# New article Design and Development Article on Magic Item Slots



## Lab_Monkey (Jan 23, 2008)

A new design and development article is up:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080123&authentic=true



> One of our goals in 4th Edition was to reduce characters’ reliance on magic items. The most important portion of this goal involved removing a lot of the magic items that were essential just so your character could feel effective, like stat-boosting items, amulets of natural armor, and the like. We also felt like these items weren't as exciting as magic items should be, yet characters depended on them heavily to feel adequate in proportion to their level. We felt that the cool stuff a character can do should come from that character’s abilities, not his gear.
> 
> Items are divided by item slot, much like they were in D&D 3.5 (though it took until Magic Item Compendium for the system to be quantified clearly). As before, you can only wear one item in each slot. The number of slots has been reduced (by combining slots that were similar), to keep the number of items manageable and easy to remem-ber. You still have a ton of choices for items in the game, and when we were still using more slots, our playtesters reported that it caused information overload.
> Primary Slots
> ...


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 23, 2008)

So much for getting rid of the so-called Christmas tree effect....


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 23, 2008)

For everyone who can't log in to DDI.


			
				WoTC_Logan Bonner said:
			
		

> Oops you updated with the text while I was making this post.




It seems like every change they make drives me further away from 4e.  I don't know what's worse that I started out pro 4e and hoping it would be great or that I now lack any confidence in the ability of the designers.


----------



## Aloïsius (Jan 23, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> So much for getting rid of the so-called Christmas tree effect....




Yup. I hope 5.0 will get rid of the "primary slots" item with plusses...


----------



## Cmarco (Jan 23, 2008)

Cool. Very cool.

Already got the wheels spinning...


----------



## Masquerade (Jan 23, 2008)

Too bad to see some required plusses sticking around, but I like that most of the magic item types are described as optional.

They've piqued my interest with the limit on rings, too. I wonder what sort of things rings will let you do in 4e...


----------



## Nine Hands (Jan 23, 2008)

Those changes sound reasonable, my biggest problem with 3rd Edition magic items was the stat boosters, which are gone.

I really like the idea that rings can't be used by anyone lower than 11th level.  That's pretty neat.


----------



## Xethreau (Jan 23, 2008)

I like!  Really, I totally agree with everything, except one thing.  I don't really like not being able to wear necklaces and a cloak together, but I'm already over it.


----------



## Rokes (Jan 23, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> So much for getting rid of the so-called Christmas tree effect....




Agreed.  "We expect you to have (insert item)" is NOT what I was hoping to hear.  In fact it's the exact opposite.  I guess I was hoping for more "magical" items instead of +2 armor.  The only way to reduce the Christmas Tree would be to make all items unique, and not provide bonuses (be it to armor, skills, abilities, etc).

A rope of climbing, an immovable rod, or a quaal's feather token are perfect examples of well designed magic items.


----------



## Xethreau (Jan 23, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> So much for getting rid of the so-called Christmas tree effect....



Next time you decorate your Christmas tree with three ornaments, send me the pic over photobucket.


----------



## Lab_Monkey (Jan 23, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> So much for getting rid of the so-called Christmas tree effect....




I agree.  The number of items on the 11th level character is... well, very Christmas tree like.

I'm very happy that they've cut down the number of stat/natural armor/deflection/etc. bonus items.  Having only 3 such items per character is very reasonable.  Still, I would have preferred they cut the item:character ratio down even more severely.  

I guess I shouldn't be surprised though- finding new magic items is fun for players.  Even if you find only an item or two per session, that adds up quickly over the course of a long running campaign.

I will probably end up awarding a few multi-power legacy items and cutting down on the number of slotted items per character for my 4e campaign.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Jan 23, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> It seems like every change they make drives me further away from 4e.  I don't know what's worse that I started out pro 4e and hoping it would be great or that I now lack any confidence in the ability of the designers.



What change in particular in this article do you have problems with, and why? Seems most of the comments in this thread is that things didn't change enough.


----------



## Gargoyle (Jan 23, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> So much for getting rid of the so-called Christmas tree effect....




That was my impression.  I was hoping for fewer slots and no "We expect you to have +2 ....".


----------



## Green Knight (Jan 23, 2008)

RyukenAngel said:
			
		

> Next time you decorate your Christmas tree with three ornaments, send me the pic over photobucket.




Exactly. They're building the game around only needing three magic items, rather than one item in every possible slot with stat boosts up the wazoo. And the three items are items which every character would have. An offensive item and two defensive items (AC and Saving Throws).


----------



## Lab_Monkey (Jan 23, 2008)

After reading it a second time I definitely feel that this a positive change.  All the items on his 11th level gnome sound interesting and evocative.  While the armor isn't that exciting, the weapons and cloak both seem the have some special properties beyond just being +X items.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jan 23, 2008)

Unhappy to see three categories with "pluses", unhappy to see that cloaks and necklaces are conflicting. But I can live with the latter.

And for the former: Well, the _+2 weapon_ is an iconic item, it's a D&D staple. To get rid of it is to lose something very D&Dish, I can understand why it's still there, and hence it causes a ripple effect - if attacks (i.e. weapons and implements) get boosted, the defences have to be boosted as well (i.e. armour and F/R/W saves).

Additionally, I can see that weapons need to have more than just a special effect (fire, cold whatever), dealing extra damage and hitting better certainly makes happy, because otherwise we'd also get the same effect with extra damage (+d6), there are not many interesting weapon effects that don't involve attack rolls or damage. While not ideal, I can live with and understand it.

Well, it's still a Christmas tree, but a small one. A shrub. As promised.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 23, 2008)

+x Swords is DnD.

but this time it is very easy to adjust, because magical weapons, armor and necklaces all add the same bonuses to attack, AC and defenses at a certain level.

So if you don´t give out those items, the math still works (and you just have to use slightly less powerfull monsters and equally low equipped monsters)


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 23, 2008)

Seems very similar to 3e. I was expecting much more of a change based on the 'Xmas tree is gone' and 'Charlie Brown Xmas tree' comments. Only four slots have been removed - face, torso, back and one ring - reducing the 3e total of 12 to 8 in 4e.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 23, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> What change in particular in this article do you have problems with, and why? Seems most of the comments in this thread is that things didn't change enough.



Not that they changed but the nature of the changes taken individually.  They're item slot redistribution seems a little off.  As one poster pointed out "can't wear a cloak and amulet at the same time" ?  The ring and head issue are the worst offenders in my case.  Not bing able to wear a magic ring until you reach X level, and getting more slots as level goes up?  Too gamist entirely.  Then there's the blurb about the "orbitals".  Suddenly they've become the equivalent of the glowing EPIC/ENDGAME markers above characters in certain MMOs.  Apparently the wide range of ioun stones is gone, I liked the range of ioun stones and in fact made sure the DMG list was copiously added to both as player and DM (custom items are why the creation rules exist).  Even the crappy little dull gray ones were interesting and useful, for one I generally had them used as fashion accesories by nobles along with continual flame clothing and such.


----------



## DandD (Jan 23, 2008)

Sad. So much for that promise. People will still hunt for better plus-items, and try to hog as many magic items as possible, if they give better stats. Oh well, some things in D&D you simply can't get rid off. 
I'm disappointed in this.


----------



## Lab_Monkey (Jan 23, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Seems very similar to 3e. I was expecting much more of a change based on the 'Xmas tree is gone' and 'Charlie Brown Xmas tree' comments. Only three slots have been removed - face, torso and one ring - reducing the 3e total of 12 to 9 in 4e.




I agree, completely with what you've written above. However, also consider that they've toned things down by removing: 

-Stat Ability bonuses (~4 slots per character) [edited for clarity]
-Natural Armor
-Deflection Bonus to AC
-Shield bonuses to AC
-Misc. bonuses (luck, sacred, etc.) to attack and defense.

That's a large part of the Christmas Tree effect right there.


----------



## Sammael (Jan 23, 2008)

Color me disappointed - I was expecting ALL magic item dependency to go away. 

I also don't like the artificial ring limitations by tier. 

Oh, and that 11th level gnome has more items than my 11th level PCs used to have - and the item names are fairly reminiscent of 3.x Christmas tree ornaments. If all they did was reduce such items' use to "per encounter" or "per day," all they managed to do is slow the game down - instead of having all bonuses factored in, I will have to calculate them all the damn time.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 23, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Sad. So much for that promise.  Oh well, some things in D&D you simply can't get rid off.



You don't even have to get rid of the iconic +X to get rid of that factor just switch what the plus applies to.  Instead of adding to attack it adds to damage or widens the crit range 


			
				DandD said:
			
		

> I'm disappointed in this.



not the only one


----------



## FourthBear (Jan 23, 2008)

I feel the change is in the right direction, but not as much as I would like.  Like they said, it looks like we're going to end up with a Charlie Brown Christmas Tree effect.  I suppose that more wasn't in the cards because players just like magic items too much to reduce the default number drastically.  If a +2 bonus is appropriate for 9th level, it sounds like around 10% of your total attack or defense bonus will be from magic.  I suppose that's enough to make a difference, but not enough to cripple you, should you lose the item in question.  Actually, the magic weapons and magic armor don't really bug me too much, but the assumed neck slot does.  Wizards using magic wands, warriors having magic sword and such seem like something that's a pretty good default for mid and high level.  Everyone having a magic amulet?  Nah.

I really, really hope that opponents aren't generated with magic items standard and that magic items frequency in encounters is geared down to prevent the "oh, another +1 short sword?  Toss it in the bag of holding, Gunther.  Yawn."


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 23, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Sad. So much for that promise. People will still hunt for better plus-items, and try to hog as many magic items as possible, if they give better stats. Oh well, some things in D&D you simply can't get rid off.
> I'm disappointed in this.




no, this time it will be very different:

you don´t need those Items to get a reasonable defense or stats. The problem in 3.x is that as a master, you have to give out mgical items or the first save or die spell kills your players.
When you have an NSC, you have to give magical defense items so that he doesn´t die in 6 seconds. Now to compensate the lack of a +2 sword and a +2 armour, you just have to increase the Level of the character by 4. Seems pretty easy.

No Rings... i am biased... but one ring was always one of protection, so you just lose one slot at epic tier and this is a restriction which can be easily ignored...


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Jan 23, 2008)

I like it. Like, a whole lot. I love the fact that they're building encounters/monsters around expected things (such as the tiers and base bonuses on magic items).

It'll make it a whole hellofa lot easier to determine when it's appropriate to release exceptionally powerful items such as the Vorpal Sword into the game at an appropriate level. 

Level caps, or level requirements as a prerequisite to use specific magic items is an excellent backend mechanism to help balance encounters and monsters versus PCs. Two thumbs up!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 23, 2008)

Hey there! 



			
				UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> +x Swords is DnD.
> 
> but this time it is very easy to adjust, because magical weapons, armor and necklaces all add the same bonuses to attack, AC and defenses at a certain level.
> 
> So if you don´t give out those items, the math still works (and you just have to use slightly less powerfull monsters and equally low equipped monsters)




I wonder if the '+' is equal to 1/4 character level (rounded down)? Meaning you wouldn't get a +1 weapon until minimum 4th-level? That said...



> Here’s what my 11th-level gnome warlock, Dessin, is wearing right now:
> 
> Implement: +3 rod of dark reward
> Armor: +3 leather armor
> Neck: +2 cloak of survival




...the Cloak of Survival is only +2, while the rod and armour are +3.


----------



## Stormtalon (Jan 23, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> Actually, the magic weapons and magic armor don't really bug me too much, but the assumed neck slot does.  Wizards using magic wands, warriors having magic sword and such seem like something that's a pretty good default for mid and high level.  Everyone having a magic amulet?  Nah.




Well, since the article mentions neck slot is for either amulet _or_ cloaks, I think it'll be ok.  Sure, not everyone will have the magic amulet -- folks like the ranger/fighter/rogue will gravitate towards the cloaks and such.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 23, 2008)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> ...the Cloak of Survival is only +2, while the rod and armour are +3.



 because it is a played character, which doesn´t have only appropriate items (some maybe a bit higher, some lower than that)


----------



## maggot (Jan 23, 2008)

Every time I read another 4E article, my hopes die a little more.  For all the things they are changing, the couldn't see themselves to change the system enough so an 11th level character didn't walk around with 9 magic items.  Sigh.

At least if he were 10th level, he wouldn't be able to have that ring.  Some kind of progress.


----------



## Aage (Jan 23, 2008)

Even though I hate the rest of the article, here's an interesting line...



> Even though this is called an item slot, that doesn’t mean you can’t* wield more than one weapon*, because that would make the *ranger* cry.




Expected perhaps, but this confirms that 2-weapon fighting will be the domain of rangers?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 23, 2008)

I love it. Three item slots are assumed per character, +X items are gone for the most part, and the magic items listed sound very flavorful. I'm looking forward to this.


----------



## Another Gnome (Jan 23, 2008)

Nothing really new in that article, and certainly little to no improvement over the 3.5 system. Personally, this is easily the biggest disappointment (and really only major one so far) where rules are concerned. I utterly despise artificial, nonsenscial limitations on wearing magic items, and the level-based ring slots is just frigging stupid. Boo!

Okay, so they want to cut down the signifacance of magic items. That's something I fully support, but this is not solving the problem, this is sweeping it under the carpet. It's not innovative, it's not elegant... it mostly just looks like something desperately cooked up at the last minute. I'm disappointed. 

...

Actually that was a bit unfair; I do like the difference between primary and secondary items.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 23, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Exactly. They're building the game around only needing three magic items, rather than one item in every possible slot with stat boosts up the wazoo.



But 3.5 wasn't originally built around one item in every possible slot with stat boosts up the wazoo.  You needed a magic weapon after a while, but if you were fully decked out in a min-maxed way with all the slots filled, you'd just slaughter things of an appropriate CR.

What the Christmas Tree let you do in 3.5 was to take on opponents way above your CR.  For this and other reasons of power creep, they made monsters increasingly tougher for a given CR, to which point the items did become "needed."  3.5 evolved into a game where the Christmas Tree was needed (that is, if your DM used the later MMs or otherwise scaled up difficulty to account for Christmas Trees)... but it didn't start that way. 

Now, 4E might be able to stop this arms race if they really hold the line on what magic items are allowed in new accessories.  If future 4E accessories introduce items that significantly increase PC power... then more and more PCs will acquire such items... and monsters will need to be scaled up to match this new power level... and PCs without such items will be left behind.  But it really depends on their determination to stick to their guns.  A splatbook that increases PC power is probably going to sell better than one that offers "different but not better" options.  So they have to weigh the long-term viability of the system against a short-term sales gain.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 23, 2008)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Color me disappointed - I was expecting ALL magic item dependency to go away.



 I did not expect it all to go away, but this is still more than I wanted to see,







			
				Sammael said:
			
		

> I also don't like the artificial ring limitations by tier.



Oh, I am *pissed* about this. Level restrictions on items is a pet peeve of mine in electronic games.

related...
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=215


----------



## Sir Brennen (Jan 23, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> No Rings... i am biased... but one ring was always one of protection, so you just lose one slot at epic tier and this is a restriction which can be easily ignored...



I have a feeling rings of protection have gone away along with the stat boosters. Rings should be more interesting now if they're only available at higher levels.


----------



## Rokes (Jan 23, 2008)

I was really hoping for more changes that would convince more characters to splurge on the "Dust of incredibly interesting, and possibly life saving, if only in the right situation, but would make for a great story if it works."  Instead it's going to be the same crap, where they just save their money for the next plus X item.

I guess their thought is that if every character has "magical abilities" then every character should have lots of magic items as well.  I guess it's just personal preference to see my players depending on their abilities and less on their items.

Thank god for rule 0.  (Although if the rules are based on them assuming a 9th level character has +2 armor, it'll take a bit more tweaking...)


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 23, 2008)

Rokes said:
			
		

> Instead it's going to be the same crap, where they just save their money for the next plus X item.



I'd rather see magic items not be for sale.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 23, 2008)

I swear, some of you people have the most ridiculous expectations. No more stat boosting items is a MAJOR change and will go a heck of a long way towards reducing the Christmas tree effect.

Seriously people, this is D&D. Since 1st edition magic items have been a part of the game. D&D wouldn't be D&D without +X Swords and +X Armor. You cry that the game is moving further from its roots, but now you cry its not moving far enough away. They can't win. 

Seriously, if you have a problem with +X Swords and Armor, then not only is 4e NOT your game, no edition of D&D really is. Magic items are an iconic part of the D&D experience and have been for 30 years.

The problem with 3.5 was not magic items per se, it was the preponderance of stat boosting items and the fact that a plethora of magic items were all but required at higher levels. Now, other than weapon/implements and magic armor/clothes you NEED NO ITEMS! But cool and flavorful items are still a part of the game. Just mostly optional.

This is a vast improvement and an excellent change. Once again the 4e designers have proven their brilliance. 4e is shaping up to be the BEST edition of D&D EVER. Period.

And I haven't even seen the book yet.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 23, 2008)

Rokes said:
			
		

> Thank god for rule 0.  (Although if the rules are based on them assuming a 9th level character has +2 armor, it'll take a bit more tweaking...)



Hey at least they're being more explicit about it this time, now you know just how much to add in to re-balance for the lack of the assumed baseline items.


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 23, 2008)

So Frodo must have been 11th level?  (SORRY, I re-read the article and see that it was "explained", gut reaction I guess, normally I am much more level headed)

Still not fond of level restrictions on items.  It appears to "gamist" for my flavor.  I hear the explanation "character not powerfull enough to unlock the magical properties", but it does not sit well.  Maybe some items are special but all of them?

I think my basic issue is it breaks my suspension...etc.  Would't a magical class be more powerful sooner than a martial class and be able to wear the ring sooner?

sorry again...

/end rant
/drink beer


----------



## Rokes (Jan 23, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> I'd rather see magic items not be for sale.




Same here, but short of a new setting, this is a house-rule only domain.  

These magic item rules seem like they spent a whopping 4 hours to develop...


----------



## Rokes (Jan 23, 2008)

SkidAce said:
			
		

> So Frodo must have been 11th level?




Thanks for making me spit out my morning coffee!  (8 am here in Japan)


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 23, 2008)

SkidAce said:
			
		

> So Frodo must have been 11th level?



Nope. The One Ring, being an Artifact, wasn't constrained by the magic item rules.

As the article pointed out.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 23, 2008)

SkidAce said:
			
		

> So Frodo must have been 11th level?




I hope that was a bad joke.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 23, 2008)

Rokes said:
			
		

> (Although if the rules are based on them assuming a 9th level character has +2 armor, it'll take a bit more tweaking...)



Not really. Boost class based defence factored on when each plus is supposed to show up.

A problem with 3E was wotc was usually not clear when a PC was expected to have which plus. A +2 weapon cost only slighty more than a +3 armor so which should the PC buy first? The weapon will be more fun, but you gotta live to get the loot.


----------



## Slander (Jan 23, 2008)

3 required combat slots, 6/8 optional fun slots, limited stat boosters. Far more manageable. Color me happy. 

The ring limitation does seem a little bizarre, but it's not a serious enough problem that it'll bug me.


----------



## rkanodia (Jan 23, 2008)

edit: About seven thousand people beat me to it.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 23, 2008)

SkidAce said:
			
		

> So Frodo must have been 11th level?




They explain that in the article. Read it again.


----------



## Rokes (Jan 23, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Not really. Boost class based defence factored on when each plus is supposed to show up.
> 
> A problem with 3E was wotc was usually not clear when a PC was expected to have which plus. A +2 weapon cost only slightly more than a +3 armor so which should the PC buy first? The weapon will be more fun, but you gotta live to get the loot.




Yes, if they go as far as to spell it *all* out, that'd be great!  I was referring to it being a bit more work than if there weren't any dependencies.  And by that I mean, no bonuses to anything, anywhere.  Items should do cool and unique things, not just raise your AC.


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 23, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> They explain that in the article. Read it again.




I read it again and edited my post.  My bad.

Still don't like it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 23, 2008)

from what we are told, although changes seem not so great, the math has changed in such a way, that magical items are not NEEDED to survive. Losing +2 AC from armor at LVL 11 is nothing compared to the loss of +around 10 armor (armor, shield enhancement, dex increases, no natural armor and no rings). This IS a huge change.

The math is completely different than before. Thats no minor change at all, and it holds to the roots of DnD.

The ranger also goes back to the roots of TWF (ADnD 2nd edition)

rings not available at lower levels... there was so many level dependent stuff out there, openly (scrolls, spells) and indirect (expensive items)

And as I said, you can just ignore such a rule. The same is true for cloaks and neck. and also shields and bracers.


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 23, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Nope. The One Ring, being an Artifact, wasn't constrained by the magic item rules.
> 
> As the article pointed out.




Not to belabor my point...but I think this IS what bothers me...what magic items rules?  The ones of the adventuring world or the ones in the book?    

/drinks another beer


----------



## Rokes (Jan 23, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> from what we are told, although changes seem not so great, the math has changed in such a way, that magical items are not NEEDED to survive. Losing +2 AC from armor at LVL 11 is nothing compared to the loss of +around 10 armor (armor, shield enhancement, dex increases, no natural armor and no rings). This IS a huge change.
> 
> The math is completely different than before. Thats no minor change at all, and it holds to the roots of DnD.
> 
> ...




Given that 4e is still a d20 game, I fail to see how NOT having a +2 armor is going to be acceptable by the standard rules.  +2 armor is the equivalent of a 10% miss chance in most level appropriate cases.  What could they possibly do to the system to make that not so?

This means that a character is going to get hit 10% more often and take 10% more damage, etc.


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Jan 23, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I did not expect it all to go away, but this is still more than I wanted to see,Oh, I am *pissed* about this. Level restrictions on items is a pet peeve of mine in electronic games.
> 
> related...
> http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=215




If you consider _Magic of Incarnum_, level-based restrictions on magic items make a decent bit of sense.  Incarnum users can only open certain chakras at certain levels, which they can then imbue with magical properties.  If fact, here, have some fluff text you can use to justify the ring limitation to your players:

_Magic in the world of <foo> follows certain laws, and magic items are no different.  Magic items redirect the magical lifeforce that sustains us, enhancing our abilties by augmenting existing energies.  Most magical items can benefit even the merest peasant, but rings present a special case.  So strong are their effects that rings are capable of augmenting only the energies of powerful, willful individuals.  The use of a magical ring marks its owner as an exceptional individual; only the soul of a truly legendary figure is capable of fueling two rings at once._


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 23, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I swear, some of you people have the most ridiculous expectations.




I am soooo sorry, sir.  Is there any way you will ever forgive me?


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 23, 2008)

Depends when I see level limited magic items all it does is remind me of frustrating CRPGs.


----------



## Campbell (Jan 23, 2008)

While I like what I see for the most part I have a couple issues:

I don't like combining the neck and shoulders slots. I can see why the chose to combine the slots on a metagame level - they only wanted a single slot to modify defenses and amulets and cloaks were both traditionally defensive slots. Still I would have preferred chosing either neck or shoulders to modify defenses and using the other for active defensive abilities even if that would mean treading on the niche of magical shields a little.
 Having ring slots only open up as you level just doesn't seem right to me. It messes with my suspension of disbelief in all kinds of ways.


----------



## Rokes (Jan 23, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Depends when I see level limited magic items all it does is remind me of frustrating CRPGs.




And editing the .ini file (or other techniques) to remove those restrictions!


----------



## Rokes (Jan 23, 2008)

Additionally, what of Legacy type items?  Most of my players would prefer items that grow with them*, not ones that they are "expected" to replace ever few levels.

*grow with them, and NOT make them weaker at the same time!


----------



## HeinorNY (Jan 23, 2008)

I like it.
Xmas tree effect has nothing to do with the amount of magic item or magic items slots, but the necessity of magic items.



> Secondary Slots
> These items don’t have enhancement bonuses. That makes them essentially optional. You could adventure with no items in your secondary item slots and not see a huge decrease in your overall power. Take what looks cool, but don’t worry about having empty slots.




That's how you decrease the xmas effect. Now DMs can give lots of (secondary) magic items, few, or none, without worrying that the party won't be able to fight the apropriate challenge, or that the non-caster character will fall behind the caster characters (the fact that all classes have powers also helps on that).

They lowered the 'power gap' between the party and the monsters (lowered but not eliminated it), so magic items won't be there entirely to fill it. They will be there to make the character funnier to play too. Also, players won't have always to choose those 'safe' magic items, they will be able to also get some items just because they are cool without worrying about not filling the 'power gap' and being unable to face apropriate challenges.

Good work guys, it's still D&D, thank you.


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Jan 23, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Unhappy to see three categories with "pluses", unhappy to see that cloaks and necklaces are conflicting. But I can live with the latter.
> 
> And for the former: Well, the _+2 weapon_ is an iconic item, it's a D&D staple. To get rid of it is to lose something very D&Dish, I can understand why it's still there, and hence it causes a ripple effect - if attacks (i.e. weapons and implements) get boosted, the defences have to be boosted as well (i.e. armour and F/R/W saves).



That seems exactly right.  I wish they'd gone further though, and gotten rid of all the plusses.  Magic swords and armor can still be just as fun to have without plusses.  I can deal though, because it's a hundred times better than in 3e.

At the very least, I hope they'll give explicit guidelines for what plusses characters should have at each level, so DMs that don't want to bother with magic items can give characters those bonuses to fix the math problems caused by not having them.


----------



## Another Gnome (Jan 23, 2008)

Campbell said:
			
		

> Having ring slots only open up as you level just doesn't seem right to me. It messes with my suspension of disbelief in all kinds of ways.




Totally.

And if rings are supposed to be another level of magic items, they could've made them all mini-artifacts that increase with power as the character wearing one does, or something.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 23, 2008)

Howdy! 



			
				UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> because it is a played character, which doesn´t have only appropriate items (some maybe a bit higher, some lower than that)




I thought the '+' was level dependant, that way items would evolve with the character and they wouldn't have to keep upgrading.

For instance you might get a flaming sword at 5th-level (where it will be +1). As you level up the weapon '+' increases and so does its signature power - the flaming ability which could increase automatically when you get to 11th (paragon) and then again at 21st (epic).


----------



## Irda Ranger (Jan 23, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Seriously people, this is D&D. Since 1st edition magic items have been a part of the game. D&D wouldn't be D&D without +X Swords and +X Armor.



QFT. I am a Christmas Tree hater, and love my Iron Heroes, but even I wasn't expecting items to go away fully. I can't even imagine the nerd-fury that would descend on WotC if they took magic items out entirely.

But, and this is very important, I think it will be very easy to House Rule away magic items in 4E.  Why do I think so?  First, let's go to the quote:


			
				Logan Bonner said:
			
		

> We've preserved a number of items that have traditional “plusses.” These are the items we expect everybody to care about, and the ones that are factored into the math behind the game. If you’re 9th level, we expect you to have a set of +2 armor, and the challenges in the game at that level are balanced accordingly...
> 
> Weapon/Implement: ... adds to your attack and damage... also set your critical hit dice
> 
> ...



