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

[small pumpkin man]

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?

Why would you think that? The simplest assumption would be that either they cost the same, or the ring costs more and does more. Seriously, assumptions like this make Baby Moradin Cry.

Ultimately, my answer to the thread question is no, as there is simply no real benefit for doing it that way, since there is nothing that stops you, as a GM, from making boots of invisibility. Items by slot is tradition, it is more intuitive and it is more thematic than by function, and since I see no downside, the current way looks good to me.

 

[catsclaw227]

Hurrah for flavor restrictions.

One person's flavor restriction is another person's attempt to codify the rules to prevent the Christmas Tree Effect from getting out of control.

If it's just function over form, then my Shoe of Wisdom +4 allows me to replace the Periapt slot with something else to min.max my character.

If you want the "flavor" back in your game, go for it. Just don't be suprised to see it exploited.

 

[TwoSix]

Do you think siloization of magical item effects is a good thing?

If yes, how did we separate these effects so that when a character acquires two items of similar function, it's intuitive that you can can't use these items together?

I think WotC asked these questions and wound up with body slots.

 

[D.Shaffer]

You can get something similar to what you want by just divorcing the description from the effect. All they're really doing with the various slots is siloing the abilities and marrying those silos to specific fluff text. All Movement based items are Feet based slots, for example.

If you want to keep the silos, just rename the 'item' based silos to effect based silos. Movement Item slots instead of Foot item slots, for example.

If you dont want silos AT ALL, you have other issues.

 

[jaer]

I think the new system has really given DMs a way to play lower magic worlds or greater magic worlds without unbalancing the campaign in a way 3e did not.

If the expectations are for 3 slots to be close to X at certain points for balance and the rest are merely flavor, then it is easy enough to have

a) a low magic campaign that doesn't restrict the "neck" powers to the neck, so that characters can have the require primary powers in different slots, and only have 3 or 4 items throughout their career, which the article states won't be unbalanced against the players.

b) a high magic campaign with lots of treasure all over the place, magic markets in every town, and huge hoards of loot in every dingeon. Since only 3 are the prime power slots, so long as those are appropriately balanced to the level, characters having lots of options for every other slot won't unbalance the game. Magic items are so optional that they are not even needed, then conversely, they aren't powerful enough to completely unend a game if the player is given a wide range of options.

The 3e philosophy: you need 8-12 magic items of respectible potency to succeed at higher level play, and you will be constantly upgrading old gear for new, better stuff to in order to survive.

The 4e philosophy: so long as you have these 3 items at the appropriate power levels, you are fine and balanced. Everything else is up to how the DM wants to play his campaign world.

 

[zoroaster100]

I like the idea in WOTC's article that certain types of items, such as defense items, get specific item slot restrictions. That will help limit broken character builds that depend on a character wearing all kinds of similar function items to boost one aspect of the character to a silly level of power.

 

[delericho]

Do you think siloization of magical item effects is a good thing?

If yes, how did we separate these effects so that when a character acquires two items of similar function, it's intuitive that you can can't use these items together?

I think WotC asked these questions and wound up with body slots.

The weakness of this approach comes when considering creatures that have more than two arms, for example. Do they get to use multiple sets of bracers? More than 2 rings?

At this point, I'm sort of leaning towards a more Exalted (1e?) approach to magic items - where characters can basically carry as many as they want, but in order to use an item they have to attune to it (or just activate it), but have a limited pool of points from which to do that.

I am, however, very glad they limit item powers by form. It makes a lot of sense to me that footwear, for example, should be limited to affects dealing with movement. No boots of intelligence for me!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I still think that function should trump form when it comes to determining the power of a magic item.

Only if you want to have every category of effect on every character, which moves things back into the "magic items are must haves" camp.

 

[Cadfan]

I am, however, very glad they limit item powers by form. It makes a lot of sense to me that footwear, for example, should be limited to affects dealing with movement. No boots of intelligence for me!

I would like, no, I demand, Pantaloons of Fire.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

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...

No, I don't think you can because my recollection from other discussions was that the caster makes arcane attacks (not casting spells) with or without an implement. It will be stronger with an implement, but can be done without it just fine.

OK, you can make the argurment that the Ranger can do the same with his fists, but in that case his fist becomes his weapon - the source of his power is his muscles, rather than an arcane source channeled from the caster.