting ability with a +3 torc that improves their casting ability, that's not an unreasonable houserule, though it becomes harder to justify why you can't just use both.

Well, here's a question. If you can somehow nick a ranger's two-weapon fighting ability (sigh), can you use a +3 wand in each hand? Do they stack? Can you cast multiple spells? The ranger can make multiple attacks, after all...

 

[The Little Raven]

Well first off your assuming that cloaks of invisibility will exist. Given that cloak is a "required slot" that gives static bonuses and invisibility is a trick effect, I suspect that cloak of invisibility will not in fact exist in the first place and will be replaced by an item that fills a minor slot.

Not necessarily. Remember, the example character has a "+2 cloak of survival," which implies it grants a +2 bonus to saves... and possibly an additional "survival" property. If that's the case, then I could see +2 cloak of invisibility being a possibility as well.