So, three pluses are expected: Att/Dmg, AC and Defense.  There is an expected plus progression.  We don't know what it is yet, but WotC will tell us.

Well then, just build that plus progression into all character builds!  Whatever the progression is, just give everyone a +x to Att/Dmg, AC and all Defense once they reach level X. Done.  All that's left is the flavor and the "extra stuff" that magical items do.  Now all characters are still balanced vs. Monsters of the same level and all items are optional and plus-less.

In fact, this change is so easy I would not be surprised if it was an official "alt Rule" in the DMG or released on DDI.


----------



## Jackelope King (Jan 23, 2008)

While I wish they went further, on the second read-through, an interesting thought occurred to me:

Now that armor and implement are stated as being slots on a character, it would be _very_ interesting to see feat or talent trees that let you "trade in" these slots for level- or tier-dependent special abilities. In a way of thinking, this is precisely how to build a monk. Take your fighter, spend a talent to give up your armor slot which in return gives you a small bonus to AC and lets you add your Wisdom bonus to AC. And if you want to be an unarmed warrior, trade in that implement slot with another talent and you get monk-y fists of fury. Especially given that certain types of bonuses or abilities are now associated with certain slots, and this actually could be extended to the whole character to create a very interesting way to approach the good ol' Vow of Poverty...


----------



## MerricB (Jan 23, 2008)

Wow. Some major, major changes there.

Here's the big one: Armour Class. 

AC in 3e was insane. Let's count the ways you could improve it with magic items:
* Magic armour (still in)
* Magic shield (out!)
* Amulet of natural armour (out!)
* Ring of deflection (out!... possibly still in for vh level characters, but unlikely)
* Gloves of Dexterity (out!)

...and that's not counting some obscure items. The basic effect of that was to boost AC about 20 points above where it would have been otherwise by level 20. And, if you _didn't_ invest in these items, you were sword fodder.

As far as level-dependent items go... well, yes. No-one blinks at the idea of Wizards needing to be 5th level to cast _fireball_, so why should magic items be different? Last time I checked, there are plenty of pieces of equipment in the real world that need training to use, so it's not much of a leap (possibly less of one) to include level restrictions for some 4e magic items.

Cheers!


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Jan 23, 2008)

Rokes said:
			
		

> Additionally, what of Legacy type items?  Most of my players would prefer items that grow with them*, not ones that they are "expected" to replace ever few levels.
> 
> *grow with them, and NOT make them weaker at the same time!




I do Legacy-type items in my games all the time--it's really easy, and requires no special rules whatsoever.  I'll eat my hat if you won't be able to do this in 4e:

When you're planning out the treasure value for an adventure, figure out the cost to upgrade one of the PC's existing items (the MIC has a nice table).  Then have a neat little magical event that makes it happen.  I once had the PCs find a mosaic of an eye, with a hole in the center for the pupil.  A few knowledge checks later, and the barbarian thrust her greatsword into the center of the eye, which emitted a burst of blinding light and added a +2 bonus to her sword.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 23, 2008)

Well, my conclusions from the article are:

*1. Secondary items are not necessary.* Unlike primary items, they are not factored into the math behind the game. The item slots exists, but you don't have to change the game significantly if you choose not to fill them.

*2. It will be easier to adjust the game for the lack of primary items.* Without permanent stat-boosting items that affect attack rolls, damage rolls, AC and defences, each plus of difference translates to a 5% change in the chance to hit or be hit. As a DM, you could either make he increased difficulty a feature of your game, or just adjust the attacks and defences of the opponents directly (monsters will no longer be built by formula).


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 23, 2008)

Very strange.

Are they still working on D&D 4E, or is this Iron Heroes 2E?

Wild, weird stuff.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 23, 2008)

Hi Campbell! 



			
				Campbell said:
			
		

> While I like what I see for the most part I have a couple issues:
> 
> Having ring slots only open up as you level just doesn't seem right to me. It messes with my suspension of disbelief in all kinds of ways.




But what if Rings are really powerful and thus automatically moderate* or better magic items (*under 3.5 terminology).

I mean you don't say its the right of any PC to own a +5 vorpal sword at 1st-level even though they could physically wield one. You don't say its the right of any PC to possess a ring of wishes at 1st-level.

I think you are getting into a tizzy over nothing. 3.5 had Minor, Moderate and Major magic items. This seems little more than an extension of that.


----------



## Destil (Jan 23, 2008)

A friend of mine, a very brilliant man, pointed out that at the core one of the big problem with d20 was that there was a two-tiered power system, you have levels, but you also have a vaguely point-based (GP) system on top of it for magic items.

His suggested fix was to find how much of a 'level' each item was worth. For instance to have a system where you could say that a 5th level fighter with a +1 sword and +1 armor was about the equivalent of a 6th level fighter without them, so both items would be listed as "+1/2 level" instead of having a GP cost.

Given how uniform the math in 4E is this is an idea I was really hoping someone in R&D would come up with, unify the level based advancement and magic items instead of being forced to have an "Expected" wealth by level.

Now if you also add in the ability to say that your stats should be X, and that for every Y points over or under in total you are considered one level higher or lower, we could really have a nice uniform power system. I'll be trying to work something like that out once 4E comes out, though reverse engineering out the "Expected Items" could be a pain...


----------



## Bagpuss (Jan 23, 2008)

The Ring thing bothers me most. I really don't like the idea of level requirements to use items.


----------



## fuindordm (Jan 23, 2008)

Boy, there's a surprising amount of hate being piled on this article. I, for one, like it.

*Christmas tree*: as the designers have pointed out before, there is very little wiggle room between making magic items _necessary _and making them _useless_. There have also been many indications in the past that +X items are still present in some form. Players don't just want items that give them something new to do (rope of climbing), they want items that make them better at what they do best (+6 wand).

In essence, as others have pointed out, they have wrangled the bonuses such that your +X implement improves your primary attack by some moderate amount, say 10-20%. Furthermore, that magic implement is the _only _way to improve your attacks with magic. All other bonuses must be earned the hard way: by leveling.

So it sounds to me like they've managed to preserve the fun of finding magic items while reducing their impact. Players were moving in this direction on their own: +1 keen flaming burst swords always seemed to be more popular than +3 swords, didn't they?

*Rings & Things*: Personally, I think limiting the use of certain magic items to high-level characters is a pretty nifty idea. It spices up the magic item rules, and by no means prevents me from breaking them when I want to. I look forward to seeing Rings of Power (_shooting stars_ and _elemental command _ come to mind) as the default rather than the exception. I especially look forward to IOUN stones, not Ioun stones--D&D's implementation of these items has always been a yawner. 

If you really want that ring of feather falling, just make it a pair of winged boots or something. Rings have always been a symbol of command, alliance, and perfection--let's juice them up instead of watering them down!

*Etc.* I have a new character concept I'm itching to try: the ranger/wizard who dual-wields sword and wand!


----------



## Kraydak (Jan 23, 2008)

Well, beyond the absurdity of "you don't need secondary slot items", and surprise at the number of magic item slots left (I was expecting 5ish total), I'm interested by the fact that shields don't count as weapons for magical purposes.  You might be able to count enchanting a shield's offensive stats as the implement slot, and a shield's defenses as the arm slot.  If you can't though shield bashing either just died (no magical boosts to offense or loss of the arm slot) or became absurd (turning a secondary slot into a primary slot allowing you to hold an extra implement).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 23, 2008)

Rokes said:
			
		

> Given that 4e is still a d20 game, I fail to see how NOT having a +2 armor is going to be acceptable by the standard rules.  +2 armor is the equivalent of a 10% miss chance in most level appropriate cases.  What could they possibly do to the system to make that not so?
> 
> This means that a character is going to get hit 10% more often and take 10% more damage, etc.




yes, and when you take away your opponents magical sword, you are back to standard.

in 3.x you could buy a +2 shield and a +2 armor for the price of a +2 weapon. so taking away both defensive items and weapons changed your effective hp.

This is not the case anymore, so the new system is a great improvement. At least, that is what i read out of the article.

also your math is wrong. you don´t get 10% less damage if AC goes up by +2...

consider AC 18 vs AB +0 you are hit 15% of the time, with +2 armor your AC is 20, and you are hit only in 5% of all cases, so your hp are effectively trippled...


----------



## Campbell (Jan 23, 2008)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hi Campbell!
> 
> But what if Rings are really powerful and thus automatically moderate* or better magic items (*under 3.5 terminology).
> 
> ...




I would have no problems with certain types of items not being level apropriate. I just don't like a given item fuctioning differently for a 9th level character and a 11th level character. Ioun stones all being too powerful for most low level characters really doesn't bother me. I admit it's a fine distinction, but I never said I was completely rational being.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 23, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> from what we are told, although changes seem not so great, the math has changed in such a way, that magical items are not NEEDED to survive. Losing +2 AC from armor at LVL 11 is nothing compared to the loss of +around 10 armor (armor, shield enhancement, dex increases, no natural armor and no rings). This IS a huge change.



Being maxed-out with all slots optimally filled -- having that +10-15 AC at 11th level -- made CR-appropriate challenges a joke. 

It wasn't that PCs were underpowered in 3.5 without the Christmas Tree; it's that they were overpowered with it.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 23, 2008)

I think it is an improvement. It may not be perfect, but it is an improvement.

I like the idea of creating primary slots for the important, memorable items and secondary slots for all the minor items. I like the clarification of the term "wondrous item". I like the removal of countless stat buffs and minor items that gave stacking bonuses to AC and the like. I even like the idea of rings being unlocked by tier. I like the idea that each slot has a specific category of effects that it can boost.

I would have preferred if there were fewer secondary slots. The current number does seem a bit high (maybe they can remove the Waist slot and fold the Arms and Hands slots together?).

Anyways, I was hoping that the math for magic items in 4E would be easy enough that I create a system (in this case, a race) so that a character without magic items can be balanced against a character who does have magic items. That seems to be the case, so I am happy.

But my brother mentioned something interesting... If magic shields no longer give a boost to AC compared to normal shields, is it possible that shields no longer improve AC at all? Do shields have some other benefit to defense than modifying AC directly?


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Jan 23, 2008)

Removing the synergy of the slots is what will really make the difference. As for monsters/encounters factoring in certain + items, as the DM, you can always grant monsters that extra to hit or damage, or penalise them, if you want higher or lower magic for your party.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Put me in the "Meh/Disappointed" crowd. From the way the designers talked, I lead to believe we were getting a major reduction of worn magical items _period_. 

I think having all your slots full of magical items hurts the sense of wonder of having _a_ magical item. You still have a whole _gaggle_ of them. I'd much rather have a multi-purpose item (A sword +x sword that grants fire resistance and the ability to teleport through flames) than a Sword +x, a Belt of Fire Resistance and Shoes of Hotfoot. 

I personally feel every adventurer ought to have only _three magical items period_ at any one time, but those three items do the heavy lifting. 

Meh. I suppose I can just do some jiggering so that I can fold several items into one.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 24, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Being maxed-out with all slots optimally filled -- having that +10-15 AC at 11th level -- made CR-appropriate challenges a joke.
> 
> It wasn't that PCs were underpowered in 3.5 without the Christmas Tree; it's that they were overpowered with it.




doesn´t matter... the difference is still 10 - 15 armor... I usually didn´t allow my players to max everything out, but not giving any defensive items would have been outright murder.

those changes make me a very happy DM.


----------



## Anthtriel (Jan 24, 2008)

We have yet to see how optional exactly secondary items will be, but other than the ring rule, I'm relatively happy with the changes, they are what I expected them to do.


----------



## Flobby (Jan 24, 2008)

Rokes said:
			
		

> Given that 4e is still a d20 game, I fail to see how NOT having a +2 armor is going to be acceptable by the standard rules. +2 armor is the equivalent of a 10% miss chance in most level appropriate cases. What could they possibly do to the system to make that not so?
> 
> This means that a character is going to get hit 10% more often and take 10% more damage, etc.!




Hi, Rokes! First! Sorry to go off topic of a minute but  I can't private message you... Where in Japan are you? I'm here too and have been looking for gamers forever that live in Shizuoka... I don't suppose you live around there... center_space@frughtlupes.com

Back to Topic! I think I was expecting a little more too.. I'm not too disappointed but this was one aspect of 4e I had a lot of expectations for. I would have liked even less dependancy on magic items but a suppose in order to do that they would have had to get rid of ALL save and attack mods... right?


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jan 24, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> As far as level-dependent items go... well, yes. No-one blinks at the idea of Wizards needing to be 5th level to cast _fireball_, so why should magic items be different? Last time I checked, there are plenty of pieces of equipment in the real world that need training to use, so it's not much of a leap (possibly less of one) to include level restrictions for some 4e magic items.
> 
> Cheers!



Because 3rd-level spells are something that you acquire and then use. But with rings: You acquire them and STILL cannot use them? And it takes the fun out of finding a magic ring.

A much more elegant solution would have been "scaling" rings. If you're a Heroic level guy, then rings only provide a small nifty function. On the Paragon level, you acquire new abilities and on the Epic tier, they go into full mode.

Powerwise, this would have a very similar effect, but you instantly get something from it.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 24, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> doesn´t matter... the difference is still 10 - 15 armor...



It _will_ matter if later additions to 4E DO allow such boosts.  If they do not hold the line on what magic items can and cannot do, if they later allow supplements with bracers or shields that DO give an AC boost, then you're going to run into the same arms race that 3.5 had.

And because splatbooks that increase PC power will sell, they've have to weigh the long-term viability of their system against the short-term sales boost.

I like the solution.  But they have to stick to it.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Although I will say that the ring and amulet/cloak thing does not bother me whatsoever.

That, and it's nice to actually get a Development article this week.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 24, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Because 3rd-level spells are something that you acquire and then use. But with rings: You acquire them and STILL cannot use them? And it takes the fun out of finding a magic ring.




Look, why is your DM giving you these *powerful* magic items when you can't use them? It's like giving a 1st level character a +3 vorpal sword! The term we normally use is _Monty Haul_. 

Don't expect 4e rings to be weak items, either.

Cheers!


----------



## Rokes (Jan 24, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> also your math is wrong. you don´t get 10% less damage if AC goes up by +2...
> 
> consider AC 18 vs AB +0 you are hit 15% of the time, with +2 armor your AC is 20, and you are hit only in 5% of all cases, so your hp are effectively trippled...




How is my math wrong?  If you're hit 10% less often, you are dealt 10% less damage over the course of your adventure.  They are directly proportional.



			
				Flobby said:
			
		

> Hi, Rokes! First! Sorry to go off topic of a minute but  I can't private message you... Where in Japan are you? I'm here too and have been looking for gamers forever that live in Shizuoka... I don't suppose you live around there... center_space@frughtlupes.com




I'm in Nagoya (not too far!), but only for another 3 weeks.  My wife will be here until next February though, and I did happen to get her into D&D this past summer.  (We're hoping the D&D DI isn't a complete pile of crap, or else we'll just end up using Skype)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 24, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> It _will_ matter if later additions to 4E DO allow such boosts.  If they do not hold the line on what magic items can and cannot do, if they later allow supplements with bracers or shields that DO give an AC boost, then you're going to run into the same arms race that 3.5 had.
> 
> And because splatbooks that increase PC power will sell, they've have to weigh the long-term viability of their system against the short-term sales boost.
> 
> I like the solution.  But they have to stick to it.




yes. agreed.

but at least in core the rules are set. If they hadn´t made any rules to restrict +x items I would have even more worries bout splatbooks.

And since we hopefully don´t need those splatbooks as fixes to holes in the rules, I can save money and easily disallow them as default. (At least, that is my hope for the first few games I run)


----------



## JeffB (Jan 24, 2008)

Mixed feelings. I'll need more time to decide one way or another, but here' some of the things running through my head at the moment.....

1)This is def better than 3.x. A small handful of neccessities and a bunch of optional/non necc "flavor" items. 

2) The "gamist" attitude towards rings really bothers me. I hope this kind of attitude in general by the designers is kept to a micro minimum. But I worry that will not be the case.

3) I still think Earthdawn had about the best item system (I guess this would be kind of where D&D's legacy weapons came from...I'm assuming based on the name anyways, I'm not familiar with them mechanically)

4) I really wish WOTC would stop releasing all this way cool "flavor" stuff (cosmology, POL attitude, etc) and then wierding me out with the rules changes (non cleric's  "healing", martial powers being in part magical, etc). 

I want "way cool" all the time. Are you listening Mr. Rouse?????


----------



## Nymrohd (Jan 24, 2008)

Just a comment on the cloak and necklace slots being fused. Cloaks have clasps that tie around the neck, and historically were often elaborate affairs of gold and gems. In essence a cloak's clasp is pretty much a necklace in form and aesthetic function.

I very much love these changes. Sure I would like +x armor/weapons out of the game entirely, but I can house rule that as I have always done so with several ranks of crafting (masterpiece items). And as several people have said, it seems there are far fewer stat items required and with an implied progression we can extrapolate easily (and house rule in a myriad ways).


----------



## Stogoe (Jan 24, 2008)

> Put me in the "Meh/Disappointed" crowd. From the way the designers talked, I lead to believe we were getting a major reduction of worn magical items period.




Then you were obviously reading different articles than the rest of us.  Seriously, if you thought that +X weapons and +X armor were going away, you were fooling yourself.

As for the article:  3 +X slots whose numbers work directly against each other (and thus can be phased out if you really want), and 6+ that are 100% completely optional?  That's better than I could have ever hoped.  Looking good, devs!  Now if you could only get the articles put up online in a timely manner, you'd be golden.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 24, 2008)

For those with issues about the Ring thing - I could easily see creating a house rule to create a situation similar to that in LoTR, where using a magic item beyond one's power level is in fact dangerous (leaving aside the One Ring=Artifact line in the article).  There are ways, flavor-wise, to explain such limitations...


----------



## Najo (Jan 24, 2008)

Campbell said:
			
		

> While I like what I see for the most part I have a couple issues:
> 
> I don't like combining the neck and shoulders slots. I can see why the chose to combine the slots on a metagame level - they only wanted a single slot to modify defenses and amulets and cloaks were both traditionally defensive slots. Still I would have preferred chosing either neck or shoulders to modify defenses and using the other for active defensive abilities even if that would mean treading on the niche of magical shields a little.
> Having ring slots only open up as you level just doesn't seem right to me. It messes with my suspension of disbelief in all kinds of ways.




I agree with you. The ring thing and the neck and shoulders thing both do this. I think this approach to magic items would be better:

* Assign an item type to each magic item (i.e. boots, cloak, weapon, necklace, ring, belt). The type defines the area it is worn, instead of having slots on the body.   

* Most items you can only wear one of each item type, with a few exceptions. Rings, weapons and wonderous items could have a limit of 2 each. Any item can go in any slot, but you can't have more than 1 of each item type and 2 of the few exceptions, or whatever. 

* Then the character has a limited number of slots based on their level. The formula could be 1/2 level rounded up (so 1 item at level 1 - 2, 2 items at level 3 - 4, by level 30 you could have 15 items max) or you can lessen it a bit to 1/3 level rounded up (giving a level 30 epic character 10 magic item slots. The only issue with this is the wonky math feel. I am not wild about that.

Another approach is to either give a character 4 slots per tier (heroic has 4 slots, paragon 8 and epic 12) or to give characters a fixed number of slots 5 maybe, up to 10) that they have from level 1 -30 and it never changes. 

What I like about this approach, is that character's don't try to fill each slot on the tree, which is what feels like the christmas tree effect. Instead they must pick and choose what items work best for them and they swap items out based on the task before them. They still can't use two cloaks at once, but likewise, they are not using all of the possible magic items at once either.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jan 24, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Look, why is your DM giving you these *powerful* magic items when you can't use them? It's like giving a 1st level character a +3 vorpal sword! The term we normally use is _Monty Haul_.
> 
> Don't expect 4e rings to be weak items, either.
> 
> Cheers!



Then, why do we need the restriction? 

Sure, because the restriction restricts the use of a _second ring_ (which is the main point - the Heroic tier is just done that way to keep the sequence - 0,1,2, if we had three arms...), but why does it suddenly "unlock"?

I think putting the "unlock" feature into the rings themselves, perhaps with certain conditions, is more elegant, is marginally better explainable and provides a story hook. Like Legacy items.

I'm open to see an explanation why the 0-1-2 ring-unlock variant should be better. And I don't think "keeping the prices down" is a good argument, considering a) that it'll perhaps mean less, and b) if rings are more or less equal, then it will still have a huge opportunity cost, and finally c) relics worked well - and if you tie the "price" into rituals... well, then that issue goes away too.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Jan 24, 2008)

Man, I can't believe the teapot-tempest over the level limits on Rings. That's like the easiest rule to Rule Zero I have ever seen. That's like house ruling "Demi-Human Level Limits" easy.  Just treat them like any other powerful magical item and you won't upset anything about the game design.

Seriously, people. There are rules that go to the heart of the game system and are very hard to change (like switching from AC to DR).  There are rules that are individually easy to modify, but so great in number (like spells or 3E magic items) that re-writing all of them would be a hassle and a half.  If 4E comes out and you don't like one of those, you've got problems.  But this level limit thing is not either of those. Not by a long shot.

I'd suggest that everyone take a deep breath and really ask themselves: Is this something that's really going to effect my campaign in a way I can't easily fix?  Regarding the Ring thing, I think the answer is no.

And if the "expected plus" works the way I think it does, I think we can live without magical items entirely just by giving all PC's the same + bonus simply as a part of leveling up.


----------



## Najo (Jan 24, 2008)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hi Campbell!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think Campbell's issue with breaking supension of belief is that if all the items except rings can be heroic level, then why can't rings be heroic level. Why can't their be minor rings. THAT doesn't make sense. At least have a catagory of all magic amulets, necklaces, rings and other jewery are all paragon level then, why only rings? Anyone with working hands and some fingers can slip a ring on.

I know it doesn't seem like a big deal, but it was the first thing that jumped out at me as a game designer when I read the article. The second thing being that they still had a christmas tree because of all the items. They may not be needed items, but they are a checklist of slots none the list and gives the feeling that you have to have one of each magic item you can get. That is what makes the game feel more like a game and less like a heroic fantasy story.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 24, 2008)

Rokes said:
			
		

> How is my math wrong?  If you're hit 10% less often, you are dealt 10% less damage over the course of your adventure.  They are directly proportional.




"10% less often" doesn't mean what you think it does.

If you have a 15% chance of being hit, attacks deal 10 damage each, and you're attacked 100 times during an adventure, you take an average of 150 damage.

Same character, give them a +2 suit of armour. That reduces the chance of being hit to 5%. Get attacked 100 times during an adventure, 10 damage each... the average is now 50 damage.

So, your "10% less often" means the damage has been reduced by 67%!

Cheers!


----------



## Greg K (Jan 24, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Man, I can't believe the teapot-tempest over the level limits on Rings. That's like the easiest rule to Rule Zero I have ever seen. That's like house ruling "Demi-Human Level Limits" easy.  Just treat them like any other powerful magical item and you won't upset anything about the game design..




Because it is such a lame idea that it should have never been implemented in the first place and, thus, no house rule should be required.  Then again, this is the WOTC design team we are talking about and so I am no longer surprised by their lame mechanics/restrictions. Pramas was completely right, imo - WOTC has some excellent designers, but fails to bring out their best.


----------



## Imp (Jan 24, 2008)

Brap. I was also hoping for a flat limit on the number of equippable magic items. Five would have been fine. Then just use common sense to deal with the "slot" business, and maybe split it up into 2 major/ 3 minor.

I bear +1 swords and magic-rings-that-only-the-powerful-can-unlock no particular malus.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Jan 24, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> I'm open to see an explanation why the 0-1-2 ring-unlock variant should be better.



Rings are special.  They are endless, without beginning or end.  And their shape, a bound circle, allows them to contain magic far beyond any simple spell embedded in your common "magic" sword or item made of cloth.  Where any other item or weapon would warped and destroyed by the restless force that is magic, the magics within a ring swirl silently, falling back upon themselves ... contained.  Although less than an artifact, they are more than anything else you will encounter (other than perhaps the legendary Stones of Ioun).

Sauron knew this.  It is no coincidence that he chose the form of the Ring when making his weapon.  Nothing else would have contained his terrible power, or serve his terrible purpose.

But Rings cannot be worn lightly.  Not just any soul has the wherewithal to withstand them; to command them.  Only souls that have been tested, and proved themselves victorious again and again, have a hope of commanding the magic of a Ring.  It is not a question of magical power, or command over vast sums of magical lore, but of personal strength.  That resilient strength that can only be learned in overcoming adversity; in surviving the crucible.  That strength that so few possess.

A few foolish men wear magical Rings that they inherited from their greater forefathers.  They can not summon forth its power, and if they live even a year it is at the Ring's forebearance.  They would do well to put the Ring in a safe place, where no can harm themselves attempting what should not be attempted.

Rings are true power given form. Only those with an even greater power inside them have a chance of commanding them.

And if you ever meet a man who commands the might of two Rings simultaneously, tread carefully, for you stand in the presence of greatness; such greatness as legends are made of.


----------



## Najo (Jan 24, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Man, I can't believe the teapot-tempest over the level limits on Rings. That's like the easiest rule to Rule Zero I have ever seen. That's like house ruling "Demi-Human Level Limits" easy.  Just treat them like any other powerful magical item and you won't upset anything about the game design.
> 
> I'd suggest that everyone take a deep breath and really ask themselves: Is this something that's really going to effect my campaign in a way I can't easily fix?  Regarding the Ring thing, I think the answer is no.
> 
> And if the "expected plus" works the way I think it does, I think we can live without magical items entirely just by giving all PC's the same + bonus simply as a part of leveling up.




It is because the ring is now the only magic item that is artifically limited by metagame rules. It feels artificial and thus hurts the submersion into the story. Sure, people can house rule it away, but the whole point is to avoid as many of those as possible. Why build in an unelegant design from the first place when another solution can be found. 

The real question to ask, are there level limits on magic items (i.e. heroic, paragon, epic items?) If so, then most rings can be paragon or epic as the article says. There is no need to restrict the number of rings you can wear and use because of that. Just rebalance the game around two rings instead of one and then you no longer have this issue. The magic ring slot being restrcted and then it opens up feels wrong, especially when no other slots do this.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Jan 24, 2008)

Imp said:
			
		

> Brap. I was also hoping for a flat limit on the number of equippable magic items. Five would have been fine. Then just use common sense to deal with the "slot" business, and maybe split it up into 2 major/ 3 minor.



The only problem with this is that a PC might spend all five slots on +AC items, and really screw with the game designs' assumptions.  This limiting slots to specific kinds of bonuses is another example of "siloing" that the designers talk about.  Choose within silos, but not across them.


----------



## orc food (Jan 24, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> For those with issues about the Ring thing - I could easily see creating a house rule to create a situation similar to that in LoTR, where using a magic item beyond one's power level is in fact dangerous (leaving aside the One Ring=Artifact line in the article).  There are ways, flavor-wise, to explain such limitations...




 Yes, but the core game needs to be general. That sounds like a good low magic setting rule.
Sounds like rings got the axe for the most part.

 I think my biggest problem is they did not fix magic items so much as made them weaker and you can use less of them.

 I hated the "slots" by the way, VERY set in stone video game feel. A max number of items I could wear would allow a more, if magic worked in real life, feel.  "...... but I like my boots, why can I get the magic on socks or pants? "   slots were one of those things that could go away and no one would have cared.

 EDIT: You could also limit the max amout of a kind of a bonus is to, Like say AC, per level. More steamlined game that way.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 24, 2008)

1: I predicted everything except the combination of item slots.  Everyone should heap praise and adoration upon me, for truly I am an awesome person for that accomplishment.

2: They had to keep +X weapons.  Its a D&Dism that's too sacred to slay.  And once you keep +X weapons, you need +X armor to balance it.  And once you decide that magical implements can be +X as well, you need +X save boosters.  So these were inevitable.

3: But the moment you add in non armor +X armor bonuses, you screw up the system.  I'm glad they fixed that.  This is the reason that shields can't have +X bonuses to AC.  It screws with the math.

4: For all the haters out there, what would have made this better?  I know some of you wanted even less of a "christmas tree effect."  But what we've got, 3 "required" items and 6 "optional" slots, how much else would you pare it down?  Were you looking for the deletion of entire item slots?  Were you looking for some rule like "you may not wear more than 3 items of magic?"  What solution would have made you happy?  It seems to me that this is as much of a reduction in the christmas tree effect as was possible without wholesale slaughtering of item slots.

5: I'm ok with the ring level restriction as long as they give an in-game reason.  If they just say "no rings until level 11," I'll be mad.  If they say, "here are the consequences of wearing a ring below level 11," and those consequences are prohibitive enough to basically ban rings below level 11, then I'll be ok with it.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 24, 2008)

I'm very disappointed. Not about the ring thing, either. In fact, I kind of like that. Maybe not the precise execution, but I at least like the idea enough.

My disappointment lies in the fact that at the beginning of each day of adventuring, heroes are still going to be suiting up with magic items like they're putting on hockey gear. The example 11th-level character is wearing eight magic items. _Eight_. That's not including his primary implement, any possible backup implements, any possible potions, or a ring he could now equip. In my opinion, that's ridiculous.

I mean, they said they didn't like having straight number bonuses, they wanted magic items to mean something special. But how freaking special is a magic item when it's merely one of eight items in your 'fall magic wardrobe'? 

I was seriously hoping they'd simplify the system to something like your implement, your armor, and two or three general accessories that could provide any of a huge number of possible benefits. But yeah, obviously that didn't happen, and as a result I'm very disappointed.


----------



## Henry (Jan 24, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Rings are special.  They are endless...[SNIP]




Easily the best thing I've read all day.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 24, 2008)

Masquerade said:
			
		

> Too bad to see some required plusses sticking around, but I like that most of the magic item types are described as optional.
> 
> They've piqued my interest with the limit on rings, too. I wonder what sort of things rings will let you do in 4e...



Right there with you.

I'm curious if a _hat of disguise_ will exist in 4E and how it'll change. (Will it even be a head slot item?) My gnome has just "acquired" one, and it's pretty darn useful for a tricky little guy ...


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 24, 2008)

As to the non-stat-boosting items being "optional, not necessary" --
In 3.5, many posters here have taken the view that a high-level fighter basically needs to have items of See Invisibility, Fly, and Dimension Door/Teleport (to escape Forcecage if nothing else).  These are not stat-boosting items, but they are SO useful as to be almost essential.  And they seem like the kind of capabilities that miscellaneous items will have in 4E.

I understand that the designers want to see a greater diversity of magic items used... but will there be some miscellaneous items that are so good that everybody will need to have them?


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 24, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> The only problem with this is that a PC might spend all five slots on +AC items, and really screw with the game designs' assumptions.  This limiting slots to specific kinds of bonuses is another example of "siloing" that the designers talk about.  Choose within silos, but not across them.



That's assuming that there's five different types of items that do X. If they keep it how it apparently is in 4E, with gloves doing X, boots doing Y, helmets doing Z, a guy wouldn't be able to use all five slots on stuff that does X unless his DM feels like letting him wear five pairs of gloves.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Stogoe said:
			
		

> Then you were obviously reading different articles than the rest of us.  Seriously, if you thought that +X weapons and +X armor were going away, you were fooling yourself.



A designer said "Christmas Shrub" and "Charlie Brown's Christmas Tree". That's not what I would call having 9 filled slots + misc items. 

I knew that +x swords and armor would still be around. That's not the point.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Were you looking for the deletion of entire item slots?  Were you looking for some rule like "you may not wear more than 3 items of magic?"



I was expecting something like 6 items max.

3 max, now that I'd be _happy_ with.


----------



## Grog (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> A designer said "Christmas Shrub" and "Charlie Brown's Christmas Tree". That's not what I would call having 9 filled slots + misc items.



Well, the Christmas Tree effect involved characters having a ton of items that they _needed_ to have in order to be able to function effectively at high levels. According to this article, there are only three magic items that characters need in 4E - so the Christmas Tree effect has been greatly reduced.


----------



## Kraydak (Jan 24, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> As to the non-stat-boosting items being "optional, not necessary" --
> In 3.5, many posters here have taken the view that a high-level fighter basically needs to have items of See Invisibility, Fly, and Dimension Door/Teleport (to escape Forcecage if nothing else).  These are not stat-boosting items, but they are SO useful as to be almost essential.  And they seem like the kind of capabilities that miscellaneous items will have in 4E.
> 
> I understand that the designers want to see a greater diversity of magic items used... but will there be some miscellaneous items that are so good that everybody will need to have them?




Duh?

Either that, or they will be so weak that people simply don't care, or so situational that people forget about them when they could be used.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Well, the Christmas Tree effect involved characters having a ton of items that they _needed_ to have in order to be able to function effectively at high levels.



That's not the definition of the Christmas Tree effect.

The Christmas Tree effect is just "When you look at a character with Detect Magic, they light up like a christmas tree because they _have_ all those magical items on them."

What you describe is item dependency.


----------



## bgaesop (Jan 24, 2008)

So we finally know why Tom Bombadil wasn't affected by the One Ring: he was only Heroic tier!

Sorry for that but I really wanted to say it.  My favourite part of the article hasn't even been brought up yet:"An item in the neck slot increases your Fortitude, Reflex, and Will defenses, *as well as usually doing something else snappy*. " As the proud owner of an Amulet of Protection in real life I must say I'm glad to hear this, making things more interesting than just "+1 to all your saves" is a great idea, and as to me (and I assume no one else) Amulets are the best magic items out there I'm really glad to hear they're still in.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 24, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Well, the Christmas Tree effect involved characters having a ton of items that they _needed_ to have in order to be able to function effectively at high levels. According to this article, there are only three magic items that characters need in 4E - so the Christmas Tree effect has been greatly reduced.



The Christmas Tree, as I have always understood it, dealt with the number of magic items dangling from the character much like ornaments that dangle from a Christmas tree. 4E will apparently change almost nothing about that.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Jan 24, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> also your math is wrong. you don´t get 10% less damage if AC goes up by +2...
> 
> consider AC 18 vs AB +0 you are hit 15% of the time, with +2 armor your AC is 20, and you are hit only in 5% of all cases, so your hp are effectively trippled...



Err... I'm afraid you're the one with the incorrect math.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 24, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> I was seriously hoping they'd simplify the system to something like your implement, your armor, and two or three general accessories that could provide any of a huge number of possible benefits.



Now that I think about it, that seems like a pretty decent house rule. To make up for the power level disparity, I hope that just giving each character an extra feat every 4 levels or so will do it. That'll take some tinkering, but I think it should be workable in theory.

I find it kind of unfortunate that I have to tinker and house rule something that I thought was going to be a strength of 4E, but hey, thems the breaks.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> I find it kind of unfortunate that I have to tinker and house rule something that I thought was going to be a strength of 4E, but hey, thems the breaks.



Yeah.

Wait, I thought you weren't going with 4e?


----------



## Andor (Jan 24, 2008)

The One Ring wasn't a special case, and Frodo wasn't 11th level. Feel free to follow the example of Nine-fingered Frodo and the Ring of Doom  

Everybody has missed the most important point. There are now numbered pluses to *Holy Symbols!* I hearby declare the _Holier Than Thou_ wars open!


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 24, 2008)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> While I wish they went further, on the second read-through, an interesting thought occurred to me:
> 
> Now that armor and implement are stated as being slots on a character, it would be _very_ interesting to see feat or talent trees that let you "trade in" these slots for level- or tier-dependent special abilities. In a way of thinking, this is precisely how to build a monk. Take your fighter, spend a talent to give up your armor slot which in return gives you a small bonus to AC and lets you add your Wisdom bonus to AC. And if you want to be an unarmed warrior, trade in that implement slot with another talent and you get monk-y fists of fury. Especially given that certain types of bonuses or abilities are now associated with certain slots, and this actually could be extended to the whole character to create a very interesting way to approach the good ol' Vow of Poverty...




Interesting idea, I like it. But I would expect nothing less from a fellow Dragon Avenue alumni.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Yeah.
> 
> Wait, I thought you weren't going with 4e?



Oh no, I'm excited about 4E. I've expressed disappointment about a few particular elements that I thought they dropped the ball on for 4E, like this magic item implementation, but overall I'm on board.


----------



## ferratus (Jan 24, 2008)

I'm going to introduce this houserule for rings into my campaign.  Instead of rings not working for anyone less than 11th level, I'm going to introduce the "Gollum, Fafnir, and Ringwraith effect".   If a ring-bearer is unworthy, he instead befalls a series of powerful curses that are worse than the benefit gained by wearing it.  Basically, I'm going to have them follow the rules for magical items in the "Iron Heroes" books, so that the players either vault it until they can handle it, toss it away, or use it to overcome a superior enemy that they couldn't otherwise fight in the short term.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> A designer said "Christmas Shrub" and "Charlie Brown's Christmas Tree". That's not what I would call having 9 filled slots + misc items.
> 
> I knew that +x swords and armor would still be around. That's not the point.




Ummm... D&D is a game where you kill things *and take their stuff. *

Whats the point if you can't WEAR that stuff?

There are three item slots that directly affect the math. They raise your to hit/dmg, Armor Class, and Saves/Defenses respectively. That is all the "necessary" slots or the ones most commonly found. Weapons, Armor/Clothes, and amulets/cloaks. What adventurer DOESN'T get those item slots filled?

Beyond that there are six OPTIONAL item slots. An Arm slot for bracers and shields (which no longer stack to AC). Feet, Hands, Rings, Head, and Waist.* None of these are necessary! *They will be the items that add cool abilities (flight, fire resistance, swimming, temporary str boosts)

Compare that to 3.5: one or two weapons, armor or armor substitute (bracers, etc), a stat-boosting item (one of six slots), amulet of natural armor, ring of deflection, cloak of resistance, ring of energy resistance, boots of striding and springing, etc. All of these adding to some statistic or another, making a headache for anyone trying to create, update, or even run a character. 

Heck, they even reduced the item slots slightly, from 11 to 9. Really, who wears and enchanted shirt?

So they did what they said. Three "necessary" or "common" slots, six optional ones. Compared to 11 slots which could all be "necessary", thats an improvement. Your never getting LotR level magic out of D&D without houserules, why should we start now?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 24, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> The Christmas Tree, as I have always understood it, dealt with the number of magic items dangling from the character much like ornaments that dangle from a Christmas tree. 4E will apparently change almost nothing about that.




We read totally different articles. I see 3 slots figured into the math. _Three._

What article did you read? Link?

And, at the same time, they're making the game fun for people like _me_ who liked going above the wealth levels in the DMG, sometimes up to twice the listed values. So, you get what you want and I get what I want instead of only one of us. Isn't that better? In what world is that not better?


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 24, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> We read totally different articles. I see 3 slots figured into the math. _Three._
> 
> What article did you read? Link?



First off, drop the snark. It's pointless and unnecessary.

Second, I read the same article you did. The one that showed an 11th-level character wearing eight magic items on his body, not including a number of other possible magic items that might also be in his possession.

While it may be true that only three slots factor into the hit/damage/AC/saves math, that doesn't address the fact that the character is still suiting up in magic items like they're sports equipment, which is my biggest issue.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Jan 24, 2008)

I'm a fan of the general elimination of +X doodads, the addition of cloth "armor", and the de-lame-ification of shields.  Part of me would like to see fewer slots in general, but looking over it again, I'm not sure what I'd dump.  I don't see a huge need for magical vambraces or belts, I guess, but by and large this looks fine.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Second, I read the same article you did. The one that showed an 11th-level character wearing eight magic items on his body, not including a number of other possible magic items that might also be in his possession.
> 
> While it may be true that only three slots factor into the hit/damage/AC/saves math, that doesn't address the fact that the character is still suiting up in magic items like they're sports equipment, which is my biggest issue.



This is also my issue, Remathilis. You can stop the argumentative tone, also.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 24, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> First off, drop the snark. It's pointless and unnecessary.
> 
> Second, I read the same article you did. The one that showed an 11th-level character wearing eight magic items on his body, not including a number of other possible magic items that might also be in his possession.
> 
> While it may be true that only three slots factor into the hit/damage/AC/saves math, that doesn't address the fact that the character is still suiting up in magic items like they're sports equipment, which is my biggest issue.




That's because some people like playing with lots of magic items. If I statted up some 15th level PCs in my games, they would probably have about 30-40 magic items _each_. I likes the magic items, lots of them homebrewed.

The thing is, you're looking at an example PC with a lot of magic items in a system specifically designed to allow a wide degree of items in individual campaigns and deciding since he has lots of items, then you'll have to use lots of items. If he had only three items, and I complained that he didn't have enough and lamented the lessening of items, that would be just as wrong.

I would guess that most people will have lots of items *because they like having lots of items*. That isn't badwrongfun. You're complaining that a WotC employee in some campaign (probably one of many he plays in) has a bunch of items. Just use less items in your game and be happy playing the way you play and let others be happy playing the way they want to.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 24, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> First off, drop the snark. It's pointless and unnecessary.
> 
> Second, I read the same article you did. The one that showed an 11th-level character wearing eight magic items on his body, not including a number of other possible magic items that might also be in his possession.
> 
> While it may be true that only three slots factor into the hit/damage/AC/saves math, that doesn't address the fact that the character is still suiting up in magic items like they're sports equipment, which is my biggest issue.




Which would only be possible if there is a hard limit to the number of magic items you can wear. Which itself has its own problem, namely why the hell can I only wear X items, if X+1 items can be worn.

For example, some people are disappointed that cloaks seem to have taken the necklace slot, yet as another poster pointed out, most cloaks require a clasp around the neck to the neck slot is already filled.


----------



## Lurker37 (Jan 24, 2008)

I think we're going to need to see a bit more about what 4E rings actually *do* before we can pass judgment on the level restriction on rings.

Heck, we don't even know how the ring limit is enforced in game. We don't know if it's a matter of 'the ring refuses to be equipped, becoming too small to fit on your finger', 'You put in on. You hear a loud voice declaring you unworthy. You pass out.' or more a 'you've put it on, but lack the ability to master it and draw on its power'.

Once we know what power level rings have, and how the level limitation is explained in game, *then* we'll be able to let rip. Until then we're just speculating.

And limiting the items to one attack bonus, one AC bonus, one Save bonus, no stats buffs but you can still equip and use other cool, optional seem to be a huge step forward in my opinion. The +2 sword had to stay, and we already knew there were similar pluses for implements. To make sure that these can be exactly countered by two other slots, and no more, seems quite fair to me.

But again, we need to know more about what the items in the 'optional' slots can and cannot do before we'll know how much they can affect combat. Furthermore, I'm anxious to know how WOTC intend to prevent third-party publications from breaking these new rules and redecorating the christmas tree.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Which would only be possible if there is a hard limit to the number of magic items you can wear..



Or the system just doesn't shovel out the magical items so you are assumed to have enough _for_ all those magical items. 

Or just how many magical items you can get benefit from.

For instance, in 3e, you can only benefit from two rings. But what stops you from putting four, or eight magical rings on your hands?


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 24, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> First off, drop the snark. It's pointless and unnecessary.
> 
> Second, I read the same article you did. The one that showed an 11th-level character wearing eight magic items on his body, not including a number of other possible magic items that might also be in his possession.
> 
> While it may be true that only three slots factor into the hit/damage/AC/saves math, that doesn't address the fact that the character is still suiting up in magic items like they're sports equipment, which is my biggest issue.




  Then don't give out that many magic items.   

  This is the big change, IMO; this is the thing that lets the Christmas Tree effect die for gamers who want to kill it.  Since only the 'core items' directly impact a character's key stats--that is, the character's ability to fill the niche--and WotC will lay out their expected progression, DMs are now more free to scale magic item availability up or down without throwing off the balance of the game.  So long as everyone has the expected offensive and defensive implements for their level range, all other magic items are handy but not _necessary_.  Thus, there is a minimum--weapon/implement, armor, cloak/amulet--and a maximum--nine slots--but there is room for any level of variation within that range.  

  This strikes me as a vast improvement over 3E's system, where stat boosters and other buffing items were so important that you practically _had_ to have them and would crowd out anything else in the slots.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 24, 2008)

Okay, I'm a big fan of _Iron Heroes_ and killing the Christmas Tree. And while the number of slots bugged me a little at first, I've reconsidered and I think it works. Allow me to explain.

Magical implements and Magical Weapons are _just cool_. Pure and simple. To be able to counterbalance those bonuses, magical armor (to boost AC) and something to boost the defenses are probably necessary. However, these items don't have to be _boring_. Allow me to explain, using our sample Warlock for the example.

At 11th level, Dessin has a _+3 rod of dark reward, +3 leather armor,_ and a _+2 cloak of survival._ We know (or can assume) that the rod adds to his warlock powers, that the armor boosts his AC. While we know his cloak adds +2 to all his saves, we don't know what _other snappy thing it does_. As a _cloak of survival_, we might assume it assists him in the woods, or something else. This alone should keep these items from becoming boring.

For example, one might imagine that a _cloak of elvenkind_ will improve the character's stealth abilities as well as his saves, as the cloaks granted the Fellowship did. Three necessary items works for me.

As far as the other items, I'm okay with the slots existing as long as they aren't strictly "necessary." So, as much as I dislike the Christmas Tree, I don't think this is it.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 24, 2008)

I'm thinking that something akin to Incarnium's methods really is the best way to work with these... at the very least, now that so many slots are physically stackable, there has to be a way to assign which item is usable (if any - and if you can negate items by stacking them we now have a nifty new magic item restraint method).

Rings... I dunno... maybe a ceremony required that can only be pulled off by 10th level characters would make them make more sense...


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> This is also my issue, Remathilis. You can stop the argumentative tone, also.




I'm sorry, but arguing that a D&D character having too many magical do-dads is like arguing that football gives too many points per "scoring opportunity" compared to hockey. Its a measure of character power and reward for overcoming challenges, and every edition of D&D has had magic up the wazoo. All the designers promised was less requirement on "you must have a +3 amulet of natural armor at 11th level or your AC will not be enough to withstand a CR 11 encounter" that was never stated by heavily implied in 3.5. It opens those slots to other unique or (dare I say) cool items that sat in the DMG but were routinely ignored, discarded or sold to acquire rings of protection and amulets of health. 

As I said, no edition of D&D has ever handled "two magic items tops" style without house rules or DM fiat. Re-read the classic modules if you want proof. You are more then welcomed to continue to run D&D in that fashion, but shouting about how "this doesn't reduce the X-mas tree" isn't fair, they never said they were removing magical item acquisition from the game, they just said certain items for all characters all the time are no longer *manditory*.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 24, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Re-read the classic modules if you want proof.



Where 3E went wildly wrong and took the Christmas Tree effect to a whole new level was this combination of decisions:
1) Magic items much easier to make than in earlier editions
2) Buying and selling magic items not only allowed but expected as a player's right 
3) The frequency of magic shops implied by that statement in the DMG that anything with a value below the town's GP limit can be expected to be available for purchase.  
4) More stat-boosting items (did 2E even have a Con-boosting item?)
5) Greater importance of stats (e.g. spell DCs set by casting stat)
6) Flawed bonus-stacking rules, and accessories introducing new items with different bonus types

In 2E, my PCs often picked up a collection of "cool abilities" items and kept them for when they might be needed.  And as DM, I handed out such items.  Same in B/X.  Note that I never played 1E, where I understand selling magic items was common.
In 3E, the expectation became that they would sell them and buy something optimal (though I've always avoided buying magic items in 3E/3.5 as a matter of principle). 
That made a HUGE difference.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Jan 24, 2008)

Overall I'm pleased with what I read in the article.  I am disappointed they didn't go further in getting rid of the +X weapons and armor, but if WOTC tells us explicity what + is expected at each level, it would make it easy enough for a DM to remove such items and just add those pluses as class abilities.  I agree the level restriction on rings is strange, but it doesn't bother me too much.  And I'm glad they didn't just have two rings available as two additional item slots as there were in 3e.  I definitely think this systems will be better than 3e in terms of magic item dependence and Christmas tree effect.  I wish they'd gone further, but I guess that will have to wait for 5e.


----------



## Rokes (Jan 24, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> "10% less often" doesn't mean what you think it does.
> 
> If you have a 15% chance of being hit, attacks deal 10 damage each, and you're attacked 100 times during an adventure, you take an average of 150 damage.
> 
> ...




Darn Aussies!  Anyway, we're both right, but looking at it from different angles.  I guess what I was referring to is that you always take 10% less total damage, as in your example, if you are attacked 100 times at 10 damage each, with +2 armor vs. +0, you always take 100 less damage (10% of 1000 possible damage).  As for your perspective, if you're comparing the percentage between damages taken, it's not linear.  It ranges fromp 5% to 100%.  

105% vs. 95% => 1000 Damage vs.  950 Damage = 5% Difference
100% vs. 90% => 1000 Damage vs.  900 Damage = 10% Difference
95% vs. 85% => 950 Damage vs.  850 Damage = 11% Difference
90% vs. 80% => 900 Damage vs.  800 Damage = 11% Difference
85% vs. 75% => 850 Damage vs.  750 Damage = 12% Difference
80% vs. 70% => 800 Damage vs.  700 Damage = 13% Difference
75% vs. 65% => 750 Damage vs.  650 Damage = 13% Difference
70% vs. 60% => 700 Damage vs.  600 Damage = 14% Difference
65% vs. 55% => 650 Damage vs.  550 Damage = 15% Difference
60% vs. 50% => 600 Damage vs.  500 Damage = 17% Difference
55% vs. 45% => 550 Damage vs.  450 Damage = 18% Difference
50% vs. 40% => 500 Damage vs.  400 Damage = 20% Difference
45% vs. 35% => 450 Damage vs.  350 Damage = 22% Difference
40% vs. 30% => 400 Damage vs.  300 Damage = 25% Difference
35% vs. 25% => 350 Damage vs.  250 Damage = 29% Difference
30% vs. 20% => 300 Damage vs.  200 Damage = 33% Difference
25% vs. 15% => 250 Damage vs.  150 Damage = 40% Difference
20% vs. 10% => 200 Damage vs.  100 Damage = 50% Difference
15% vs. 5% => 150 Damage vs.  50 Damage = 67% Difference
10% vs. 0% => 100 Damage vs.  0 Damage = 100% Difference


As you can see the damage is always 100 less (except in the first case) which is 10% of the total possible damage.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> A designer said "Christmas Shrub" and "Charlie Brown's Christmas Tree". That's not what I would call having 9 filled slots + misc items.
> 
> I knew that +x swords and armor would still be around. That's not the point.



The "Christmas Tree Effect" is the ability to stack large amounts of bonuses together.  No the number of magic items you have.  It's about the fact that you can get one item that gives a deflection bonus to AC, one that gives an enhancement bonus to your armor, one that gives an enhancement bonus to your shield, another item that adds a natural armor bonus, one that adds an insight bonus, etc.

Because of this a player who wanted to increase his AC would buy 4 or 5 magic items for just that purpose in 3e.  In 4e, they buy magic armor and that's it.


----------



## Rokes (Jan 24, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Where 3E went wildly wrong and took the Christmas Tree effect to a whole new level was this combination of decisions:
> 1) Magic items much easier to make than in earlier editions
> 2) Buying and selling magic items not only allowed but expected as a player's right
> 3) The frequency of magic shops implied by that statement in the DMG that anything with a value below the town's GP limit can be expected to be available for purchase.
> ...




What I liked about 3.Xe was how it made magic items easier to make.  Not easier in the sense of the requirements, but easier in the _explanation _of the requirements!  I want my players to have a pretty good idea of how they can make items or special components, but I don't want the core books making them feel that they should be able to make the items easily if they meet the requirements.  (and don't get me started on spending XP to make items...)

What I have loved so far about 4e is that they are reinstating a sense of awe about the game.  Things are new, there are plenty of unknowns.  Unfortunately, I don't see this extending to magic items.  I wish there was a higher percentage of "cursed" items (like 80%!), but not in the traditional sense.  I want items to not always work as intended, and to have hidden properties or effects.  There needs to be a sense of wonder associated with *MAGIC* in all forms.  Taking items, spells, or powers for granted is what leads to burnout imo.


----------



## Rokes (Jan 24, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> The "Christmas Tree Effect" is the ability to stack large amounts of bonuses together.  No[t] the number of magic items you have.




With this I disagree.  I believe the CTE (as it shall now be known!) is the effect of characters having to walk around wearing a dozen items just to FEEL effective.  It looks like in 4e, they're making so that you won't have to have more than 3 items to actually BE effective, but it doesn't look like they've addressed the player's FEELINGS about being effective (or optimized, or whatever).  

And there's nothing wrong with wanting more magic items, but you shouldn't feel as though you're incomplete w/o them!


----------



## DandD (Jan 24, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> The "Christmas Tree Effect" is the ability to stack large amounts of bonuses together.  No the number of magic items you have.  It's about the fact that you can get one item that gives a deflection bonus to AC, one that gives an enhancement bonus to your armor, one that gives an enhancement bonus to your shield, another item that adds a natural armor bonus, one that adds an insight bonus, etc.
> 
> Because of this a player who wanted to increase his AC would buy 4 or 5 magic items for just that purpose in 3e.  In 4e, they buy magic armor and that's it.



 I'm pretty sure that this won't stay so. After all, things can change, and some promises simply can't be uphold. I'll bet we're going to see some must-have-magic items after all, just at a higher level.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 24, 2008)

Having 9 slots, factoring 3 into the math, and leaving 6 as optional effects that aren't strictly mathematical and therefore do not factor into the math, is probably the ONLY way to make the game work with both high and low magic settings.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 24, 2008)

Rokes said:
			
		

> What I liked about 3.Xe was how it made magic items easier to make.  Not easier in the sense of the requirements, but easier in the _explanation _of the requirements!



There I agree with you.  I was referring to how easy it was in-game.  Low level requirements, trivial XP cost, no exotic quests.  Just some gold and a bit of time.



			
				Rokes said:
			
		

> I wish there was a higher percentage of "cursed" items (like 80%!), but not in the traditional sense.  I want items to not always work as intended, and to have hidden properties or effects.  There needs to be a sense of wonder associated with *MAGIC* in all forms.  Taking items, spells, or powers for granted is what leads to burnout imo.



Like the "drawback" tables at the back of the DMG?  Those were pretty good, and I found that players generally liked them if the benefits outweighed the drawbacks.  I gave a bunch of such items to my PCs as rewards from the fey (each had a drawback that the fey at least would find amusing).


----------



## Rokes (Jan 24, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Like the "drawback" tables at the back of the DMG?




Similar but more common perhaps.  I find it hard to believe that the majority of magic item creators can make perfect magic items.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 24, 2008)

Rokes said:
			
		

> Similar but more common perhaps.  I find it hard to believe that the majority of magic item creators can make perfect magic items.




_Mastering Iron Heroes_ had some. They could be pretty harsh, though, because of the game's premise.


----------



## Njall (Jan 24, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> First off, drop the snark. It's pointless and unnecessary.
> 
> Second, I read the same article you did. The one that showed an 11th-level character wearing eight magic items on his body, not including a number of other possible magic items that might also be in his possession.
> 
> While it may be true that only three slots factor into the hit/damage/AC/saves math, that doesn't address the fact that the character is still suiting up in magic items like they're sports equipment, which is my biggest issue.




Well, that 11th level character was a playtest character; if you want to playtest something ( namely, magic items ), you have to _actually_ have someone using them. 
It doesn't mean that every 11th level adventurer is assumed to have all those magic items: in another playtest report, for example, they told something about a 10th level character that didn't have a single one. 

Furthermore, there are people who like their christmas tree effect 
They probably like the idea of playing a character that's decked up in magic trinkets of all sorts. I don't see why D&D shouldn't support that kind of playstyle at all. 
Conversely, if creating or buying a magic item isn't easy as it was in 3e, and magic isn't required to balance things out, a DM can simply choose to hand out fewer or no "optional item" at all. This way, the game supports both high magic and low magic campaigns.

Remember, you're not playing a MMORPG: just because you have a slot at your disposal, it doesn't mean you'll find something to fill it up. Ultimately, if it's up to the DM, I'm fine with it. In 3e it wasn't, since wealth per level was assumed as a part of game balance and creating a magic item was kind of trivial.


----------



## Rokes (Jan 24, 2008)

Njall said:
			
		

> Well, that 11th level character was a playtest character; if you want to playtest something ( namely, magic items ), you have to _actually_ have someone using them.




That's not the complete truth.  I would expect that they should also be testing characters w/o the "recommended" or "assumed" quantity/power of magic items.  That is, of course, if they are serious about having viable characters w/o magic items like they've said.


----------



## Voss (Jan 24, 2008)

Boo.  Hiss.  OK.  The Christmas tree lost like 6".  That doesn't make me happy.  
And hurrah... worked into the system's math.  Double boo.


And before people bring up the 'you won't be required to take secondary things'.  Look at some of those things again.  Gauntlets- help with attacks?  Waist - temporary bonus to strength (and didn't they talk just a little while ago about no temporary modifications to ability scores? What the hell?)  Do you really think players won't want that stuff?  And think of it as mandatory?  It may not be a 'huge decrease in power', as the article states, but that doesn't mean it isn't a decrease in power at all.
Another issue- what about obnoxious secondary items that are 1/day or 2/day?  Take it off, swap it out for a different item that is 1/day or 2/day.  That doesn't seem to be addressed.

And then there is the 'other stuff'.  Only sometimes useful in combat?  Bets that the smart players will stock up on that stuff if they can?  (And since item creation is in, even if different, why wouldn't they?)  

And no, I didn't expect magic items to go entirely.  But this took the 10 out of 10 magic item problem in 3e and lowered it to maybe an 8 out of 10 problem.  Yay.

I dislike the more or less mandatory expected bonuses at level X for the 'primary' items.  The metagamey slots and rings and whatnot don't help, even if the slots are a bad legacy.

At least the rod/staff/wand consumables are gone.
And scrolls seem to missing too.  Thats... something positive.



			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> Not really. Boost class based defence factored on when each plus is supposed to show up.



Good idea.  Leaves a place for magical swords of character, not just the horde of +1 swords that 6th level mooks (or whatever) distribute in droves because of mechanical considerations.

The idea I am probably going to implement (based on someone else's home-design game) is a character can only be attuned to 3 + (modifier of whatever the most common dump stat is) magical effects at one time: spells, items or whatever, including one shots, consumables and wonderous items.  Or maybe just a set number like 5.  And negative effects take priority, suppressing positive effects.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Jan 24, 2008)

Various thoughts:

Irda Ranger: nice post #102!

Rings and level requirements: rings will be more powerful now. It's not that you have to be 11th level to use a ring of protection +1, it more that the _Ring of Awesome_ doesn't even respond to someone who is not already on the road to awesome.

Number of item slots: seems appropriate. Much better than 'a limit of 5' or something else. (How can people state that level-limits on rings are gamist and bad and then at the same time argue for an arbitrary limit to the number of magic items a character can have?)

I think what has not been stated about +X weapons and armor is that there won't be vanilla +X weapons or armor. Each one will have something else to it that is probably more important than the +X, like +1 flaming longsword, +2 dragonhide, or as listed in the article, +3 rod of dark reward.

I also suspect that the 11th level character mentioned in the article may have more than his fair share of items for playtesting purposes. If not, no biggie, as D&D is about killing monsters and taking stuff. It seems like the new magic items rules will allow the characters to then actually use said stuff rather than sell it to by more +X attacks and +X protection.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jan 24, 2008)

Considering it is a playtest character I will reiterate what a former poster said. Items need to be tested in practice. The default option would be to present a character from a playtest that uses a lot of items. Providing us with a character that uses few items in an article about magic items would be counterproductive. Since they explicitly state that secondary slots are slots you should not worry or feel compelled to feel, I think you are simply reading too much on one character's predilection to collect items. 

I am not trouble by the 3 main slots at all as I have said before. What could potentially replicate the christmas tree effect on the other end of the attack/defense spectrum though are some of the secondary items. If Bracers of the perfect shot, Shadowfell gloves, Belt of battle provide temporary effects, then they are simply options that improve the game. If even one (doubly so if more than one) provides a static effect though, it implies that the power level is being determined again by multiple additive effects. In keeping with my cautiously optimistic attitude about 4E, I hope they are temporary boosts.

Also most items that provide a permanent effect or that allow you to use a X/day effect in 3.5 require to be worn for 24 hours before they start giving said effect. I don't see why they would skip such an attunement period. Or they may skip it and say that once you have used an item in a specific slot, you cannot change it for another one for that day (latent magical energies that identify and attune with the soul of the wearer.)


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 24, 2008)

Rokes said:
			
		

> That's not the complete truth.  I would expect that they should also be testing characters w/o the "recommended" or "assumed" quantity/power of magic items.  That is, of course, if they are serious about having viable characters w/o magic items like they've said.




They've mentioned doing that, though. 

In the magic item slot article they decided to post up some magic items. Seems reasonable to me.


----------



## Andor (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Or the system just doesn't shovel out the magical items so you are assumed to have enough _for_ all those magical items.




Bzzzt. The _system_ doesn't hand out items at all. The GM does that. Some GMs will be stingier that Scrooge and some will shame Monty Hall no matter what the guidelines say. 



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> Or just how many magical items you can get benefit from.




It's true that a game designer can try to reduce future abuses of his 'vision' for the system by limiting how items can be used. If we'll all think back that was actually the original intention behind the 3.x stacking and item slot rules and we all know how well those worked out. 

A GM who wants his 2nd level PCs to feel like they can pimp slap Leonides will deck them out with too much loot regardless. And GMs who think Sam was pushing his luck getting an elven cloak _and_ a box of magic dirt will still make their 15th level PCs scrounge behind the couch cushions for change to buy their beer.




			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> For instance, in 3e, you can only benefit from two rings. But what stops you from putting four, or eight magical rings on your hands?




GMs who remember the potion miscibility tables.


----------



## jester47 (Jan 24, 2008)

This makes my Lame List. 

LAME.

Magic items should be classed by function, not slot.  If a necklace makes you climb better, so be it.  

I mean really, what does it take to get magic items by function?

Whats up with the rings?  Why cant you have a charged frikkin ring?  A charged ring of invisibility.  Not too expensive AND ITS A RING!

The christmas tree effect is not gone...

Monte Cook was right.  The best way is function.


----------



## Najo (Jan 24, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Rings are special.  They are endless, without beginning or end.  And their shape, a bound circle, allows them to contain magic far beyond any simple spell embedded in your common "magic" sword or item made of cloth.  Where any other item or weapon would warped and destroyed by the restless force that is magic, the magics within a ring swirl silently, falling back upon themselves ... contained.  Although less than an artifact, they are more than anything else you will encounter (other than perhaps the legendary Stones of Ioun).
> 
> Sauron knew this.  It is no coincidence that he chose the form of the Ring when making his weapon.  Nothing else would have contained his terrible power, or serve his terrible purpose.
> 
> ...




Ok, I will give you this considering how cool you made their limitation sound. This idea makes the rings sound good.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

jester47 said:
			
		

> I mean really, what does it take to get magic items by function?




A lack of inspiration from mythological and literary sources, which don't often feature "Headbands of Overwhelming Strength" or "Gloves of Superior Intellect," but rather items that grant bonuses appropriate to the thematic nature of the item in question, like "Girdle of Giant Strength" or "Gauntlets of Ogre Power" or "Boots of Speed."


----------



## jester47 (Jan 24, 2008)

Yeah, but waiting until 11th level to use a ring?
Thats just... so... 

UnFun.


----------



## Abstraction (Jan 24, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Right there with you.
> 
> I'm curious if a _hat of disguise_ will exist in 4E and how it'll change. (Will it even be a head slot item?) My gnome has just "acquired" one, and it's pretty darn useful for a tricky little guy ...



The good news, the hat of disguise is in. The bad news, the gnome is out. I picture you playing a spot of empty space, which is wearing a hat.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Yeah, but waiting until 11th level to use a ring?
> Thats just... so...




It's no different than having to wait until level 15 or so get a vorpal weapon, except that they're being more direct with expected item-usage at particular levels, instead of leaving it up to the vagaries of "can you afford to buy it?"


----------



## Sir Brennen (Jan 24, 2008)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Yeah, but waiting until 11th level to use a ring?
> Thats just... so...
> 
> UnFun.



Why? What do you think these rings do that makes them qualified for lower level characters? Seems to me they've got all the bases covered between all the other slots and wondrous items. What will rings do that other items can't and must be available at heroic levels? What is the basis of your assertation that having them at lower level will make them more fun?

Why is the assumption "the design team made rings unavailable until 11th level... just because"? Given how hard they've worked to make races and monsters and cosmology work both mechanically and story-wise, why assume this restriction is made arbitrarily? 

I for one would love it if 4E rings were now all on the scale of Rings of Elemental Command or Three Wishes, and therefore geared towards higher level play. I want them to be something special, not just another slot that can have the same bonuses or abilities I could have on some other item anyway. Just take your +10 Jumping bonus and stick it up your boot.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 24, 2008)

To me, there is ONE huge advantage to doing the primary and secondary items...NPCs.

Right now in 3.5, in order for an npc to compete with pcs, you have to equip them with magic items. Which the party then immediately grabs upon the killing of the npcs. Meaning you now have stronger pcs, and therefore need stronger npcs with more loot.

That's a fine way to play, but certainly not the only desired way.

If magic items have become less needed, I can have fewer on my npcs. Meaning I can save treasure for big hordes as opposed to a bunch of corpse looting.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> IAs I said, no edition of D&D has ever handled "two magic items tops" style without house rules or DM fiat. Re-read the classic modules if you want proof. You are more then welcomed to continue to run D&D in that fashion, but shouting about how "this doesn't reduce the X-mas tree" isn't fair, they never said they were removing magical item acquisition from the game, they just said certain items for all characters all the time are no longer *manditory*.



As someone who has never played anything before 3e, I don't _care_ what earlier editions do. 

The "I have a small cart full of magical items" is IMHO stupid and breaks _my_ suspension of disbelief. 

When you play a 3e module and nearly every NPC you fight has at _least_ a +1 weapon, even the guards, it _breaks my suspension of disbelief_. It takes the wonder away from magic. It reminds me of the tale of adventurers paying for things with +1 swords because they had collected so many.

And I don't give one spit if it was handled that way by EGG or by Mike Mearls.

No where in fantasy literature does the hero open up his walk in closet and pick between his twelve magical weapons, eight magical cloaks, three different sets of armor, and five different pairs of magical shoes so he can pick the best one for the job. 

I'm sorry, but arguing that D&D characters _should_ get all those magical doodads is like arguing that baseball should have more innings.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

I'm not convinced that "It's a playtest character = more magic than normal". 

1) If you're testing something, why would you test giving _more_ items than expected? That's not exactly testing the system. 

2) They're playing a _campaign_, not throwing items at the PCs and just having fight after fight after fight. It looks like a _campaign_. A campaign that was just converted to 4e. It strikes me as playtest only in the sense of "4e isn't out yet so we're just going to use the rules for this campaign".


----------



## tombowings (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> As someone who has never played anything before 3e, I don't _care_ what earlier editions do.
> 
> The "I have a small cart full of magical items" is IMHO stupid and breaks _my_ suspension of disbelief.
> 
> ...




I agree with the above. It may be a bit harsh, but some of us aren't attached to tradition.


----------



## Thundershield (Jan 24, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Rings are special.  They are endless, without beginning or end.  And their shape, a bound circle, allows them to contain magic far beyond any simple spell embedded in your common "magic" sword or item made of cloth.  Where any other item or weapon would warped and destroyed by the restless force that is magic, the magics within a ring swirl silently, falling back upon themselves ... contained.  Although less than an artifact, they are more than anything else you will encounter (other than perhaps the legendary Stones of Ioun).
> 
> Sauron knew this.  It is no coincidence that he chose the form of the Ring when making his weapon.  Nothing else would have contained his terrible power, or serve his terrible purpose.
> 
> ...



Sold and bought! Splendid way of presenting this new icon of power. DMG writers, if you see this, adapt it for the book, will ya?

The scaling down of the number of magic item slots does seem good and reasonable. There's still a good amount of ways to give your character a nifty trinket or a curious doodat, while the low-brow brute can still brag about his +4 Greatsword of Kickass, if he wants, and the plate-polishing knight can admire himself in the reflection of his +2 Dwarven Full Plate Armor.

They've cut down the information overload and removed the "required" gimmicks, leaving it up to the players and DM what the characters should boast, and while they recommend that a 9th-level character should have +2 stuff in his "primary slots", it is merely a baseline. If you want a low-magic campaign, do that. High-magic or Monty Haul - well, feel free.

Indeed, as some already pointed out, they have fewer magic items in their current 3.5 campaign. Well, what keeps them from having fewer in their 4E campaign too? And since all the ability score boosting magic items are gone, the lack of these items will be even less glaring when comparing the characters to what the rest of the game was designed for.

No, it seems like a good and well-planned change.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> If magic items have become less needed, I can have fewer on my npcs. Meaning I can save treasure for big hordes as opposed to a bunch of corpse looting.



Also, you can give your NPCs a secondary item, rather than a primary, to give them an option or two without really being forced to drop a +x on them just to compete.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 24, 2008)

> I'm sorry, but arguing that D&D characters need all those magical doodads is like arguing that baseball needs 9 innings.




I'm not sure that means what you think it means.  

Rechan, take a look at high level 3e modules.  You will find them literally SWIMMING in magic items.  Not as badly as 1e modules, true, but, certainly not exactly magic light.

I actually happen to have Dungeon 141 in front of me, so, let's look at Vlindarian's Vault - for levels 13th to 20th.

1st NPC has +1 mace, amulet of natural armor +4, ring of mind shielding, ring of protection +3, winged boots.  

We have 10 kobold skeletons, each armed with a 5hd fireball bead from a necklace of missiles.

Next NPC has +5 keen longsword, +5 leather armor, belt of giant strength +6, amulet of natural armor +2

Note, that's what I spot on a 30 second skim through the module and does not include any actual treasure.  

High level NPC's and bad guys are wandering around with scads of magic items.  Always have and always, likely, will.

Complaining that D&D doesn't simulate your favourite fantasy novel is a well trodden path.  You're right, it doesn't resemble it in the least.  But, that's because we're playing a game and not writing a novel.


----------



## Gundark (Jan 24, 2008)

I have to say that this is disappointing. However like my sig suggests we'll have to see the system in play. I have to say that the "Charlie Brown Christmas tree effect" was misleading. 

From what it looks like the upgrade magic race isn't dead...guess we'll see this in 5th ed.


----------



## Slander (Jan 24, 2008)

> When you play a 3e module and nearly every NPC you fight has at least a +1 weapon, even the guards, it breaks my suspension of disbelief. It takes the wonder away from magic. It reminds me of the tale of adventurers paying for things with +1 swords because they had collected so many.




Actually, this does bring up a good point. We know PCs are going to be balanced with an assumed set of magical gear (of 3 items). Are we sure its fair to assume NPCs are balanced in the same way? If so, this is a somewhat valid point. I'm not overly fond myself of enemies needing to have magical gear to compete with PCs.

But if not, this could be a very nice solution indeed. If PCs can engage in appropriate encounters with enemies who do not _need_ to have PC-level-equivalent magical gear to be effective, it would really open up options for the DM in terms of how much, or little, magical gear PCs run across.

Hopefully, its the latter <crossing fingers>


----------



## jester47 (Jan 24, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Why? What do you think these rings do that makes them qualified for lower level characters? Seems to me they've got all the bases covered between all the other slots and wondrous items. What will rings do that other items can't and must be available at heroic levels? What is the basis of your assertation that having them at lower level will make them more fun?
> 
> Why is the assumption "the design team made rings unavailable until 11th level... just because"? Given how hard they've worked to make races and monsters and cosmology work both mechanically and story-wise, why assume this restriction is made arbitrarily?
> 
> I for one would love it if 4E rings were now all on the scale of Rings of Elemental Command or Three Wishes, and therefore geared towards higher level play. I want them to be something special, not just another slot that can have the same bonuses or abilities I could have on some other item anyway. Just take your +10 Jumping bonus and stick it up your boot.




Magic items should be classified by function.  No matter what form they come in.   Its not about what a ring does.  Its about how you can't have a gradient of rings.  Why not a neaklace of 3 wishes?  or elemental comand?  Or a ring that operates like a potion?  Or a potion that operates like a constant item.  Its the limitation of the form that irks me, not the mechanics of the effect.  The effect of not being able to access a magic item until a certain level is awesome.  I like it.  But limiting that to a ring?  Please, I want to be able to use it on hats, boots, belts, swords, etc.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Jan 24, 2008)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> The good news, the hat of disguise is in. The bad news, the gnome is out.



Or so their hats tell you.


----------



## Voss (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> It's no different than having to wait until level 15 or so get a vorpal weapon, except that they're being more direct with expected item-usage at particular levels, instead of leaving it up to the vagaries of "can you afford to buy it?"




Actually, the 'or so' makes it different.  

But really, a Ring of 'Trivial Toughness' (+2 hp) or a Ring of You Gain Proficiency with Clubs is totally Verboten?  Or more realistically, a once per day cantrip like effect (detect magic, 1/day), or even just other, reasonable low level effects? Thats just insane.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Rechan, take a look at high level 3e modules.  You will find them literally SWIMMING in magic items.  Not as badly as 1e modules, true, but, certainly not exactly magic light.[



You seem to have missed where I said this:



> When you play a 3e module and nearly every NPC you fight has at least a +1 weapon, even the guards, it breaks my suspension of disbelief. It takes the wonder away from magic. It reminds me of the tale of adventurers paying for things with +1 swords because they had collected so many.



Yes, Hussar. I'm _acutely aware_ that 3e adventures are swimming in magical items. I run 3e games. 

I thought that _4e would correct the problem_, by what the designers said. And by any implication of this article, it isn't. 

So my problem is that I feel that the designers let me down.


----------



## Flobby (Jan 24, 2008)

I have a question... Sorry if its already been asked here but could you make magic items that  would not need to be worked into the math? I mean you would have to make it so NO magic items gave bonuses to AC, saves, and/or attack right? So what kind of weapons and armor would you have?


----------



## Aluvial (Jan 24, 2008)

So I predict (or did I glean it from somewhere) that Cloaks/Necklaces will now be +X of some Y.  You probably will need at least a +1 Cloak/Neckthingy to put the next ability onto it.  Just like weapons and armor of 3.x.

Possible cloak abilities.  
+1 abilities: 
Absorbtion
Adamantine
Balancing
Climbing
Effegies
Flatulence
Greatness
the Hothead
etc.
+2 abilities:
and so on...


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Actually, the 'or so' makes it different.
> 
> But really, a Ring of 'Trivial Toughness' (+2 hp) or a Ring of You Gain Proficiency with Clubs is totally Verboten?  Or more realistically, a once per day cantrip like effect (detect magic, 1/day), or even just other, reasonable low level effects? Thats just insane.




You've got 5 other magic item slots for your trivial magic items. Why can't we have one slot that is for a guaranteed awesome item? Why do *all* slots have to be fillable with trivial crap? Why can't you have Bracers of Hitting Dudes With A Club instead of a ring? Why can't you have a Belt of Trivial Toughness instead of a ring? *Why does it have to be a ring?*


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Yes, Hussar. I'm _acutely aware_ that 3e adventures are swimming in magical items. I run 3e games.
> 
> I thought that _4e would correct the problem_, by what the designers said. And by any implication of this article, it isn't.
> 
> So my problem is that I feel that the designers let me down.




I think you're looking at it wrong. It seems like you're assuming that NPCs will come laden with magic items, like they did in 3e (since they were built with PC rules). Since NPCs will be using the same rules as monster, and monsters aren't designed to be using magic items (except as part of their shtick, like a death knight), then it would be safe to assume that NPCs will be balanced without magic items, so you won't be looting a +1 sword from every town guard you kill.


----------



## Voss (Jan 24, 2008)

Flobby-
Characterful ones.  Sword of undead smiting: bonus damage vs undead.  Maybe the equivalent of feats or powers.  Or that grant feats or powers.  Norse mythology has some good ones.  Summon lightning.  Blinding flash.  Give it a good name and description and players might actually be impressed rather just 'Oh, another +1 sword? I stuff it in the bag of holding with the others'


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I think you're looking at it wrong. It seems like you're assuming that NPCs will come laden with magic items, like they did in 3e



I also have a problem with _PCs_ come laden with magical items. 

As I said, I thought 4e was going to correct this based on what the designers said.


----------



## Flobby (Jan 24, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Flobby-
> Characterful ones.  Sword of undead smiting: bonus damage vs undead.  Maybe the equivalent of feats or powers.  Or that grant feats or powers.  Norse mythology has some good ones.  Summon lightning.  Blinding flash.  Give it a good name and description and players might actually be impressed rather just 'Oh, another +1 sword? I stuff it in the bag of holding with the others'




Thanks. But, and I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, wouldn't effects like that disrupt balance just the same if they weren't assumed in some way as a part of level advancement. Unless they automatically had hefty disadvantages...
And I'm not arguing at all that they would more interesting than a +1 sword.

Someone on this thread mentioned something about level adjustment for magic items. Thats sounded like a good idea. (Mostly because I though of a similar thing myself


----------



## Zimri (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I also have a problem with _PCs_ come laden with magical items.
> 
> As I said, I thought 4e was going to correct this based on what the designers said.




Where do your PCs get their magic items from ?

In my world it's from 1) Overcoming an NPC /monster and taking it's stuff or 2) Overcoming an NPC/monster, taking it's stuff, selling / bartering with it, and buying it.

If NPCs/ monsters are no longer carrying as much stuff (because NPCs and monsters are not built the same way PCs are) the amount of "stuff" goes down.

We have 3 "mathematically necessary" slots, and we have already seen a number of varied ways in this thread to work around those if you want them removed. 

We have 5 "flavor" slots that "do not effect" the math. If you don't want them in your game don't use them. Nothing is forcing you to make them available.

As an aside I find it telling that in this thread the contributors can't even decide what it is we are coming at odds over. I've seen "christmas tree effect" defined 2 or 3 different ways until language and terms are agreed to does any side really have any hope of swaying the other.

As a further aside Kudos IrdaRanger that was full of awesome and wrapped in win.


----------



## Voss (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> You've got 5 other magic item slots for your trivial magic items. Why can't we have one slot that is for a guaranteed awesome item? Why do *all* slots have to be fillable with trivial crap? Why can't you have Bracers of Hitting Dudes With A Club instead of a ring? Why can't you have a Belt of Trivial Toughness instead of a ring? *Why does it have to be a ring?*




it doesn't.  But there doesn't need to be a rule that explicitly says It Must Not Be.  Thats designers imposing a *completely* arbitrary personal preference on the audience for no justifiable reason.  Its like a rule declaring that all starting human characters *must* be between the age of 16 and 20.  The game is not improved in any way by the lack of heroic tier rings.  If you don't want them... fine.  But thats as far as it really goes.

And your response to Rechan is assuming an awful lot.  If the primary items are built into the math for the game, why would they be any less necessary for NPCs than PCs?  Maybe they are, maybe not... but there isn't much reason to assume one way or the other.

@Zimri- they don't directly affect the math in a huge way.  But if you think gloves that help attacks and belts that temporarily raise strength won't matter, I suspect you are in for a surprise.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Where do your PCs get their magic items from ?



Family Heirloom. Given to them due to their sudden station. On loan by a benefactor organization so the PCs can accomplish a specific task. Going on quests for those items. Deals made with entities that possess them. Gifts. 



> In my world it's from 1) Overcoming an NPC /monster and taking it's stuff or 2) Overcoming an NPC/monster, taking it's stuff, selling / bartering with it, and buying it.
> 
> If NPCs/ monsters are no longer carrying as much stuff (because NPCs and monsters are not built the same way PCs are) the amount of "stuff" goes down.



I could argue that this could be accomplished with 3e. Tons of monsters don't have "stuff" to take; animals, vermin, magical beasts, oozes, and constructs do not wield any magical items or have treasure, period. Any "stuff" they have is just "Well, the DM rolled some numbers on the treasure chart, and it's just assumed that this crap just belonged to the victims, as somehow that cloak of elvenkind Wasn't torn apart by the owlbear when it tore apart its victim."

I dislike having to just assume that there's a small army of unlucky adventurers who get eaten by everything under the sun so that the PCs have magical gigaws to stuff in their golf bag.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Thats designers imposing a *completely* arbitrary personal preference on the audience for no justifiable reason.




It's for no reason *you will accept*, which is completely removed from being justifiable. When you claim there is "no justifiable reason" before any official reason has been given, you're just showing that you've made up your mind, regardless of their reasoning.



> The game is not improved in any way by the lack of heroic tier rings.




You don't know this. Without actually playing the game, you can't know this. You're going on your 3.X experience which treats rings very differently from 4e (and differently from previous editions, since in 2e and earlier, rings were far more substantial than the "+5 to Jump checks" crap they became in 3e).



> And your response to Rechan is assuming an awful lot.  If the primary items are built into the math for the game, why would they be any less necessary for NPCs than PCs? Maybe they are, maybe not... but there isn't much reason to assume one way or the other.




This makes it sound like you didn't even bother to read what I said.

(A) NPCs use monster rules.
(B) Monster rules are not balanced to require magic items as part of their statistics.
(C) NPCs, by using monster rules, are not balanced to require magic items as part of their statistics.

So, if A is true, and B is true, then C must be true as well. Arguing otherwise, when A and B have been clearly stated as true, is assuming things, rather than going by what information has already been released.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I also have a problem with _PCs_ come laden with magical items.
> 
> As I said, I thought 4e was going to correct this based on what the designers said.




Well, with only 3 item slots used for balance (with them limited to particular bonuses in order to keep that balance easier to maintain), and level-requirements for certain minimum bonuses, you can easily apply those bonuses without them getting items and use them as story points/quest rewards.

Unlike the previous edition, removing magic items from the game won't require you to rebalance the entire game to compensate. That's a huge step forward.


----------



## Voss (Jan 24, 2008)

You're assuming A and B are true, which makes the conclusion suspect.  I want to see these 'clearly stated' links, please

And fine, I, in my own very special personal opinion, don't find the game improved by the lack of heroic tier rings.  And I don't even want a lot of magic items.  But when you get right down to it, their reasoning doesn't matter to me.  Only the mechanics they put forth.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Well, with only 3 item slots used for balance (with them limited to particular bonuses in order to keep that balance easier to maintain), and level-requirements for certain minimum bonuses, you can easily apply those bonuses without them getting items and use them as story points/quest rewards.



Eh? 

I don't want to remove magic items. I just want to reduce the number of magical items a character has at one time. I'd rather throw the Primary items away and leave only the secondary items with their quirky sundry effects. But I _can't_ do that, because the _reverse_ is not only assumed, but Built Into the Math. 

I hate that there are _still_ three items that are _required_. I _still_ need a weapon, armor and necklace to function. If I want my guy to just have a ring, boots and goggles, I'm still going to be sub-par compared to the other guy who has all his Necessary items.

And as others have pointed out, while the math may not REQUIRE the other slots, the items for the other slots may be too good to pass up; every fighter may want the Shield of Boogers because the benefit that the Shield of Boogers provides is just _too good_ to not use. Sort've like how anyone and everyone who can use light armor uses a Chain Shirt because it's the best.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> You're assuming A and B are true, which makes the conclusion suspect.  I want to see these 'clearly stated' links, please




I'm not going to link you pages of text from a book you refuse to buy. Read Worlds & Monsters if you want the details about how monster rules are changing to be separate from PC rules, and NPCs will be using those rules. Using the PC rules for NPCs makes the DM do more work than it's worth, and they've addressed that.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I'm not going to link you pages of text from a book you refuse to buy. Read Worlds & Monsters if you want the details about how monster rules are changing to be separate from PC rules, and NPCs will be using those rules. Using the PC rules for NPCs makes the DM do more work than it's worth, and they've addressed that.



That doesn't address B. 

Does W&M say, specifically, "NPCs will have less magic to function than PCs"?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Eh?
> 
> I don't want to remove magic items. I just want to reduce the number of magical items a character has at one time. As a DM, I'd rather throw the Primary items away and leave only the secondary items. But I _can't_ do that, because the _reverse_ is not only assumed, but Built Into the Math.




I think you're still missing what I'm saying.

You don't want to give your fighter a magic sword. That's cool. Instead, give him a +3 bonus to attack at level 11 (where he would normally have a +3 sword), and you don't need to worry about actual magic items. If you replace the "primary magic items" with level-based bonuses to certain things (or made them rewards from side quests for "training" and whatnot), you keep your balance just fine and can focus more on sprinkling them with the "secondary items" you want to give out.


----------



## Zimri (Jan 24, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> @Zimri- they don't directly affect the math in a huge way.  But if you think gloves that help attacks and belts that temporarily raise strength won't matter, I suspect you are in for a surprise.




I suspect they won't make a HUGE difference. I suspect this because we have been told so



> These items don’t have enhancement bonuses. That makes them essentially optional. You could adventure with no items in your secondary item slots and not see a huge decrease in your overall power. Take what looks cool, but don’t worry about having empty slots.




Will it be completely broken by players over on the char-op boards who like to do such things, some to actually see play with and some as mere intellectual enterprises ? Surely the answer is yes. But not all players min/max, not all DMs will allow it, or believe it necessary.

The long and short of it from my point of view is at the end of the day the amount of items DIRECTLY affecting the math has been pared way down. The "flavour" pieces have been restricted by what slot can have what effect. This SEEMS to me like a fine way of limiting the insane boni available in 3.X which should lead to more versatility of options.


----------



## Dayen (Jan 24, 2008)

It's not the news I wanted (been hoping that +# mechanics had gone the way of the dodo, frankly), but it's not bad news necessarily.

If I end up running 4E I imagine my particular outlook on magic items will be "sparing, and little of the "plus" variety and more of the "of goodness" variety." If it doesn't scale properly down when everyone's limited by lack of pluses then there's an inherent flaw in the mechanical design of the system that needs to be addressed.

I'm not seeing it just yet, but admittedly there's not enough mechanical information available for me to analyze.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I think you're still missing what I'm saying.
> 
> You don't want to give your fighter a magic sword. That's cool. Instead, give him a +3 bonus to attack at level 11 (where he would normally have a +3 sword), and you don't need to worry about actual magic items. If you replace the "primary magic items" with level-based bonuses to certain things (or made them rewards from side quests for "training" and whatnot), you keep your balance just fine and can focus more on sprinkling them with the "secondary items" you want to give out.



And you seem to be missing that I think I shouldn't have to do that myself.

I expected to see that in the _core rules_, not that I had to do it as a House Rule, based on what the designers said, and based on SWSE.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Does W&M say, specifically, "NPCs will have less magic to function than PCs"?




It states that monsters will be built to function against PCs of equivalent level, and they do not use PC rules (which include magic items... and we noted in the critical hits article that monsters aren't getting bonuses to crit from magic items). Making monsters (and thus NPCs, since it's been stated that NPCs and monsters will use the same rules) require magic items to balance out wouldn't work with things like gryphons and dragons (who aren't wielding +3 flaming longswords), so all monsters will be balanced to function without the need for PC tools (classes, items, etc), but that doesn't prevent you from adding them yourself.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> And you seem to be missing that I think I shouldn't have to do that myself.




Sucks that you have to do that, but I think expecting D&D to abandon magic items in any of it's balance equation was a bit naive, especially since we've been getting hints about still having +1 swords and the lot for a while now.



> I expected to see that in the _core rules_, not that I had to do it as a House Rule, based on what the designers said, and based on SWSE.




Can you point me to what quotes made you think you'd be able to run without any magic items (at all) without house rules? To be clear, I'm genuinely curious to see it.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Sucks that you have to do that, but I think expecting D&D to abandon magic items in any of it's balance equation was a bit naive, especially since we've been getting hints about still having +1 swords and the lot for a while now.



SWSE and Iron Heroes managed without magical items being necessary.



> Can you point me to what quotes made you think you'd be able to run without any magic items (at all) without house rules? To be clear, I'm genuinely curious to see it.



I addressed this further up the thread, with regards to the Christmas Tree effect.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> SWSE and Iron Heroes managed without magical items being necessary.




Magic items in Star Wars aren't really setting appropriate (unless you want to delve into Force artifact stuff, which is all pretty much optional), and Iron Heroes is supposed to be designed for low-magic/no-magic games, right? This is a difference of design intention, rather than execution.

I understand you want to be able to open your books, start up a "no magic item" game and not have to do any legwork yourself, but that's a point in which you and I (and the designers) differ.



> I addressed this further up the thread, with regards to the Christmas Tree effect.




And as far as I can see, the Christmas Tree effect is basically gone, since I was forced to purchase a plethora of magic items to stay competitive, and trying to make up for their lack by modifying the game was a lot of work without a whole lot of advice (since the wealth-by-level guidelines are pretty abstract and do nothing to tell you what kind of attack, AC, ability score, or saving throw bonuses I should be shooting for). Now, I can more easily remove the need for magic items, since "what bonus at what level" is more easily quantified and reduced to a maximum requirement of 3 slots.


----------



## Zimri (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> SWSE and Iron Heroes managed without magical items being necessary.
> 
> 
> I've explained this all ready, with regards to the Christmas Tree effect.




They said we would be less dependant on multiple stat/ac raising gear and we are. we have gone from :
head
face
amulet
cloak
armor
shield
bracers
gauntlets
gloves
legs
feet
any number of tatoo's/piercings

that could have a mathematical effect on stats, ac, attack/defence down to 3
3 that you can at your will handwave away by saying "at heroic you add blah, at paragon you add blah, at epic you add blah"

3 lines to give you what you want while allowing those that want more customization to be able to do so.

But since I seem to be missing exactly what it is you are saying you want perhaps should you want me to understand more completely try framing it again as I am to shortsighted to pick it up from your prior postings. Honestly what I am reading is " I don't want my players/characters to need to have multiple items to be able to take on level appropriate encounters" and I see nothing that says they do NEED to, leastwise not as bad as in 3e.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 24, 2008)

I'm pretty pro-4E so far, but yeah this does sound good to me.

Plus items are still needed, and filling all your characters slots (tee hee) is still going to be a regular occurrence it looks like. 

And you know why Frodo could use the One Ring even though he was a Heroic Tier character?

Because Frodo is a fictitious character in a book series that predates DnD and at the end of the day is only superficially similar. 

I can't believe that comment was even in there.


----------



## Voss (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> It states that monsters will be built to function against PCs of equivalent level, and they do not use PC rules (which include magic items... and we noted in the critical hits article that monsters aren't getting bonuses to crit from magic items). Making monsters (and thus NPCs, since it's been stated that NPCs and monsters will use the same rules) require magic items to balance out wouldn't work with things like gryphons and dragons (who aren't wielding +3 flaming longswords), so all monsters will be balanced to function without the need for PC tools (classes, items, etc), but that doesn't prevent you from adding them yourself.




Thats quite a string of logic.  So we're back to good old days when NPCs keep their powerful magical treasure safely in chests, so they aren't damaged when the PCs kill them?  Even if they're perfectly capable of using the items to defend themselves and not die?  Neat.

Man, what was that old D&D based board game called?  'Dungeon!'
http://cgi.ebay.com/DUNGEON-FANTASY...oryZ2531QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Awesome.  I kill the orc chief. Lets turn over his treasure card!


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I understand you want to be able to open your books, start up a "no magic item" game and not have to do any legwork yourself, but that's a point in which you and I (and the designers) differ.



No, no, no no no no no no.

I do not want to play no magic or "We're 15th level and between the six of us, Bill has a +1 sword and I have a cloak of elvenkind." 

That I loathe as much as "I have a small wagon full of magical gear."


----------



## Zimri (Jan 24, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Thats quite a string of logic.  So we're back to good old days when NPCs keep their powerful magical treasure safely in chests, so they aren't damaged when the PCs kill them?  Even if they're perfectly capable of using the items to defend themselves and not die?  Neat.
> 
> Man, what was that old D&D based board game called?  'Dungeon!'
> http://cgi.ebay.com/DUNGEON-FANTASY...oryZ2531QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
> ...




please show me the article that says an NPC in heroic paragon or epic tiers automatically has a treasure horde ? Monsters (and hence npcs and thus encounters) are being built to not necessarily need them to be effective at the level they are being designed for. Sure High Lord Lukas Bannerman the adversarial corrupt lawmaker COULD have a +3 flaming longsword, OR he could have minions, a well guarded throne room, and oh yeah traps to raise the encounter level to the parties level rather than said longsword and a +2 ring of protection. And the fact that he doesn't have the magical items means they aren't there to loot, not that they are in the display case in the foyer.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Thats quite a string of logic.  So we're back to good old days when NPCs keep their powerful magical treasure safely in chests, so they aren't damaged when the PCs kill them?  Even if they're perfectly capable of using the items to defend themselves and not die?




No, your method of distribution of treasure is still however you choose. However, just because his treasure note states he has a +1 longsword to plunder doesn't mean that the +1 longsword is factored into his stat block, because it's completely unnecessary with the way the monster rules are being designed. When it's in the NPCs hands, it doesn't have to function like it does for PCs, because NPCs are built with different rules to be balanced without that stuff.

Of course, if you WANT to factor it in, that's your choice, but it's no longer the default standard.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> No, no, no no no no no no.
> 
> I do not want to play no magic or "We're 15th level and between the six of us, Bill has a +1 sword and I have a cloak of elvenkind."
> 
> That I loathe as much as "I have a small wagon full of magical gear."




Yeah, you lost me, so let me see if I can't clear this up.

What amount of items do you feel the game should be balanced for? You don't seem to like 3 primary and 6 (or 7, for the second ring slot) optional, but don't like the 8-11 requirement of 3.X.


----------



## Voss (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> No, your method of distribution of treasure is still however you choose. However, just because his treasure note states he has a +1 longsword to plunder doesn't mean that the +1 longsword is factored into his stat block, because it's completely unnecessary with the way the monster rules are being designed. When it's in the NPCs hands, it doesn't have to function like it does for PCs, because NPCs are built with different rules to be balanced without that stuff.
> 
> Of course, if you WANT to factor it in, that's your choice, but it's no longer the default standard.



So in addition to rings randomly not working if you aren't 11th level+, now magic items don't function outside of a PCs hands?  Really, thats what you're telling me?  Because that idea actually wins the 'Worst 4e Idea So Far' Award    


@Zimri- OK, I'll bite.  The primary items are actually worked into the math and pretty much required.  Where are they coming from then, if the NPCs don't have them, and you can't loot them? Are they falling out of the ether, or are you really turning over a treasure card after the encounter is over?  Really, I don't expect them from every encounter, but the rules do seem to expect each PC to have primary items that are at least roughly level appropriate for them.  And since dungeoneering is an expected, normal thing in 4e, if you aren't tomb raiding for the magical loot, what are you looking for?  I suppose every single item in the campaign *could* be a reward from the quest givers, but I suspect a decent number of players will expect to find magic items in the course of their adventures.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Yeah, you lost me, so let me see if I can't clear this up.
> 
> What amount of items do you feel the game should be balanced for? You don't seem to like 3 primary and 6 (or 7, for the second ring slot) optional, but don't like the 8-11 requirement of 3.X.



I think that the game should be balanced for PCs having as many magical items as DMs choose, but _requires_ none for the _math_ to work.

To do that, I would say that all magical items should function as sundry effects, or multi-purpose items (possible of doing several effects thematically suitable), and thus no item provides a plus whatsoever.

Allow me to put it another way.

In 3e, you can have a situation like this:

1) A 15th level fighter with no magical items.

2) A 15th level fighter with a Cloak of the Bat, a Horn of Blasting, and a Ring of Elemental Control.

3) A 15th level Fighter with a +4 Sword, +4 Armor, and a +4 ring of Protection. 

We can agree that both fighter 2 and fighter 3 are better than Fighter 1.

But the important thing here is the difference between fighter 1 and fighter 2. Fighter 2 is a better fighter simply because he has more options, and his options are more interesting. But in a slug-fest, fighter 1 and fighter 2 are no different. That can't be said for Fighter 1 vs fighter 3, or fighter 2 vs. fighter 3 for that matter; Fighter 3 wins purely by the numbers.

I'd prefer the system build towards Fighter 2 being the standard, not being balanced to assume Fighter 3 is the norm.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 24, 2008)

I don't buy that the various body slots are 'optional'. They are absolutely going to affect characters' power levels. Maybe not precisely the attack/damage/AC/saves harmony, but you don't think a carpet of flying is going to increase a character's power? Is there a player in the world who's going to go, "Hmmm, flying, that seems trivial and inconsequential. I'll leave this thing in the chest I found it in." Or that there's a rogue who's walking around with plain boots on thinking, "Slippers that let me walk on ceilings? Meh, I can't imagine how those would make me more powerful." Or a ranger thinking, "Bracers of the perfect shot? Nuts to those, I enjoy my less-than-perfect shots."

So this stuff about how only three or four items are 'necessary' is bogus, in my opinion.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> So in addition to rings randomly not working if you aren't 11th level+,




What part of "It's too powerful for you to master" is so difficult to grasp? Rings are not trifles that give you a simple +5 bonus to your Jump check. They're powerful items, as based on their archetype presented in mythology and fantasy. Now, unless you have some kind rationale derived from the influence/source material that inspires this game, you're just talking out of your ass by calling it random. I've yet to see any examples of mythology or literature that show rings to be as trivial and mundane as 3e made them.



> now magic items don't function outside of a PCs hands?




I'm telling you that you don't have to explain your NPC's +4 attack bonus being the result of his +3 normal bonus and a +1 from his sword because it's completely irrelevant to how and why his stats work in the game. You can choose to do that, just like you can choose to stat every NPC out like a PC, but it's not worth it because the end result is the same, but with more work involved.

Who gives a flying frak if the orc chieftain's stat block doesn't directly state that his axe attack is explicitly using the +2 axe you can loot from him, if the end result is *exactly the same*? Only someone who cares so much about semantics and nitpicking.



> Really, thats what you're telling me?




No, that's what you're trying to reframe my words as, because you have this marvelous talent for deriving the most negative view from any piece of information regardless of how little sense it makes or evidence you possess.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I think that the game should be balanced for PCs having as many magical items as DMs choose, but _requires_ none for the _math_ to work.




That just appears to reverse things. Instead of requiring the "no item" DM to rebalance numbers to make sure his PCs aren't being steamrolled for being underequipped, the "magic item" DM has to rebalance numbers to make sure his monsters aren't being steamrolled because his players are above the power curve.


----------



## Eldorian (Jan 24, 2008)

Isn't it obvious why rings and Ioun stones are now tier dependent?  They wanted some item creation feats to be high level feats.  I figured that was obvious, but I'm pretty sure I've read most of the thread and no one has mentioned it.  They're not just changing flavor for the sake of flavor, they are making a game design decision for item creation.  And, if you don't like it, you can make the high level feat "craft ring of power" or something, and it makes the big guns, and have wimpy rings for heroic tier stuff made by the feat you use to make amulets or whatever.


Btw, I love the idea of implements.  I was going to add these to the next campaign I ran (I play more than DM), in the form of a hand held object that increases the save DCs of your spells.  (I was thinking of holy symbol, book, rod, staff, wand, and, like in D2, shrunken heads, but any object, such as the classic tankard from EQ).  If the current game I'm in survives until conversion to 4e, my wizard is definitely calling his implement an "Implement of Destruction."  Though it looks like it's form is fixed by rules, I might try to weasel it out as a mean looking iron claw or something.



As for the basic change of having 3 items do fundamental math stuff, and the rest of the stuff be the fun stuff you often don't wear in favor of your buff gear, it sounds OK to me.  And no stat increasing item makes me happy from a rules standpoint  (they broke the game) but unhappy from a literary standpoint  (bye bye Thor's Belt of Giant Strength).


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> but you don't think a carpet of flying is going to increase a character's power?




Nope, because at the levels (late teens) you would be gaining that flying capability, you'll be facing foes that can deal with it, through flight of their own or ranged attacks. Being able to fly doesn't increase your ability to strike others or avoid damage, so it would merely give you more options for movement (still limited by the one action per round limitation, just like a gestalt character).



> Or that there's a rogue who's walking around with plain boots on thinking, "Slippers that let me walk on ceilings? Meh, I can't imagine how those would make me more powerful."




Same thing. Wow, you're on the ceiling, where my gnoll archers can still pepper you with arrows, but you're unable to fill your role, because you're a melee striker who is too far away from his target.



> Or a ranger thinking, "Bracers of the perfect shot? Nuts to those, I enjoy my less-than-perfect shots."




What exactly does this do? If it provides an enhancement bonus to rolls (like attack, for example), then it breaks the rules. Without any real knowledge of what it can do, arguing about it either way is useless.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> They wanted some item creation feats to be high level feats.




There are no item creation feats in 4th edition.



> (bye bye Thor's Belt of Giant Strength).




Waist: Items you wear around your waist are usually about protection, healing, *or increasing your Strength temporarily*.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 24, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Seems very similar to 3e. I was expecting much more of a change based on the 'Xmas tree is gone' and 'Charlie Brown Xmas tree' comments. Only four slots have been removed - face, torso, back and one ring - reducing the 3e total of 12 to 8 in 4e.



I think it's a bit more than this. For example, it allows wealth by level to be replaced by a different system, of item-cap-by-level (ie none of an item better than +X until at least level Z). As I noted in another post, the classification of items by level allows getting rid of wealth by level if a couple of restrictions in place:

1) no +X items that stack;

2) a limit on the number of character stats boostable by +X items (in order to ensure that after the first one or two such items no cumulative benefit is gained by owning more, but only a substitutable benefit) - maybe this could be done instead by hosing item slots;

3) some way of restricting trade in magic items that makes sense in game, so that a 3rd level character can't just sell all their +1 items to buy a +2 one.​
By getting rid of all the typed bonuses, they satisfy (1) above.

By reducing slots and allowing only 3 tightly-defined stat bonuses in 3 slots, they satisfy (2).

The new rule for rings suggests that they are also looking at ways of satisfying (3), and I expect to hear more about this in future previews.

Ultimately, from the point of view of action resolution it doesn't matter how many +1 weapons a 3rd level character has (after all, they can only use one of them at a time). What is important is to stop stacking, and stop that character getting a +2 one until they are 7th (or whatever). And by implementing (1) to (3) above, WoTC have done this.


----------



## Eldorian (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> There are no item creation feats in 4th edition.




Whatever the equivalent.  Rings are something that makes high level item creation a goal.  Something to make the next tier sound interesting without breaking the basic system from the previous tier.  I can almost guarantee it's an option you have to pick somewhere in the development of your character.




> Waist: Items you wear around your waist are usually about protection, healing, *or increasing your Strength temporarily*.




Temporarily?  I don't recall Thor only sometimes being twice as strong as normal due to his belt. Now, twice as strong is extreme, but a lesser version of that belt is a classic DnD item that I'll miss, 'cause it was inspired by mythology.


Speaking of inspiration, can anyone recall an example of a magic ring from some source unrelated to DnD which was weak?  I'm sure there are some, but the main one that springs to mind is a ring of invisibility, whether it be in Frodo's hand, or on Gyges', both of which I consider a bit above "heroic"


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Nope, because at the levels (late teens) you would be gaining that flying capability, you'll be facing foes that can deal with it, through flight of their own or ranged attacks. Being able to fly doesn't increase your ability to strike others or avoid damage, so it would merely give you more options for movement (still limited by the one action per round limitation, just like a gestalt character).



How many breath weapon attacks would a flying dragon have to deliver to a fighter before the fighter started thinking, "You know, maybe I should have brought that carpet of flying"?

And besides that, what if you're not facing a foe that can deal with it? What if you're facing a purple worm? Is the 4E purple worm going to start flying now? Or is he going to pull out a bow and lay waste to a flying ranger?

I understand you really want to make an argument, but when you minimize the effect that _flight_ has on an average game, you're probably going too far.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 24, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 1: I predicted everything except the combination of item slots.  Everyone should heap praise and adoration upon me, for truly I am an awesome person for that accomplishment.



I'm claiming that praise for myself - in a much overlooked post I not only predicted it, but explained how it eliminates the need for wealth per level!




			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> 5: I'm ok with the ring level restriction as long as they give an in-game reason.  If they just say "no rings until level 11," I'll be mad.  If they say, "here are the consequences of wearing a ring below level 11," and those consequences are prohibitive enough to basically ban rings below level 11, then I'll be ok with it.



The metagame need is to get rid of the much-hated wealth by level.

As for the ingame explanation, Irda Ranger already gave it:



			
				Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Rings are special.  They are endless, without beginning or end.  And their shape, a bound circle, allows them to contain magic far beyond any simple spell embedded in your common "magic" sword or item made of cloth.  Where any other item or weapon would warped and destroyed by the restless force that is magic, the magics within a ring swirl silently, falling back upon themselves ... contained.  Although less than an artifact, they are more than anything else you will encounter (other than perhaps the legendary Stones of Ioun).
> 
> Sauron knew this.  It is no coincidence that he chose the form of the Ring when making his weapon.  Nothing else would have contained his terrible power, or serve his terrible purpose.
> 
> ...



QFT


----------



## Voss (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> What part of "It's too powerful for you to master" is so difficult to grasp? Rings are not trifles that give you a simple +5 bonus to your Jump check. They're powerful items, as based on their archetype presented in mythology and fantasy. Now, unless you have some kind rationale derived from the influence/source material that inspires this game, you're just talking out of your ass by calling it random. I've yet to see any examples of mythology or literature that show rings to be as trivial and mundane as 3e made them.




Ok, so you don't want to discuss rings.  You just want them to be the way you see them.  Fine.  Feel free to stop discussing them.



> I'm telling you that you don't have to explain your NPC's +4 attack bonus being the result of his +3 normal bonus and a +1 from his sword because it's completely irrelevant to how and why his stats work in the game. You can choose to do that, just like you can choose to stat every NPC out like a PC, but it's not worth it because the end result is the same, but with more work involved.
> 
> Who gives a flying frak if the orc chieftain's stat block doesn't directly state that his axe attack is explicitly using the +2 axe you can loot from him, if the end result is *exactly the same*? Only someone who cares so much about semantics and nitpicking.



Why would it exactly the same?  He's using a +2 axe instead of a normal axe.  That would go on top of his normal bonuses.  Having internally consistency in the game world is not 
semantics and nitpicking.  Its really part of the difference between playing a role-playing game and board game- a setting with arbitrary rules is just as bad as novel or setting with plot holes. 85% of the people I've played with would pick up on a DM fudging away a magic item.  They'd wonder why.  For a good portion, including myself, trying to figure out what was going on would actually disrupt the game.  




> No, that's what you're trying to reframe my words as, because you have this marvelous talent for deriving the most negative view from any piece of information regardless of how little sense it makes or evidence you possess.



... nope.  Not going to respond to personal attacks.


@Bishmon. Very true.  Bracers give some sort offensive effect, gauntlets help attacks in some way, strength boosting belts, even some of the potions and wonderous items give aid in combat. Thats going to be a big pile of awesome if you have it all.  And that leaves out the advantages that indirect things have, including the movement things you mentioned.  If that 'of acuity' (sigh) item boosts perception rolls, you've got less chance of being surprised.  So many things can stack up in those secondary and 'other' items, its like the christmas tree isn't really gone at all.


----------



## Andor (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan, you seem to be upset that they are not designing 4e to _exactly_ suit your own personal play style and prejudices. I'm not quite sure why you want to be able to open a book of someone else's work and see your own vision laid out before you, but it ain't gonna happen.

As to the rings, I too would rather see negative consequences for wearing them than a flat prohibition, but that's a trivial matter to deal with. I do kind of support the ring thing. It always annoyed me that rings were their own crafting feat, and yet were no different from any other wondrous item. Actually boosting them up to justify that 12th level crafting feat is a good thing, (although now odd because of the removal of that feat.) And, speaking just for myself, charged rings always drove me absolutely nuts. It's a RING, it's endless and eternal, it should not have 23 bloody charges!



			
				Gandalf the Grey said:
			
		

> There are many magic rings in this world, Bilbo Baggins, and none of them are to be used lightly.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Ok, so you don't want to discuss rings.  You just want them to be the way you see them.  Fine.  Feel free to stop discussing them.




So, then, you can't provide any examples of mythology or literature treating rings in the way D&D does? Because that's what I directly asked for, and you seem to have completely ignored it by trying to reframe my request as a desire to cease talking about rings. I've actually provided literary sources for my belief that rings are depicted that way, so how about you do the same?



> Why would it exactly the same?  He's using a +2 axe instead of a normal axe.  That would go on top of his normal bonuses.  Having internally consistency in the game world is not semantics and nitpicking.




*MAGIC ITEMS ON NPCS/MONSTERS ARE COMPLETELY OPTIONAL SINCE THEIR RULES ARE MADE TO NOT REQUIRE THEM AS PART OF THEIR STAT BLOCK TO PRESENT A BALANCED ENCOUNTER WITH THAT NPC.*

I say "Monsters don't require magic items to be balanced against the players they're fighting." You somehow reframe that as "Monsters can't use magic items."

If you've got players nitpicking about the orc stats in the book being different from the one they just fought, and that +2 axe doesn't cover the differences, then they're just fraking nitpicking for it's own sake, since it accomplishes nothing but slowing down the game with semantic nonsense that serves no useful purpose.



> Its really part of the difference between playing a role-playing game and board game- a setting with arbitrary rules is just as bad as novel or setting with plot holes.




What? So, a board game can't separate an orc's +4 attack bonus into (+3 natural, +1 magic enhancement)? It's about using different rules for different purposes, since the PC rules have layers of complexity that NPC rules frankly do not need.

What is the point of bringing in other kinds of games, except to try and disparage them?



> 85% of the people I've played with would pick up on a DM fudging away a magic item.




Well, considering I suggested you're a nit-picker, and they do say "You are what you hang with," color me surprised.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 24, 2008)

Voss, with respect to NPCs and magic items:

NPC stats will be generated in the same way as monsters, that is:

*choose a level;
*choose a role;
*read the appropriate numbers of a table;
*add appropriate powers for level and role (this may involve one or more of picking from a table, applying one of a finite number of templates, or some other technique I haven't thought of yet).

Of these four points, 1 to 3 are confirmed via various designer posts plus W&M. Point 4 is (I think) rational extrapolation by myself and other posters. What follows is also rational extrapolation (but I'll bolster my credentials by pointing out that I did predict the magic item changes - see post above!).

How to _explain_ those numbers in the gameworld? Up to the GM.

So consider your Orc leader with his +2 axe. Suppose you are building him as a Level 7 Brute (or whatever the relevant role is), and the table tells us he should have +10 to hit and deal 1d10 + 10 damage. Well, we know his axe is factored into that.

Suppose he now loses his axe, so he drops to +8 to hit, 1d10 + 8 damage. We now look up the table in reverse and discover that he is only a level 6 Brute (and so worth fewer XP, easier for the party to defeat, etc).

In short, monster levels and NPC levels _do not_ measure anything in the game. They are purely a metagame device to help the GM design encounters, and to determine the XP players receive from overcoming challenges.

Two upshots of this: if any spell description looks up opponent level, it will be a bit wonky, because the targetability of the Orc chieftain will depend on whether or not he picks up his axe. My prediction is therefore that spells won't target opponent levels, but rather something else like Save numbers, Bloodied condition, etc.

Second upshot: if you decide to build an NPC using PC build rules, that character will have two levels. The first is the PC-equivalent level. The second is the monster-equivalent level (determined, as with the Orc chieftain, by reading the monster table in reversse).


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> <snip>




THUMBS UP.

For a while there, I was worried I was taking crazy pills or something.


----------



## Andor (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I'm telling you that you don't have to explain your NPC's +4 attack bonus being the result of his +3 normal bonus and a +1 from his sword because it's completely irrelevant to how and why his stats work in the game. You can choose to do that, just like you can choose to stat every NPC out like a PC, but it's not worth it because the end result is the same, but with more work involved.
> 
> Who gives a flying frak if the orc chieftain's stat block doesn't directly state that his axe attack is explicitly using the +2 axe you can loot from him, if the end result is *exactly the same*? Only someone who cares so much about semantics and nitpicking.




If I can rephrase slightly, what this means is that if you have 3 great orc chiefs they can all have the exact same combat stats, and yet produce different loot. How to justify this? Why with whatever flavor you like! 

Fimbul the Mighty is a rippling mass of stinky muscle in the finest orc tradition. He weilds a crude bar of iron as a weapon, disdaining things like hilts and edges as pointly frippery. A position with some merit when you can arm wrestle gorrillas.

Torgol the Canny weilds a +2 Greatsword he looted off of a dead adventurer years ago and which helped him rise through the ranks of the Orcs desite his comparative weakness.

Zellin the Ancient is a mighty prophet of the Orcs and Grumish has blessed him with a holy aura that enables him to strike with the power of his long lost youth, even though he now can wield only his wooden staff.

So there ya go, three identical sets of combat stats, but one has a lootable weapon, one has a nice souvenier and one has a club. 

Now it does lose verisimilitude if Torgol's sword turns out to be a +2 Flaming Greatsword but it wasn't flaming during the fight. In that case I would adjust his combat stats to the extent of giving his strikes the 'flaming' property, whatever that might look like in 4e.


----------



## Voss (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, then, you can't provide any examples of mythology or literature treating rings in the way D&D does? Because that's what I directly asked for, and you seem to have completely ignored it by trying to reframe my request as a desire to cease talking about rings. I've actually provided literary sources for my belief that rings are depicted that way, so how about you do the same?



I don't really have any sense that magic, magic items or rings in D&D reflect anything but D&D. It certainly isn't a good mythology simulator.  People can quote Tolkien as much as they like.  It doesn't affect my perception of magic items in 4e D&D.



> I say "Monsters don't require magic items to be balanced against the players they're fighting." You somehow reframe that as "Monsters can't use magic items."



You also said that the magic weapon doesn't affect his stat block.  Thats what I was responding to, because it doesn't make any sense to me.



> If you've got players nitpicking about the orc stats in the book being different from the one they just fought, and that +2 axe doesn't cover the differences, then they're just fraking nitpicking for it's own sake, since it accomplishes nothing but slowing down the game with semantic nonsense that serves no useful purpose.



It affects their acceptance and enjoyment of the game.  That seems important to me.





> What? So, a board game can't separate an orc's +4 attack bonus into (+3 natural, +1 magic enhancement)? It's about using different rules for different purposes, since the PC rules have layers of complexity that NPC rules frankly do not need.
> What is the point of bringing in other kinds of games, except to try and disparage them?



  It wasn't a disparagement.  I was simply trying to illustrate that this particular set of rules (like the hp/healing rules Chris Sims was talking about) sounds less like an RPG and more like a different form of game.  In particular, a board game, where, generally speaking, the rules are simplified.  Take, for example, the D&D miniatures rules.  I could run a viable RPG session based around those skirmish level wargame rules.  I'd rather have a fleshed out RPG, however.


@pemerton- thanks for detailed explanation.  I appreciate that.  
Can't say I particularly like it though.  It seems really off that an orc with a +2 axe would be exactly the same as an orc without a +2 axe.   There's a level of risk vs. reward there that isn't really satisfying.  Since the PCs are going to end up with the axe afterwards, I'd much rather they took the extra risks of the level 7 brute having a +12/+12 with the axe bonuses, to prove they are worthy of it in some fashion.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 24, 2008)

To be clear, since I'm gonna get some sleep, my beef is with the number of magic items still being worn by characters. Like I've said, I think it's ridiculous for characters to suit up with magic items like they're sports gear. I've read a couple of 'solutions' for this:

-Only a couple slots are 'necessary', therefore you can just not equip stuff in the other slots. I've addressed partly why I think is rubbish. There's also the obvious encounter balance problems involved with cutting a character's magic items.

-As a DM, don't give out as many magic items. Unless I _significantly_ reduce the number of magic items, or limit the types of magic items given out ("We found another pair of magic gloves? That's the tenth pair this dungeon!"), characters are still eventually going to fill their available slots with magic items. Those items will probably be crappier than a by-the-book character because of the lack of selection, but they'll still be wearing 10 magic items. That doesn't solve my beef, and creates encounter balance problems to boot! Not my ideal solution.

And the thing is, I don't want to run a low-magic game. Far from it. I just think it's absurd that characters would wear 10 magic items. And the designers seemed to agree with me with their talk of reducing the Christmas Tree effect. In my opinion, they didn't do a thing to address that. Instead, they've just given characters more viable options with which to decorate their heroes with. Instead of characters picking seven standard items and three optional ones, they'll now be picking three standard items and seven optional ones. That's great, it solves one problem, but it doesn't solve the problem I was hoping they were going to solve.


----------



## epochrpg (Jan 24, 2008)

This was needlessly complicated.  2 things they could have done to get rid of the Christmas Tree effect: 

1. No + items.   These only create an arms race.  Instead of a +3 Sword, just have Swords of Sharpness, or something like that-- where it has a special effect, but not on hit or damage.

2.  No "slots".  Instead, just say "Characters can have only 5 magic items".  If that is too simplistic, say "Heroic characters can use 4 magic items, Paragons can use 6, and Epic can use 8"-- Simple, easy, and if you want to have all your items be rings, who cares.  They could enforce the item # limit by saying it takes time for items to bond to you (must equip 24 hours before it begins to work) and that the laws of magic say people can have only so many items bonded to them.    Simple, easy, done.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> THUMBS UP.
> 
> For a while there, I was worried I was taking crazy pills or something.



You're just taking the same as pemerton. 

For people that desperately need low level rings: Flavour text says "looks like Ring", rules say "covers hand slot / is wondrous item". And done you are. For those that prefer the myth/literature-inspired approach to rings, they work only at Paragon tier or above.

---

In a perfect world, the +items of weapons, armor and save boosters would have gone the way of the dodo, I guess. But we are still talking about D&D, and D&D without +3 Flaming Swords or +5 Mithral Full Plate seems to lack something. 
In 4E, it looks as if we have only 4 such +X.
1 for weapon attacks
1 for spell attacks
1 for Armor Class
1 for Defenses
weapon & spell attacks are covered by one slot, since a character will use only one of these attacks type anyway. 

In 3E, we had: 
2 types of items that boosted weapon attacks (stat booster + magical weapon)
1 general type of item that boosted magical attacks (stat booster)
5 types of items that boosted AC (armor, deflection, shield, natural armor, and stat booster)
2 types of item that boosted Saves (Cloaks of Resistance and stat boosters)

It seems to me as if the 4E appraoch is alot easier to handle. While the bonuses are still "expected", the limited amount of items that affect attack & defense allow us to adjust a combat encounters to take the lack of such items into account.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 24, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> To be clear, since I'm gonna get some sleep, my beef is with the number of magic items still being worn by characters. Like I've said, I think it's ridiculous for characters to suit up with magic items like they're sports gear. I've read a couple of 'solutions' for this:
> 
> -Only a couple slots are 'necessary', therefore you can just not equip stuff in the other slots. I've addressed partly why I think is rubbish. There's also the obvious encounter balance problems involved with cutting a character's magic items.



As long as they get their magical weapon/implement, armor and "defense booster", you won't run into a balance problem.

The key to removing extreme amounts of magical items is to avoid that they become (or feel) neccessary. As it stands in 3rd edition, roughly 6 items appear neccessary for a high level character. You can't really avoid it.
If it is not required for balance reasons to wear these 8 items (and reduce the number to 3), you get a few more options to handle magical items in your game:
- Don't care about the number of items? Give them out as you see fit
- Don't want to many? Give only the primary items out.
- Want to have them loads of items? Give out as many as you like. The 3 primary items are that matter, and if you don't give them overpowered ones for their level, you don't disrupt the game!
- Want to give out many, but don't want the characters to actually use them all - make a hose rule characters can't use (for whatever reason) more then the _n_ items you want them to use. As long as they can carry the expected 3 primary items, your house-rule won't disrupt the game balance. (Unlike as in 3e, where you basically could forget the CR system)


----------



## Sitara (Jan 24, 2008)

Ugh. basically the fact that the article states pc's are *expected* to have a +2 armor at 9th level, and that this is factored *into* the math of the game just flat out sucks.

So basically, the more things change, the more they stay the same.


----------



## Peter LaCara (Jan 24, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> To be clear, since I'm gonna get some sleep, my beef is with the number of magic items still being worn by characters. Like I've said, I think it's ridiculous for characters to suit up with magic items like they're sports gear. I've read a couple of 'solutions' for this:
> 
> -Only a couple slots are 'necessary', therefore you can just not equip stuff in the other slots. I've addressed partly why I think is rubbish. There's also the obvious encounter balance problems involved with cutting a character's magic items.
> 
> ...




Okay. I've been lurking for a while, and I just cannot deal with this anymore.

Your problem is that you want magic to be special, and feel that characters carrying around 6-8 items each makes those items less special. And yet you say you don't want to run a low-magic game. So, what, you want to give out the same number of items as before, but players just throw them out because they already have 5 items each? This makes items more special.... how?

The way to make items more special is to just not hand out that many, I guess. You make sure characters are kept up to date on their primary 3 (or you work out the friggin' math and incorporate it into the basic level scheme), and then maaaaybe hand out a quirky and interesting secondary item every once in a while.

But for some reason, you throw out giving out less magic as a viable solution. I mean, honestly, is there ANYTHING AT ALL Wizards could have done to appease you that doesn't change things in a completely boneheaded way that doesn't even solve the problem you think you want solved?

Oh, and for those of you who say that they should have dropped +1 swords... you can't do that. I have fewer sacred cows than most, I think, but you cannot play D&D without +1 swords. Futz around with draconic magic, completely rearrange the planes, or whatever other nitpicky thing ENWorld seems to want to latch onto this month, I don't care. But if I can't have a longsword +1, I'm not playing D&D.

If you'll notice, the vast majority of the items that they previewed have some other neato effect. If you really want, you can do the "no magic" option of just giving the PCs the bonuses for free, and then having whatever magic swords you find just having the extra "snappy" effect. There. Problem solved.


----------



## Rouens (Jan 24, 2008)

First off I like this new way of looking at items. Second From 6-9 stat boosting items to 3 and the rest optional sounds like an definite improvement while the feel of the game is the same. I like items that do tricks and I prefer those, but give an magical sword too and while we are at it an armour too. So if you get a +1 sword/armour/cloak at say 4th level then it's gona last at least 5 more levels. 

When are the people happy? If there are no magic items at all or just no stat boosters? A certain amount should always be there. It's D&D! Don't you like when you came from a game and after a "epic" battle you found a +x Sword/wand/armour/cloak just to boast your char a bit. It's up to the DM if he gives those items at the same level. 

I think if only the 3 primary count only those should have upgrades everyones and awhile. Like others said only give the three primary to every player if you don't want a magic heavy game. Give a optional only rarely and be happy! This is D&D a game of sword and sorcery. Magic is all around us.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 24, 2008)

Frankly, I think this is ghastly.

I was under the distinct, WotC-given impression that they were getting rid of the "Christmas Tree" effect, wherein every character in space is laden down with a dozen magic items to power them up.

Apparently WotC lied when the suggested this, because all they've done is go from 12, to 9 (oh great) magic items, and made the "Christmas Tree" effect EVEN MORE present, and just a bit more orderly. Now there's yet another level of power-gaming, because people will expect to have an item in a slot (rather than feeling lucky that they do), and get upset when it's not the "right" item for their "spec".

Gah.

As for the apologists, WotC may claim having "empty slots is cool", but their example character has precisely one empty slot and that's for a level-limited item when he's only just hit that level. No doubt every freakin' NPC in space will be laden down with similar items.

I'm not saying it couldn't be worse. It could be so much worse. It's not good, though, and most importantly, it doesn't strike me as an _improvement_ over 3E, merely a move sideways and maybe even a little backwards.


----------



## Rallek (Jan 24, 2008)

The following is my take on the “need to be level 11 to use rings” strangeness.


Party kills a wizard flavored baddie. Party consists of 5 lvl 8s, Baddie is lvl 11 and surrounded by his lvl 6 lackeys. After the battle, Bill takes the big bad’s shiny gold ring. Putting it on, he finds that nothing happens. Still, the ring is shiny and has a nice emerald on it, so Bill keeps it anyway. A few (in-game) months later, Bill kills one more orc, and promptly becomes invisible. Guess he hit lvl 11.


Perhaps Bill can only level over downtime. Ok, same deal as above, except this time Bill kills that one final orc, goes back to town, spends a week in training and promptly wakes up invisible. Guess he hit lvl 11 overnight after his training.


In both cases the same problem applies, Bill can find the ring before he is lvl 11, he can wear the ring (one assumes), but the ring has no effect on him. If all rings in 4e need to be “invoked” in some way before their powers manifest, that is fine. However, I find it strange that rings that take effect when worn are gone now. 



The problem is the same when Bill wakes up one day to find that he has become some kind of undead in his sleep. Again, it turns out that he leveled during the night, and his long-inactive ring finally turned on, making him into some kind of vampire or lich thing. Oddly the wizard baddie that he took the ring off of wasn’t undead, despite being requisite level and wearing the ring, guess he was an NPC and his stat block didn’t require the ring’s effects to be noted…




There are certain gamist ideas that need to be embraced, or at least tolerated to make D&D function as a game. However, I think the bizarre possibilities opened up/caused by the arbitrary “level for use” requirement on rings is not one of them. I honestly think that this just hurts the game. 

Maybe no character would know what “level” they are in-game, but it seems that that kind of meta-thinking has to be present in the world if a character gains that 11th lvl, and suddenly magic rings work for him. Maybe he doesn’t know that yesterday he was lvl 10 and today he is lvl 11, but he certainly knows, in the context of the in-game world, that he was “heroic” yesterday, but today finds him a “paragon”. 


Just my opinion.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Jan 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Frankly, I think this is ghastly.
> 
> I was under the distinct, WotC-given impression that they were getting rid of the "Christmas Tree" effect, wherein every character in space is laden down with a dozen magic items to power them up.



And they're done that. You no longer can load up every damn slot on your body with an _Item of +x to Ability_, as you could do in 3.*. You have three primary slots for doing that, _with no overlap_, and secondary slots for giving you _things to do_ instead of boosting your ability to do the same thing over and over again.



> Apparently WotC lied when the suggested this, because all they've done is go from 12, to 9 (oh great) magic items, and made the "Christmas Tree" effect EVEN MORE present, and just a bit more orderly.



No, you just expected something different than what they are giving. People are too hasty to assume WotC lies and/or is incompetent or malicious, when their own expectations and hopes aren't met.



> Now there's yet another level of power-gaming, because people will expect to have an item in a slot (rather than feeling lucky that they do), and get upset when it's not the "right" item for their "spec".




Honestly, _how_ is this different from every other edition of (A)D&D, really? In 1e AD&D, players of high-level characters could expect to have magic weapons of certain power, _because otherwise they'd be butchered by demons or whatnot_. Magic items, as a category of things, have _never, *ever*_ been something you're "lucky to have" in (A)D&D; individual, powerful items, yes, but magic items as a whole, *NO.*


----------



## Irda Ranger (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'd prefer the system build towards Fighter 2 being the standard, not being balanced to assume Fighter 3 is the norm.



1. Give every PC a cumulative +1 to Att, Dmg, AC and Defense every 4 levels to preserve design assumptions.
2. Remove all +x's from item descriptions.
3. Profit.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Frankly, I think this is ghastly.
> 
> I was under the distinct, WotC-given impression that they were getting rid of the "Christmas Tree" effect, wherein every character in space is laden down with a dozen magic items to power them up.
> 
> Apparently WotC lied when the suggested this, because all they've done is go from 12, to 9 (oh great) magic items, and made the "Christmas Tree" effect EVEN MORE present, and just a bit more orderly. Now there's yet another level of power-gaming, because people will expect to have an item in a slot (rather than feeling lucky that they do), and get upset when it's not the "right" item for their "spec".



Slots exist since at least 3rd editions (previous editions I don't know that much about, but at least rings where always limited, if I am not mistaken)
3rd editions had 4-5 magical items that boosted your AC (Dex +X item, Magic Armor, Magical Shield, Deflection item, Natural Armor item) and one-two items that boosted your attack (Strength or Dex enhancement, magical weapon or ability score for magical effects) and 4 items that boosted your saves (3 stat boosters and Resistance +X item).
The wealth by level table (and the average treasure values per encounter) implied that you had or were able to get all of these items. And the CR system tried to take this into consideration.

4th edition has 1 type of item that boosts your attack (coming in flavour weapon or implement). 1 item that boosts your AC. 1 item that boosts your other defenses.
Suddenly, the whole host of magical items that boost your primary offensive and defensive capabilities can be easily adjucated. There are only 4 items. If you decide you don't like magic at all, just remove them and drop the enemies attacks and defenses by a number based on the expected values. (pretty easy with magical items level, by the way. You don't have to reverse calculate magical item cost and wealth by level to figure out what modifiers will change). 
If you want to give your PCs tons of magical items, do it. Only 4 of them critically affect game balance. 
If you don't like filling out all slots, don't add a magical item market to your game. Don't hand out magical items as if there was no tomorrow. Because if you do, regardless of slot or no slot, the PCs will want to use the items or at least sell them for something useful. 



> Gah.
> 
> As for the apologists, WotC may claim having "empty slots is cool", but their example character has precisely one empty slot and that's for a level-limited item when he's only just hit that level. No doubt every freakin' NPC in space will be laden down with similar items.
> 
> I'm not saying it couldn't be worse. It could be so much worse. It's not good, though, and most importantly, it doesn't strike me as an _improvement_ over 3E, merely a move sideways and maybe even a little backwards.



The guys at WotC didn't lie. They did what they wanted. Remove the "BIg Six", reduce the Christmas Tree. But they couldn't throw all magical items and their meaning for game balance out of the game. And I am not an apologist. 
And by the way, if they wanted to lie about it, they should have waited revealing this stuff after the release. Because then would people actually have been persuaded to buy the game due to a lie. This way, your accusation looks to me like nothing more like WotC hatred. Actually, due to the fact that I am pretty negatively affected by your accusations and generous use of words like "apologist" or "lying", I feel like being trolled. 
You have strong feelings on 4E. But don't let your feeling lead to you attacking other people. Treat others as you want them to treat you. Stay calm. If you get upset about a thing that you do for your hobby, for fun, that's _not_ good. (This should also work as a reminder to myself.)


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I think that the game should be balanced for PCs having as many magical items as DMs choose, but _requires_ none for the _math_ to work.




I don't think your game would sell as well or be as popular among players.

Here's my problem. If I wanted to add +X items to a D&D without magic weapons and armor, then I would have to make a House Rule where all monsters at level Z added +X to attack and AC. So, you hoist the house rules on someone else. You bias the game against my play style for your own. That's no different than what you are complaining about.

They have made great strides to aid your play style. _Great_ strides from 3e.


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> THUMBS UP.
> 
> For a while there, I was worried I was taking crazy pills or something.




It must be hard for you to be the only sane man in world full of crazies.

"Soylent Green...is....people!"


----------



## Stogoe (Jan 24, 2008)

> Oh, and for those of you who say that they should have dropped +1 swords... you can't do that. I have fewer sacred cows than most, I think, but you cannot play D&D without +1 swords. Futz around with draconic magic, completely rearrange the planes, or whatever other nitpicky thing ENWorld seems to want to latch onto this month, I don't care. But if I can't have a longsword +1, I'm not playing D&D.




I completely agree with this.  +X weapons *are* D&D, both to roleplayers and the wider world.  Everyone knows what a +1 longsword is.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 24, 2008)

wow, that discussion is senseless...

There are three kinds of opinions around here:

change too much = wotc sucks
change not enough = wotc sucks
finding a (very good middle way) = wotc sucks

--->  you can´t make all people happy everytime.

Some people around here seem to have all of the three opinions...



The only thing I would have liked, is that there are slots, but it isn´t assumed by default in monster stats, but this is a minor problem.

But assuming it in the monsters statistics will help those who give out magic items as proposed in the rules. the rest, who change that can easily adjust...

...just look at Irda rangers post for one possible solution. Or just send lower mosters.

D&D without +x items would not be DnD, and bags of holding are still in 

@ Rokes: well elaborated math. Now I completely agree. It was late in the evening yesterday and I didn´t explain my math very well.


----------



## Vradna (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, then,
> 
> *SNIP*
> 
> Well, considering I suggested you're a nit-picker, and they do say "You are what you hang with," color me surprised.





I am all for discussing something in a constructive way and I am all for people having their own opinions to 4th Edition, regardless if they are positive or negative towards a particular topic.

In short, people are allowed to like, love, dislike or hate something as is their right.

But some respect goes a long way.  If someone is overly negative towards a topic,  he or she is certainly allowed to be and well within their right to express their opinion on said topic.  You sir, have deviated from topic and are now name calling because others either cannot or will not see your point of view.  

Name calling is insulting and offensive.  So I'll ask you nicely _once_, to stop it, because frankly I am sick of reading your rubbish.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 24, 2008)

As long as +X items exist, the designers have to decide what the "expected" X is going to be at level Y.  Otherwise it's impossible to balance monsters against PCs.  However, by giving _all_ classes equal access to +X stuff (wizards get +X wands, et cetera), they make life much, much easier for DMs who want to hand out more or less treasure.  If you hand out less treasure, one PC does not gain relative to another; the only effect is to make the monsters a little stronger, and the DM can compensate for that.

I approve of eliminating face and torso slots.  Shoulders, not so much.  I mean, really... you can't benefit from both a cloak and an amulet?  What gives?


----------



## FireLance (Jan 24, 2008)

I probably missed this in my initial reading of the thread, but how did we get from "there are six secondary, non-essential magic item slots" to "the Christmas tree will still exist because players will demand/DMs will be forced to give out magic items to fill all of these slots for all of the characters"?


----------



## Lord Ernie (Jan 24, 2008)

Hrm... while I was hoping for an elimination of "necessary" magic items, I suppose that was a little too much to hope for. After all, as stated before, then anyone who does hand out magic weapons to his players has to boost the monsters in his campaign accordingly to keep up the challenge (although, on the other hand... what good is a magic weapon then, anyway?). 

So I suppose 3 "necessary" items, in other words: items which influence the game's base maths, is an acceptable enough middle road. Also, it evens out the math: weapons add to magical or physical attack, the cloak and armor add to defense against both respective attacks. Dumping them completely, and lowering the attack on some of the monsters depending on their level accordingly should be a good way to houserule a no or low-magic campaign - easier at least than is currently possible.

On the ring debate: easiest thing to houserule ever. If the rings published in the DMG/Item Guide/Whatever are too powerful for level 11-, invent your own weaker versions and you're good to go. I'm imagining these "weaker versions" will be more like some of the nice but not gamedefining rings in 3.x (although I recall my wussy elf sorcerer sure loving his Ring of Warmth once the campaign moved to the High North).


----------



## Derren (Jan 24, 2008)

Lord Ernie said:
			
		

> On the ring debate: easiest thing to houserule ever. If the rings published in the DMG/Item Guide/Whatever are too powerful for level 11-, invent your own weaker versions and you're good to go. I'm imagining these "weaker versions" will be more like some of the nice but not gamedefining rings in 3.x (although I recall my wussy elf sorcerer sure loving his Ring of Warmth once the campaign moved to the High North).




The goal is not to "make rules which everyone has a easy time to houserule" but making "rules which don't need to be houseruled". And in this regard the ring issue simply fails.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 24, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I probably missed this in my initial reading of the thread, but how did we get from "there are six secondary, non-essential magic item slots" to "the Christmas tree will still exist because players will demand/DMs will be forced to give out magic items to fill all of these slots for all of the characters"?



That was easy. It stands on the internet, so it must be true! 


I think part of this assumption is because we (or at least some of us) are still stuck in the 3.x mindset. 3.x abhors a vacuum, err empty slots. Because you can always get something in the slot that is critical to your characters abilities. It boosts attack, defense or hit points. And that constantly. These are desirable - probably even neccessary - things.

But how many players will really complain that they don't have:
- Bag of Holding
- Boots of Water Walking
- Ring of Invisibility
- Necklace of Fireballs
- Carpet of Flying.

I am not saying these aren't cool items. Players finding them certianly won't throw them away*). So if you get to generous, you will see all slots filled. But none of them will be essential for a characters core abilities/survivability, so complaints about the lack of them won't happen a lot...

*) which by the way would be nice. Too many items in 3.x are just sold at first oppertunity to get one the "essentials".


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 24, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The goal is not to "make rules which everyone has a easy time to houserule" but making "rules which don't need to be houseruled". And in this regard the ring issue simply fails.



So, if I can find anyone that dislikes a particular rule, the game is bad?

If I hated, for example, the rules of Armor as "difficult to hit", does this make D&D bad because I have to house-rule it? And in fact, house rules in this regard seem a lot more difficult then saying: "Normally you can't wear rings before paragon levels. With me, you can."


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 24, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> There are three kinds of opinions around here:
> 
> change too much = wotc sucks
> change not enough = wotc sucks
> ...




Ha! So true.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> In 3e, you can have a situation like this:
> 
> 1) A 15th level fighter with no magical items.
> 
> ...




Quoted because it's a really good post. I haven't decided if I actually agree with it or not.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> That just appears to reverse things. Instead of requiring the "no item" DM to rebalance numbers to make sure his PCs aren't being steamrolled for being underequipped, the "magic item" DM has to rebalance numbers to make sure his monsters aren't being steamrolled because his players are above the power curve.



It's funny that you say This, and then...



> Nope, because at the levels (late teens) you would be gaining that flying capability, you'll be facing foes that can deal with it, through flight of their own or ranged attacks. Being able to fly doesn't increase your ability to strike others or avoid damage, so it would merely give you more options for movement (still limited by the one action per round limitation, just like a gestalt character).




Misc items that grant sundry abilities don't really effect the power curve, at least not in my thinking.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 24, 2008)

Peter LaCara said:
			
		

> Oh, and for those of you who say that they should have dropped +1 swords... you can't do that. I have fewer sacred cows than most, I think, but you cannot play D&D without +1 swords. Futz around with draconic magic, completely rearrange the planes, or whatever other nitpicky thing ENWorld seems to want to latch onto this month, I don't care. But if I can't have a longsword +1, I'm not playing D&D.




Indeed. Well said. I would suspect the vast majority of D&D players would prefer the game to keep some +X items. Taking them out means you aren't playing D&D.



> If you'll notice, the vast majority of the items that they previewed have some other neato effect. If you really want, you can do the "no magic" option of just giving the PCs the bonuses for free, and then having whatever magic swords you find just having the extra "snappy" effect. There. Problem solved.




Yep. Just grant the PCs a bonus at level X equal to what bonus they were expected to get from magic items and BAM! You now have D&D with no magic items needed.

Although this requires a house rule, it is a minor one compared to making the default assumption that no magic items are needed. If no magic items are needed, then the vast majority of people who want to play iconic D&D have a much harder time trying to rebalance all the monsters to account for the fact they do want to give out +X items.

Really, WotC chose the best possible way of handling it.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 24, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I probably missed this in my initial reading of the thread, but how did we get from "there are six secondary, non-essential magic item slots" to "the Christmas tree will still exist because players will demand/DMs will be forced to give out magic items to fill all of these slots for all of the characters"?




An understanding of the player's mind? Human nature?

Seriously, if a PC _may_ have a thing, it is a very short trip to _must_ have a thing.

(Hence the Big Six.)


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 24, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The goal is not to "make rules which everyone has a easy time to houserule"




Actually, I think sometimes it is. Lets say they have two choices, both of which are sound, but they are merely different play styles. One way is easy to house rule away and the other is difficult to house rule away. The easy to house rule is the better rule in this case. The "easy time to houserule" (of which I think this is one) is a good compromise that allows two play styles to easily co-exist between games.


To no one in particular: 

They stated months ago that they were not getting rid of +X items. They even said quite explicitly that they were giving +X items to _wizards_. This should not be a surprise to anyone. WotC isn't lying, and they have quite greatly reduced the Christmas tree. I can't see why this change isn't being greeted with praise by all. It's a ginormous reduction in magic items for those who want to reduce them while leaving the option available for those who don't. This is the best news either side could have recieved!


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 24, 2008)

I like the reduction of +X items, and it seems most of the posters here do as well.  The other parts of the changes are what seems to be drawing the most animosity.  A little from the rejiggering of item slots, but most from their new take on rings.  So much it spawned an entire thread.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 24, 2008)

I like the bit about robe-armour and the shield action.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Misc items that grant sundry abilities don't really effect the power curve, at least not in my thinking.



In 3.5, it was certainly true that items that granted See Invisibility, Fly, and one of {Freedom of Movement, Dimension Door, Teleport} *did* affect the power curve very significantly.  Because Invisibility and Fly were such good defensive tactics, and containment (Entangle, Solid Fog, Forcecage, many others) such a good offensive tactic. 

The "Big Six" were generally important items, but I do not think they were the _only _ important items.


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 24, 2008)

Lord Ernie said:
			
		

> So I suppose 3 "necessary" items, in other words: items which influence the game's base maths, is an acceptable enough middle road. Also, it evens out the math: weapons add to magical or physical attack, the cloak and armor add to defense against both respective attacks. Dumping them completely, and lowering the attack on some of the monsters depending on their level accordingly should be a good way to houserule a no or low-magic campaign - easier at least than is currently possible.
> 
> On the ring debate: easiest thing to houserule ever. If the rings published in the DMG/Item Guide/Whatever are too powerful for level 11-, invent your own weaker versions and you're good to go. I'm imagining these "weaker versions" will be more like some of the nice but not gamedefining rings in 3.x (although I recall my wussy elf sorcerer sure loving his Ring of Warmth once the campaign moved to the High North).




I agree.  Depending on what the game finally looks like in June, i might very well be adding some small rules and ignoring some core rules.  Like always.  I can't say i'm pleased with the Christmas shrub, but it's not a deal breaker.  Dm's who don't like it can still "fix" their game. This is actually about the only thing i've heard about 4e so far i don't like.  But it 's not horrible.


----------



## Aristotle (Jan 24, 2008)

I've not read every post, so forgive me if I'm echoing what has already been said. I'll have more time to read previous posts later today. My gut reaction was that the christmas tree was alive and well but, if the listed items are the sum total of the character's magic items minus consumables, I think it's a pretty reasonable list for 11 levels of game-play. My other thoughts...

*On weapons and armor*
+X weapons and armor may be iconic, but they are generic and dull. I was really hoping to see them implement something similar to SW:SAGA with character level generating the extra damage that plusses used to. That system could be tweaked to provide a bonus to armor (instead of an alternative to armor, since armor makes sense in fantasy) as well. Maybe I can come up with a good house rule for these, but I was really hoping to see them made core.

Don't get me wrong. I want magic arms and armor. I'm all for enchantments that add damage, radiate light, cause more frequent or larger crits, and so on... I was hoping to get rid of the generic, and make the magic mean something more than just a number.

SW:SAGA also uses level based bonuses to Defenses. That could be used, allowing the 3rd slot to be revamped as well, and making ALL slots optional.


*On Potions*
I like potions and scrolls. Consumable magic items are fun. I get that stats boosts are gone, but I'm not sure if I like the idea of potions/oils and scrolls being boiled down to healing and restorative capabilities. maybe it makes sense from an alchemical stand point... I'd be okay if scrolls go away, but I think there are enough other uses for potions that they could keep their status as temporary enchantments.


*On Rings*
Getting rid of a level requirement on rings isn't much use if all of the rings presented are too powerful to consider giving a character of lesser level. I bet the ability of the rings will warrant them being rarer and not getting into character's hands until some point past 10th level. I *might* get rid of the second ring slot completely, and thus the second level requirement, to further diminish the christmas tree.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 24, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> They stated months ago that they were not getting rid of +X items. They even said quite explicitly that they were giving +X items to _wizards_. This should not be a surprise to anyone. WotC isn't lying, and they have quite greatly reduced the Christmas tree. I can't see why this change isn't being greeted with praise by all. It's a ginormous reduction in magic items for those who want to reduce them while leaving the option available for those who don't. This is the best news either side could have recieved!




The best news that could have been received is that WotC is publishing the individual's collection of house rules as the new edition.  When that doesn't happen, wailing and gnashing of teeth ensue.


----------



## vagabundo (Jan 24, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I like the reduction of +X items, and it seems most of the posters here do as well.  The other parts of the changes are what seems to be drawing the most animosity.  A little from the rejiggering of item slots, but most from their new take on rings.  So much it spawned an entire thread.




I think the three are linked. They have re- jigged the bonuses that low level rings used to give and gave them to the appropriate item slot. Now rings will be powerful items and there is not so much stacking maths to track.

Anyway as long as I can make my Transvestite Fighter I am happy:

Implement: Whip of Domination
Armor: +3 Leather mini skirt
Neck: +2 Necklace of diamonds
Arms: Bracelets of Courtship
Feet: Stiletto Heals of Trampling
Hands: Gloves of warmth
Head: Tiara of leadership
Rings: Rings of marriage
Waist: Belt of Slimming
Wondrous Items: Bag of holding (no change)


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Jan 24, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> Ugh. basically the fact that the article states pc's are *expected* to have a +2 armor at 9th level, and that this is factored *into* the math of the game just flat out sucks.
> 
> So basically, the more things change, the more they stay the same.



This is what really bothered me about the article.


----------



## mhensley (Jan 24, 2008)

Ulorian said:
			
		

> This is what really bothered me about the article.




But don't they have to design the game this way?  In most games, you will get magic items so it is reasonable to expect a certain level of power from those items by your character level.  If they don't do this then encounter balance will be much harder to achieve.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jan 24, 2008)

If the game expected players not to have +X armor or weapons at any level, then you could not house rule such items in the game in a simply way without increasing the power level of your characters massively. And +X effects may seem dull but they should be there. Why?
Because with no +X effects the longsword the local blacksmith in the village made in his free time will be as precise and dangerous a weapon as the longsword made over a century by a legendary eladrin smith.
Also note that nothing specifies that the +X effect is part of magic enchantment. That is just metagaming. In fluff it can be superior craftsmanship.


In short you are annoyed that the game does not suit your vision and forces you to make a simple house rule to change what you don't like, and you wish it would follow your vision and force others to create complicated houserules, if even possible, to retain part of the game that has been there since the beginning.


----------



## Lab_Monkey (Jan 24, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> SWSE and Iron Heroes managed without magical items being necessary.




In one of the recent podcasts, the designers explain the how they view the Star Wars Universe and the D&D Universe differently in terms of the importance of items (I believe it's in the 'Tell me about your character' episode but it could have been the 'You may already be playing 4e' episode) .  IIRC they explained it as follows: In Star Wars characters are likely to use the same light saber through their entire career.  In D&D they had a different design philosophy (i.e., no 1st level characters with a magic greatsword and magic full plate) and therefore they implemented slightly different game mechanics to accommodate that. 

I would have preferred characters to each have a slightly smaller cache of magic items, but from the sound of things, I'm easily going to be able to adjust the math.  At this point I'm more concerned about fighter type characters needing an item of flying, teleporting, etc. to be viable at high level.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 24, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> An understanding of the player's mind? Human nature?
> 
> Seriously, if a PC _may_ have a thing, it is a very short trip to _must_ have a thing.
> 
> (Hence the Big Six.)



Seriously, isn't that going to be DM and campaign dependent?

I mean, as a DM, I pretty much allow the PCs to get whatever magic items they want (within the recommended wealth levels), so obviously I get Christmas tree characters. Of course, I personally don't see that as a problem.

However, in an upfront low or rare magic campaign, or with a DM who controls access to magic items more strictly, I don't see how you could get a Christmas tree.


----------



## Ander00 (Jan 24, 2008)

What I'd really like to know at this point is whether the assumptions of +X implements, +Y armor and +Z cloak/necklace are also worked into the math for NPCs or if this is an instance of PCs and NPCs working on different formulas.


cheers


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jan 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I was under the distinct, WotC-given impression that they were getting rid of the "Christmas Tree" effect, wherein every character in space is laden down with a dozen magic items to power them up.
> 
> Apparently WotC lied when the suggested this.



Wotc NEVER said they were completely getting rid of the Christmas Tree Effect. They HAVE been pretty consistant in saying they're toning it down. (Charlie Brown Christmas Tree, Christmas Shrub) The fact they havent toned it down enough for your liking <> 'Lied'. 

As it is, I wish they had done a bit more in the removal of item slots, but I can deal with what they have now.  My worry is they keep the various charged items that 3.5 recently introduced WITHOUT adding any limit to swapping objects in or out.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 24, 2008)

What I find amusing, is that they say the 'christmas tree' is a bad thing and characters will be 'less dependent on magic items'. Then the example PC shown has items in every single slot except a ring which at 11th level he barely qulifies for. (and he seems to think that is a bad thing. i.e. "Rings: None right now, sadly".)

doesn't seem to add up.


----------



## Toryx (Jan 24, 2008)

I didn't make it through every page of the posts, but I thought I'd provide my own opinion for prosperity.

While my first reaction is, "So much for waving goodbye to the christmas tree," I've seen some strong arguments posted about the primary slots not being so christmas treey after all. I don't like weapons and armor having a +x requirement at certain levels, but as it's been pointed out, this is far better than the 3.x offering of stat bonus items.

I don't want to get rid of magic items completely...I have Iron Heroes for that. But I still would prefer that weapons and armor provided interesting effects instead of any +x bonuses. I always liked the flaming swords or the ghost touch armor...those kinds of effect contribute to the game without becoming a requirement. Making it so that my character has to have a +2 armor bonus by 9th to compete with the monsters and my companions is simply less enjoyable for me.

But I do appreciate the progress they've made.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 24, 2008)

How many magic items does it take to make a Christmas tree?  It's obviously less than 9, but I'm wondering what the cut-off is.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 24, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> What I find amusing, is that they say the 'christmas tree' is a bad thing and characters will be 'less dependent on magic items'. Then the example PC shown has items in every single slot except a ring which at 11th level he barely qulifies for. (and he seems to think that is a bad thing. i.e. "Rings: None right now, sadly".)
> 
> doesn't seem to add up.




In an article about magic items and slots, its only natural that the sample PC would have a corresponding item in most of their slots. Posting a sample PC that had no items in an article about magic item slots would be ridiculous.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Jan 24, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The goal is not to "make rules which everyone has a easy time to houserule" but making "rules which don't need to be houseruled". And in this regard the ring issue simply fails.



I see no need to house rule the Ring level limit. Ergo - it's a success!



			
				Lab_Monkey said:
			
		

> I would have preferred characters to each have a slightly smaller cache of magic items, but from the sound of things, I'm easily going to be able to adjust the math.



This seems right.  Thanks to the *vast *improvement in how items are handled in 4E, the math to make a "no +x items" game is trivial now.



			
				Lab_Monkey said:
			
		

> At this point I'm more concerned about fighter type characters needing an item of flying, teleporting, etc. to be viable at high level.



Ditto.  One of the main problems with high-level 3E is that the classes were not equally inconvenienced by the loss or reduction of magical items.  Take away the Cleric's or Wizard's items and CR's only needed a slight downward adjustment.  Not so the Fighter or Rogue.  One flying, invisible opponent with a decent ranged attack and they might as well be 1st level as 15th.

I am hopeful though. The design team seems to be very aware of these issues and is taking a careful eye to make sure PC's are "challenged", not "gimped", when facing opponents they are not optimized to fight.  I am also hopeful because of Tome of Battle, where some high level powers seem well adapted to addressing issues such as this.


----------



## Zimri (Jan 24, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> What I find amusing, is that they say the 'christmas tree' is a bad thing and characters will be 'less dependent on magic items'. Then the example PC shown has items in every single slot except a ring which at 11th level he barely qulifies for. (and he seems to think that is a bad thing. i.e. "Rings: None right now, sadly".)
> 
> doesn't seem to add up.




Would you test a car at 5mph ? or an airplane at umm whatever minimum velocity to remain airborne is ?

They are play testing and in this instance (the snippet about magic items) we were shown a character that *gasp* *shock* *horror* has some. I think it would have been much more difficult to illustrate the points being made without them. 

Haven't we been much lambasted here at enworld for taking one part of one snippet of an article and assuming that that is how EVERYTHING in ALL the playtests are being done ?

You don't (just, admittedly there is room for this especially in this case) stress test a system by toning everything down to the bare bones and saying "yup with just the minimum expected things going on everything is fine la la la " In a case like this where you are trying to see where things break you amp it up as far as you can to see how twisted and torqued it gets. I don't think that was what they showed either. I suspect what we saw was perhaps just this side of "average" .


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jan 24, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> What I find amusing, is that they say the 'christmas tree' is a bad thing and characters will be 'less dependent on magic items'. Then the example PC shown has items in every single slot except a ring which at 11th level he barely qulifies for. (and he seems to think that is a bad thing. i.e. "Rings: None right now, sadly".)
> 
> doesn't seem to add up.




To me it adds up perfectly.  In playtesting you want both extremes.  This is one of them.  Now...  if every character in every playtest has every slot filled then there would be a problem.  As of now we really have no way to confirm if this is the case or not (people up thread have said there was a report where a 10th level character had no items.  I don't recall it but I don't read every playtetst report.)

In an article about magic items it makes sense to list magic items.  Why they didn't list multiple characters for the example is anyone's guess.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Jan 24, 2008)

Rokes said:
			
		

> Given that 4e is still a d20 game, I fail to see how NOT having a +2 armor is going to be acceptable by the standard rules.  +2 armor is the equivalent of a 10% miss chance in most level appropriate cases.  What could they possibly do to the system to make that not so?
> 
> This means that a character is going to get hit 10% more often and take 10% more damage, etc.




Given the wildly diverging possibilities in character builds, I think that a difference of 2 points in AC is hardly going to be enough to completely throw off the viability of that character in the midst of a standard 4 player adventuring party at that character level.  In one party you might have a high dex ranger wearing light armor for your front line fighter.  In another, you might have a plate armoured dwarf.  The difference in AC between those characters in 3rd edition is going to be significant, much more than 2 points.  Why should the differences be that much different in 4th edition?

This has less to do with character viability than monster survivability / viability, I think.  Combat Balance is going to be based on the average AC, HP, Attack, etc of your players.  4th Edition will tie that to level and keep everyone within about the same neighborhood as a base line.  The cap on magic item bonus I think is meant to be an advisor of "Ok, this monster will be effective against a party of these levels as long as the AC is not beyond X.  Lets cap the modifiers to AC to keep it close to that".

I do not think this is a case of a character being hit 10% more often due to not having magic armour.  I think this is more of a case of making sure that the monsters that the players face is not going to be trivial due to accumulated gear.

To Summarize:
- A 10% variance in AC is not significant when compared against other player equipment choices.
- You cannot assume that just because a character does not have magical armour that he is going to be automatically that much weaker than expected.  The only think that a given character having magical armour tells you is that he is better than an identical character without it.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 24, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> What I find amusing, is that they say the 'christmas tree' is a bad thing and characters will be 'less dependent on magic items'. Then the example PC shown has items in every single slot except a ring which at 11th level he barely qulifies for. (and he seems to think that is a bad thing. i.e. "Rings: None right now, sadly".)
> 
> doesn't seem to add up.




I do think one thing you're missing is that most people do, in fact, like magic items.

See the popularity of the Magic Item Compendium as an example. For all the naysayers of magic items, D&D players, and yes that even includes DMs, really do like magic items.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 24, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Seriously, isn't that going to be DM and campaign dependent?
> 
> However, in an upfront low or rare magic campaign, or with a DM who controls access to magic items more strictly, I don't see how you could get a Christmas tree.




We really don't need to have the discussion about the rules as written driving the expected playstyle do we? Again? Every single change we've seen has dredged up that argument. 

Yes, individual DMs can _always_ change things "back" to how they want them. Thanks for pointing that out... again.

You asked how we got to where we are and I answered. I'll say it again. If the "official" rules permit a particular playstyle, it is the nature of players to push that permission as far as possible. That's just how players think. In a larger sense, it is how human beings think.

Inch, mile, all that. I didn't coin the phrase.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 24, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Yes, individual DMs can _always_ change things "back" to how they want them. Thanks for pointing that out... again.




I think I get what you're saying. I'll call it the "Prestige Class Effect." If something exists in the game, gamers will assume its presence in the game and want to play with it. Correct?


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 24, 2008)

I was really hoping to see something like the Earthdown system of keeping the same item, but having it improve over time.

I hate this "chuck your obsolete items, time for new ones!" system. Magical items should be rare and precious. I'd much rather have that +1 Longsword grow into a +3 Longsword as you level up than have to chuck the +1 to start using the +3.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jan 24, 2008)

I'm kinda bummed that plus weapons still remain, but at least they do more damage on a crit to differentiate them from normal weapons. Its not as bare bones as I thought, but he only said that a character should have +2 weapons. He didn't mention any other slot was required.

Plus, as someone else said, in playtesting you try and break the system. So its no surprise that the sample character does have a lot of items.

Also, I can see why people are against requiring a magic item for a certain level, but I'm glad they are doing this. Makes the math a lot easier and if they are paying such close attention to the power curve that's a good thing in my book.

Great article. I'm glad they are making these changes.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 24, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I hate this "chuck your obsolete items, time for new ones!" system. Magical items should be rare and precious. I'd much rather have that +1 Longsword grow into a +3 Longsword as you level up than have to chuck the +1 to start using the +3.




I'm thinking about house ruling the system so that there are no +X items in the game. A 10th level character holding a magic sword would gain +2 whereas a 20th level character would gain a +4 (or whatever bonuses are appropriate) would allow weapons to grow with the character. I'm considering it, at least, until I see how the rules are in the game as to whether or not it would work.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 24, 2008)

Hey Najo! 



			
				Najo said:
			
		

> I think Campbell's issue with breaking supension of belief is that if all the items except rings can be heroic level, then why can't rings be heroic level. Why can't their be minor rings. THAT doesn't make sense. At least have a catagory of all magic amulets, necklaces, rings and other jewery are all paragon level then, why only rings? Anyone with working hands and some fingers can slip a ring on.




They can also slip the other ring off and a new ring on.

I think the answer may lie in the (potential) fact that 4E Rings are proactive rather than constant benefits, so they need to be activated. A bit like spells. So 'using' two rings at once may be a bit like casting two spells at once.

Therefore wearing two at once would be irrelevant.



> I know it doesn't seem like a big deal, but it was the first thing that jumped out at me as a game designer when I read the article. The second thing being that they still had a christmas tree because of all the items. They may not be needed items, but they are a checklist of slots none the list and gives the feeling that you have to have one of each magic item you can get. That is what makes the game feel more like a game and less like a heroic fantasy story.




I think no one truly expected no magic items, so it was always going to be something between about 4-10. While it appears they have went for the something closer to the latter, the pertinent factors are:

- No stacking
- Lower bonuses

It looks like there are only three items (per character) that affect the games maths, the 'crunch' items if you will. The others are leaning towards 'fluff'/story items.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 24, 2008)

When I first heard about the reduction in magic items, I was a bit concerned, because magic items are part and parcel with D&D in many ways. I'm not happy with how many items we see in the 3X rules, but removing them altogether would make the game something I wouldn't enjoy nearly as much.

From that perspective, these rules don't seem too bad. So if I'm looking at this correctly, it looks like we expect characters to have a +1 to hit item and a +1 armor item for every four levels.

If I want to tone down items, I can remove both the magic weapon and the magic armor and not change the balance of the game one bit. If I'm working from a list of monsters, I can reduce the attack bonus and defenses for the creature by one for every four levels without much difficulty at all. Sounds like something I can live with.

--Steve


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 24, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I think I get what you're saying. I'll call it the "Prestige Class Effect." If something exists in the game, gamers will assume its presence in the game and want to play with it. Correct?




Well, yeah.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 24, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I do think one thing you're missing is that most people do, in fact, like magic items.
> 
> See the popularity of the Magic Item Compendium as an example. For all the naysayers of magic items, D&D players, and yes that even includes DMs, really do like magic items.



I'm not 'missing' anything. Heck, I ike magic items as much as the next guy. I'm just saying, that's not the best way to highlight the new non-magic-item-dependency factor.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 24, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> For all the naysayers of magic items, D&D players, and yes that even includes DMs, really do like magic items.





Some D&D players, in my 20 years playing this bizarre game I have never had the hard on for magic items that most people seem to have, not that I don't like them at all, I just like my character to be the bad-ass and maybe have a few key items.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Jan 24, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I'm thinking about house ruling the system so that there are no +X items in the game. A 10th level character holding a magic sword would gain +2 whereas a 20th level character would gain a +4 (or whatever bonuses are appropriate) would allow weapons to grow with the character. I'm considering it, at least, until I see how the rules are in the game as to whether or not it would work.




This is a brilliant idea! Magic weapons have base "boons" (spell-like abilities tied to it) and the bonus to strike/damage grows with the character, or would be based on the tier.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 24, 2008)

Peter LaCara said:
			
		

> Your problem is that you want magic to be special, and feel that characters carrying around 6-8 items each makes those items less special. And yet you say you don't want to run a low-magic game. So, what, you want to give out the same number of items as before, but players just throw them out because they already have 5 items each? This makes items more special.... how?



It's typically a bad idea to come at someone when you don't understand what they're saying. Politely asking for clarification would have been a good idea, and it would have made you look so much better.

To clarify, I think there's a huge gap between 'current D&D' and what I think of as 'low-magic D&D'. I want to be somewhere in the middle. I want magic to be a real, known, utilized aspect of the world, but I don't want it so common that every hero is weighed down with 10 magic items.



			
				Peter LaCara said:
			
		

> The way to make items more special is to just not hand out that many, I guess. You make sure characters are kept up to date on their primary 3 (or you work out the friggin' math and incorporate it into the basic level scheme), and then maaaaybe hand out a quirky and interesting secondary item every once in a while.
> 
> But for some reason, you throw out giving out less magic as a viable solution.



As I've already mentioned, it creates encounter balance problems. If encounters are balanced with characters wearing a half-dozen secondary items, a character that only has one secondary item is going to be behind the curve. Maybe not in terms of attack/damage/AC/saves (or maybe he will, if he's missing out on a temporary buffing item), but he could certainly be missing out on movement modes, attack options, defensive options, etc., situational things that could make all the difference depending on the specifics of the encounter. I've already mentioned the obvious power differences between a fighter with a carpet of flying and a fighter without a carpet of flying depending on the specific encounter.

And furthermore it only solves my problem if I give out so few secondary items that they're nearly non-existent because otherwise characters will still fill all their slots eventually. I don't want to run a game where a 20th level character is relieved to find slippers of spider climbing. But I don't want to have that 20th level character wearing 10 magic items, either. I imagine there's gotta be a functional middle ground in there somewhere. 



			
				Peter LaCara said:
			
		

> I mean, honestly, is there ANYTHING AT ALL Wizards could have done to appease you that doesn't change things in a completely boneheaded way that doesn't even solve the problem you think you want solved?



Seriously, why are you coming at me with this tone? It's absurdly disrespectful and completely unwarranted.

And yes, there is something Wizards could have done. It's something I thought they were going to do based on their comments about 4E. _As I've already mentioned_, I would have liked to have seen them limit the number of secondary accessory slots. Maybe three accessory slots. Characters would have the expected magic implement/armor/neck stuff that factors into the attack/damage/AC/saves math, and they'd be able to equip up to three other accessories that could do any of the wide range of secondary things 4E accessories look like they're going to do. 

That's the middle ground I was hoping for, and the middle ground I was expecting with their 'Christmas shrub' comments.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 24, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I'm thinking about house ruling the system so that there are no +X items in the game. A 10th level character holding a magic sword would gain +2 whereas a 20th level character would gain a +4 (or whatever bonuses are appropriate) would allow weapons to grow with the character. I'm considering it, at least, until I see how the rules are in the game as to whether or not it would work.




What I'm hoping is that the DMG has their expectations explicit on these things. Like a chart of "By this level, we expect magic items of this much power" so it'd be pretty easy for me to just have the handful of magic items they'll get upgrade themselves at the appropriate times.


----------



## Zamkaizer (Jan 24, 2008)

Guys, Mr. Bonner's sample character obviously needs a preponderance of magical items because he's a gimped Gnome that doesn't have the benefit of racial feats since they're also-rans from the Monster Manual!

More specifically, he's a Gnome Warlock...like they have in World of Warcraft!

Also, Succubi.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 24, 2008)

Lab_Monkey said:
			
		

> In one of the recent podcasts, the designers explain the how they view the Star Wars Universe and the D&D Universe differently in terms of the importance of items (I believe it's in the 'Tell me about your character' episode but it could have been the 'You may already be playing 4e' episode) .  IIRC they explained it as follows: In Star Wars characters are likely to use the same light saber through their entire career.  In D&D they had a different design philosophy (i.e., no 1st level characters with a magic greatsword and magic full plate) and therefore they implemented slightly different game mechanics to accommodate that.
> 
> I would have preferred characters to each have a slightly smaller cache of magic items, but from the sound of things, I'm easily going to be able to adjust the math.  At this point I'm more concerned about fighter type characters needing an item of flying, teleporting, etc. to be viable at high level.




Which is odd when you think about it. If you consider DnD to be a game designed to replicate " generic" fantasy (which may or may not be true), having characters either start with magic items or gain them while adventuring and then keeping them forever would be a lot more representative of the fiction.



			
				Stogoe said:
			
		

> I completely agree with this.  +X weapons *are* D&D, both to roleplayers and the wider world.  Everyone knows what a +1 longsword is.




Some people who aren't DnD players may have a slight idea that a +1 sword may have somthing to do with "geeky stuff." 

But to say everyone knows what a +1 longsword is? Really?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 24, 2008)

Howdy ThirdWizard! 



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I'm thinking about house ruling the system so that there are no +X items in the game. *A 10th level character holding a magic sword would gain +2 whereas a 20th level character would gain a +4 (or whatever bonuses are appropriate) would allow weapons to grow with the character.* I'm considering it, at least, until I see how the rules are in the game as to whether or not it would work.




Thats basically how I thought 4E would work (or even still does...its hard to tell at this stage).

Weapons that evolve with the character.

Hows this idea: 

You have a hilt AND a blade (or similar equivalents of handle and 'the bit you hit them with' for other items).

The Hilt is the magical bit, it gives you the power. This power scales up when you reach Paragon Tier and again at Epic Tier. 

The Blade is the physical bit. It can be reforged with different materials each giving a better bonus to hit:

-3 Bone
-2 Wood
-1 Bronze
+/-0 Iron
+1 Steel
+2 Mercurial
+3 Meteoric Iron
+4 Mithril
+5 Adamantine
+6 Diamond
+7 Orichalcum (Star Metal)

That way instead of having someone saying I whip out my +5 Flaming Longsword, they instead pull out their Adamantine Flaming Longsword.


----------



## Slander (Jan 24, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> What I find amusing, is that they say the 'christmas tree' is a bad thing and characters will be 'less dependent on magic items'.




The keyword is "dependent". WotC said they would reduce dependency on items, and they did. A character is now only dependent on three items. Of course characters are going to _want_ more items ... its DnD. But they only need 3 of them to be balanced according to RAW.

Even looking at the character in the example, does he _need_ any of the following to be effective for his level:

Arms: Bracers of the perfect shot. Let's say its a reroll or +4 to attack usable once per encounter. Nope, doesn't need that. Damn sure nice to have, but not a necessity.

Feet: Wavestrider boots. Let's say he can walk on/swim in water. Not particularly necessary, but useful nonetheless.

Hands: Shadowfell gloves. Let's say its similar to 3x Ghost touch. Again, very nice, but far from a must have.

Head: Diadem of acuity. Bonus on Spot/Appraise checks maybe? Or can't be suprised? Spiffy item to be sure, but he certainly isn't going to be inappropriately challenged without it.

Waist: Belt of battle. Let's say it grants one extra healing surge per day. Again very useful, but a character without a Belt of battle is not going to be at a disadvantage.

Wondrous Items: Bag of holding. No need to comment.

All of the optional item slots are effects or situational bonuses. They are all very cool effects, but a character is not going to be shorted if he is missing any one of these items. Each character is likely going to want a different set of effects. But if there is no single effect in the optional list that is required to make an effective character of X level, then WotC has done the job they said they would do.

Whether WotC did the job we would have _liked_ them to do is an entirely different matter.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 24, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> I'm not 'missing' anything. Heck, I ike magic items as much as the next guy. I'm just saying, that's not the best way to highlight the new non-magic-item-dependency factor.




Ahhh, I don't think they're trying to highlight that. I think they're trying to highlight the new slots. Showing what items they'll have for the slots makes far more sense than showing off all the new slots and then showing a PC who doesn't actually use that. They would only show off a PC with few magic items if the article was specifically aimed at people who that resonates with. That isn't true: the article is aimed at all D&D players.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hows this idea:
> 
> You have a hilt AND a blade (or similar equivalents of handle and 'the bit you hit them with' for other items).
> 
> _snip rest_




I haven't been reading the Dark Sun thread, but that seems like a great idea for that setting. I have plans to run a Dark Sun campaign under 4e eventually, and that would work really well.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 24, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> We really don't need to have the discussion about the rules as written driving the expected playstyle do we? Again? Every single change we've seen has dredged up that argument.
> 
> Yes, individual DMs can _always_ change things "back" to how they want them. Thanks for pointing that out... again.
> 
> ...



Not trying to dredge up old arguments, but as far back as I can remember, we've always had magic cloaks, boots, gauntlets, belts and rings. What changed in 3e was essentially:

1. The calling out of specific slots, e.g. the cloak slot, the boots slot, etc.

2. The assumption that specific magic items can be easily obtained through purchase or creation.

Now, the article confirmed that [1] will still be in 4e, and the argument that Christmas tree characters will still exist seems based around the idea that players will ask for magic cloaks because they know that there is a cloak slot. This to me does not seem very different from previous editions. There may not have been an explicit cloaks slot, but many players knew that magical cloaks existed.

In my view, [2] was the greater contributor to the Christmas tree syndrome because of the relative ease that players could fill the empty slots on their characters. I don't think that WotC has addressed this issue yet.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 24, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Ahhh, I don't think they're trying to highlight that. I think they're trying to highlight the new slots. Showing what items they'll have for the slots makes far more sense than showing off all the new slots and then showing a PC who doesn't actually use that. They would only show off a PC with few magic items if the article was specifically aimed at people who that resonates with. That isn't true: the article is aimed at all D&D players.



Theoretically you're right. But, if that's the case why doesn't he have a ring? This _isn't_ a sample character that got thrown together for the sake of showing us cool items. It's an in-play character.

Slander: Nice examples of what the items may be, but the question I have is; "How is the game being balanced?" Once per day items aren't going to shift balance much one way or the other, however per encounter abilities  have the potential to affect balance drastically.


----------



## rkanodia (Jan 24, 2008)

Slander said:
			
		

> All of the optional item slots are effects or situational bonuses. They are all very cool effects, but a character is not going to be shorted if he is missing any one of these items. Each character is likely going to want a different set of effects. But if there is no single effect in the optional list that is required to make an effective character of X level, then WotC has done the job they said they would do.




It's also important to remember that characters are going to have an array of at-will and per-encounter powers. Magical items which cost an action to activate, rather than boosting an action which you are already doing, will seem a lot less powerful in comparison, _even if you load up a character with tons of them_.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 24, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> In my view, [2. The assumption that specific magic items can be easily obtained through purchase or creation.] was the greater contributor to the Christmas tree syndrome because of the relative ease that players could fill the empty slots on their characters. I don't think that WotC has addressed this issue yet.




Agreed 100%.


----------



## Acid_crash (Jan 24, 2008)

They said they were going to REDUCE the x-mas three effect of magic items, not GET RID of it completely.  That would be impossible, and if they did get rid of it completely, then most of you would be complaining rather loudly that they got rid of another sacred cow.


----------



## Benimoto (Jan 24, 2008)

I think the new system sounds pretty good.  I think it solved the major problem I saw in 3.0's magic item system, which was that +x items in a slot pretty much pushed everything else out of that slot.  In 3.0 you would never wear, say, a hand of the mage because in almost every situation, an amulet of health, wisdom or natural armor was better.

In the 4th edition, they solved this by making it so that the +x items only occupy three slots, and that non +x items can't go in those slots (or rather, you get +3 of survival, like in the example.)

I never saw the "Christmas Tree Effect" as a big problem in 3rd edition, because to be honest, I was never totally clear what it was. It seems to me that it's more of a very loosely defined buzzword than an specific phenomenon.  There's been like 4-5 competing definitions in this thread already, ranging from "PCs have an item in every slot", to "PCs need +X items to be viable" to just "magic items should be rarer and more special... Christmas Tree!"

I wouldn't mind magic items being more special but really it depends on the player.  My main solution for more special magic items as a DM is to pay careful attention to the players and hand-pick items that I think they'll value, rather than rolling them randomly on a table, but that's not always possible.  It doesn't work at all with pre-written adventures, for instance.

As for them being rarer, I've been using the Magic Item Compendium treasure tables, and am fairly satisfied with the way that works.   But, if someone wants them rarer, it looks like you can just make them rarer without a big difference.  The one thing I see a problem with is having a way so that each character doesn't have 6-ish secondary items by level 11, but the two solutions I can see there are either: give out less than 6 items per character (24 items in 110 encounters?) over 11 levels, which seems kind of stingy, but workable.  The other way would be to allow the character to use less items, which would mean that the character would just have to min/max harder in deciding which items to keep, rather than the current way, where the characters actually keep marginally useful but interesting items.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 24, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> Theoretically you're right. But, if that's the case why doesn't he have a ring? This _isn't_ a sample character that got thrown together for the sake of showing us cool items. It's an in-play character.



My theory is that they had a host of characters to choose, and selected an interesting one with a lot of magical items. Maybe other characters just didn't have that many, or not ones that fit so perfectly into all the slots? Or maybe the author noted that his character had a lot of slots filled, and so didn't feel the need to ask for a "better" character.


----------



## jester47 (Jan 24, 2008)

This post really cleared up what I was missing in the article.  I agree now the new system will rock, especially since you can house rule that the slot/silo is not connected to a body part.


----------



## Kesh (Jan 24, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> Theoretically you're right. But, if that's the case why doesn't he have a ring? This _isn't_ a sample character that got thrown together for the sake of showing us cool items. *It's an in-play character.*




My emphasis. Most likely, the character simply hasn't found one yet, or the ones found were better suited to other characters.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 24, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> In my view, [2] was the greater contributor to the Christmas tree syndrome because of the relative ease that players could fill the empty slots on their characters. I don't think that WotC has addressed this issue yet.




I just hope that magic items in the RAW and "Implied setting-as-written" are not on sale in every major city, nor "cheap and easy" to make (cheap would be better than easy, if it has to be one or the other).


----------



## Mirtek (Jan 24, 2008)

Slander said:
			
		

> 3 required combat slots, 6/8 optional fun slots, limited stat boosters. Far more manageable. Color me happy.



New game: Guess how many splatbooks it takes until the "fun items" become so powerfull that they are in fact mandatory


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 24, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> New game: Guess how many splatbooks it takes until the "fun items" become so powerfull that they are in fact mandatory




That depends on whether Item Creation ever exists again or not. 

If Item Creation exists, the answer is "zero." There will be optimal builds available from the DMG alone; you won't need splatbooks; and you'll see players designing such builds from Day 1.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 24, 2008)

Kesh said:
			
		

> My emphasis. Most likely, the character simply hasn't found one yet, or the ones found were better suited to other characters.



Gee, ya think? How that factors in to what I have been saying, I have no idea. But you are absolutly spot on.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Jan 24, 2008)

I find it interesting that everyone is now crying foul that 4e won't be ignoring previous editions ENOUGH.

The funny thing is, even the people who think these changes didn't go far enough really have to acknowledge what a step forward this is. In 3e, attack bonuses increased with level but AC didn't (unless you were a monk), while magic item bonuses to AC stacked three or four times as high as attack bonuses. Obviously this meant that a magic-heavy game had a completely different balance than a magic-light game. That is GONE in 4e. The absolute worst-case scenario combat rejiggering you might have to do now is funnel some slightly lower-level monsters at the party if you've got no magic items in your campaign.

Beyond that, 4e seems to leave everything up to the DM. If you don't like high-magic campaigns, squabbling over exactly how many "item slots" a character should have, or what they should conform to (function or body part), seems really silly. What you want is for players not to have many magic items because they're RARE, not because, "Oh, I already have an arm/hand-slot item equipped." If you only want players to wear 3-6 magic items (as someone said), just make sure the DM doesn't hand out more than that. 

By putting these harsher item restrictions into the core rules, all you'd be doing is trying to force everyone else to play by your preferences for no apparent reason. Of COURSE every player is going to want an awesome item in each slot, just like players in 3e want a Ring of Three Wishes at level 2. It's the DM's job to balance those desires against concerns about verisimilitude, challenge, and so on.


----------



## Corinth (Jan 24, 2008)

Set sail for Fail.

There is no such thing as "optional" when it comes to personal power.  Those that strive to maximize their character's personal power will be the norm, the standard against which all others compare, and that means that players that fail to fill their character's slots with all of these items--and, at that, the best attainable--shall be penalized for failing to meet this _de facto_ standard of performance.

So no, those slots will be filled as soon as possible.  Especially so if PCs can still make items, or acquire them through commerce and trade, and attempts to curb this will be punished.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 24, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> New game: Guess how many splatbooks it takes until the "fun items" become so powerfull that they are in fact mandatory




OOOOH! ME! ME! <waves hand in the air madly>

I'm going to go with as soon as the Magic Item Compendium comes out in September! Now, that won't make every slot mandatory for every character class/build, I guarantee you it will feature a few items that make it so a character with X item in Y slot is really hugely better than one with supposedly equally suitable item Z, or will allow a build that relies utterly on said item.

Then it'll just be a matter of time. Whether it's MIC2, MIC3, or MIC4 before we see all the "fun" slots having items that'll make people freak I dunno.

I'm not saying it'll wreck the game, but I'm going to get tired of hearing how "A bow Ranger is worthless unless they have, A, B, C and D items!".

The real question, though is, how long before WotC starts designing it's monsters/adventures around the assumption that all your characters have all 9 slots filled with the "right" items? Alternately, will the likely ridiculously OP nature of certain "fun" items make a mockery of whatever system 4E uses for judging encounter difficulty?

I'm really hoping the answers are never and no, but I'm not very optimistic in this _particular _ regard.


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Jan 24, 2008)

Someone has probably already said this, but I thought I'd say it anyway, just in case.  Unless they completely eliminated +x items of _all_ kinds, they need to account for it in the math behind the game.  As long as there are +x items in the game, they can say that they're not necessary all that they want - players will still make a b-line for them because they make their characters more effective.  Simple as that.  If they design the system without taking into account their +x items, almost every character will be overpowered (even if only slightly) compared to the monsters they are expected to fight.  On the other hand, if they have them, design the system to account for them, but still say that they aren't essential, characters who believe that will be underpowered (again, even if only slightly).  Also, if you want more powerful character to wield/have access to more powerful items (+2 for 9th level, +4 for 18th, etc...) the gap between magic-ed up characters and those without becomes greater.  +2 isn't that big a deal - 10% difference.  However, while a +4 bonus might only be 10% of the 18th level characters total bonus, it equates to a 20% difference on the d20.  

In effect, I'm saying that as long as there are +x items of any kind, you will need them to compete - if not with the monsters, then with the other players in your party.  

That said, I also believe that +x swords and such are a definite D&Dism, and I don't want them to go away, so I see this as a solution which is as ideal as can be expected.  

Again, forgive me if all of this has been said already - I had 20 minutes to read 11 pages of posts, so I skipped a few ;-)

~LS


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 24, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That depends on whether Item Creation ever exists again or not.




This is the really interesting question to me.  1E and 2E had such hit-or-miss item creations systems (where they existed at all) that this one thing being added to 3E was the single biggest flavor change from my perspective.

I suspect that item creation will be in 4E, but it may well be a paragon/epic thing.  Heroic may be limited to potions and such.


----------



## Peter LaCara (Jan 24, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> It's typically a bad idea to come at someone when you don't understand what they're saying. Politely asking for clarification would have been a good idea, and it would have made you look so much better.




Ah. Passive-aggressive condescension. I must be on ENWorld.



> To clarify, I think there's a huge gap between 'current D&D' and what I think of as 'low-magic D&D'. I want to be somewhere in the middle. I want magic to be a real, known, utilized aspect of the world, but I don't want it so common that every hero is weighed down with 10 magic items.
> 
> 
> As I've already mentioned, it creates encounter balance problems. If encounters are balanced with characters wearing a half-dozen secondary items, a character that only has one secondary item is going to be behind the curve. Maybe not in terms of attack/damage/AC/saves (or maybe he will, if he's missing out on a temporary buffing item), but he could certainly be missing out on movement modes, attack options, defensive options, etc., situational things that could make all the difference depending on the specifics of the encounter. I've already mentioned the obvious power differences between a fighter with a carpet of flying and a fighter without a carpet of flying depending on the specific encounter.




Well, yeah, but what's the alternative? Not having carpets of flying in the game at all? I'm fairly certain that's not the right direction. And I think you're overinflating the problem. Of course higher level games are going to assume that you have access to certain movement types and protections, but the game won't care where those come from, since I imagine spells will be able to provide things like flight as well. Not every movement type or protectoin is going to be assumed for every encounter, so you'll be fine in the encounters that don't need them, and then you get creative in the encounters that do.



> And furthermore it only solves my problem if I give out so few secondary items that they're nearly non-existent because otherwise characters will still fill all their slots eventually. I don't want to run a game where a 20th level character is relieved to find slippers of spider climbing. But I don't want to have that 20th level character wearing 10 magic items, either. I imagine there's gotta be a functional middle ground in there somewhere.




But you don't give out the slippers of climbing at 20th level. You give them out at 8th level, and then they become part of a PC's schtick. That character is still wearing the same boots at 20th level, and is pretty freaking stoked because he found Bracers of Perfect Awesomeness at 20th level because it's the first arm item he's come across that really fits him.




> Seriously, why are you coming at me with this tone? It's absurdly disrespectful and completely unwarranted.




Eh. It's partly to do with your post being the straw that broke the camel's back, and partly because it was 4am and I had just watched the Fox News attack on Mass Effect, so I was pretty irritated already. And honestly, that wasn't all that disrespectful as far as things go. If you want to see REAL snark, you should come to RPGnet sometime.



> And yes, there is something Wizards could have done. It's something I thought they were going to do based on their comments about 4E. _As I've already mentioned_, I would have liked to have seen them limit the number of secondary accessory slots. Maybe three accessory slots. Characters would have the expected magic implement/armor/neck stuff that factors into the attack/damage/AC/saves math, and they'd be able to equip up to three other accessories that could do any of the wide range of secondary things 4E accessories look like they're going to do.
> 
> That's the middle ground I was hoping for, and the middle ground I was expecting with their 'Christmas shrub' comments.




Fair enough. I can see where you're coming from there, even though I would have rather disliked that option. I'd hate to see a character give up a favorite item because he just picked up his fourth accessory and had to choose between them.

And hey, at least every item a character has will be interesting now. Stuff like Shadowfell Gloves sound much more interesting than Gloves of Dexterity +4. And while I don't advocate getting rid of +1 swords and armor, at least it sounds like the vast majority of the items you find will have other extra stuff on it. I mean, just reading the item names makes me stoked for all the cool stuff my players will find.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 24, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as "optional" when it comes to personal power.  Those that strive to maximize their character's personal power will be the norm, the standard against which all others compare, and that means that players that fail to fill their character's slots with all of these items--and, at that, the best attainable--shall be penalized for failing to meet this _de facto_ standard of performance.




Bingo!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 24, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> This is the really interesting question to me.  1E and 2E had such hit-or-miss item creations systems (where they existed at all) that this one thing being added to 3E was the single biggest flavor change from my perspective.
> 
> I suspect that item creation will be in 4E, but it may well be a paragon/epic thing.  Heroic may be limited to potions and such.



Wasn't there an article or a blog post explaining that item creation will be done via Rituals? So items can at least be created by player characters. Whether they can be designed by them remains to be seen. An interesting question is how the magical item levels can be used as guidelines for special effects.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 24, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> Set sail for Fail.
> 
> There is no such thing as "optional" when it comes to personal power.  Those that strive to maximize their character's personal power will be the norm, the standard against which all others compare, and that means that players that fail to fill their character's slots with all of these items--and, at that, the best attainable--shall be penalized for failing to meet this _de facto_ standard of performance.
> 
> So no, those slots will be filled as soon as possible.  Especially so if PCs can still make items, or acquire them through commerce and trade, and attempts to curb this will be punished.




I don't think the term "optional" is pointed at the Players. Of course any sane player wants more stuff. The optional nature of those slots is pointed at the DM. As DM if you do not hand out the "mandatory" slot items you will have to adjust encounter difficulty. But, if you do not hand out "optional" slot items you should be able to continue to challenge the characters under the same base assumptions the game was designed. At least that's what I got from the article, YMMV.


----------



## Corinth (Jan 24, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> I don't think the term "optional" is pointed at the Players. Of course any sane player wants more stuff. The optional nature of those slots is pointed at the DM. As DM if you do not hand out the "mandatory" slot items you will have to adjust encounter difficulty. But, if you do not hand out "optional" slot items you should be able to continue to challenge the characters under the same base assumptions the game was designed. At least that's what I got from the article, YMMV.



This will work if, and only if, players can't acquire items through crafting or trade.  If they can get their gear independent of what the GM provides, then it's out of his hands and he will have to deal with properly-geared PCs.


----------



## Voss (Jan 24, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That depends on whether Item Creation ever exists again or not.
> 
> If Item Creation exists, the answer is "zero." There will be optimal builds available from the DMG alone; you won't need splatbooks; and you'll see players designing such builds from Day 1.




Last time it was mentioned, it did.  'Item Creation Rituals' or some such thing.  Sadly there hasn't been a good explanation of what rituals are or what they do at this point.


----------



## rkanodia (Jan 24, 2008)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> I never saw the "Christmas Tree Effect" as a big problem in 3rd edition, because to be honest, I was never totally clear what it was. It seems to me that it's more of a very loosely defined buzzword than an specific phenomenon.  There's been like 4-5 competing definitions in this thread already, ranging from "PCs have an item in every slot", to "PCs need +X items to be viable" to just "magic items should be rarer and more special... Christmas Tree!"



I'd like to propose a few more specific buzzwords:

"Layer Cake": The individual layers of a layer cake aren't all that high, but when you keep stacking them up, you can build something ridiculously tall.  Similarly, you might not have a problem with a suit of +5 armor, or with a +5 amulet of natural armor, or with a +5 ring of deflection.  However, when a PC uses _all_ of them together, it can cause problems, because, like the layer cake, it builds up to an unreasonable height.

"Sega CD 32X": There were a few games released for Sega Genesis that required both the Sega CD and Sega 32X expansions in order to play.  The resulting system was a ridiculous behemoth with more things plugged into it (32X sticking out of the top of the Genesis, SegaCD on the side, extra power cords, extra video cords) than a person on life support.  Thus, I propose the 'Sega CD 32X' effect to be the one where PCs feel the need to put an item in every slot just to stay competitive.

"The Incredibles"*: One line from the villain of the Incredibles was that "when everyone is special, no one is".  If encounters assume that the PCs all have a certain level of +X items, then the DM finds himself in the position of having to choose between letting his PCs be severely underpowered, or hacking his way around the rules, or just letting them have the items - and then players don't feel like a +5 longsword is 'special' at all, because everybody has one.


_*I don't mean to claim that this idea is something new to the Incredibles; quite the contrary.  However, this iteration of the basic idea is recent, succinct, and pop culture._


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 24, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> This will work if, and only if, players can't acquire items through crafting or trade.  If they can get their gear independent of what the GM provides, then it's out of his hands and he will have to deal with properly-geared PCs.



Only if the GM provides a setting and a campaign where
- Trading magical items is possible
- Time for creating magical item exists.

Furthermore, just house-ruling that these things are simply _not_ possible is a lot easier if you know that the core assumptions only require 3 items. You can even replace these items with a slight adjustment to the advancement table for attack and defenses! 

Yes, I know, some people don't want to start a new edition of D&D and begin house-ruling in the first minute. But that's unavoidable, if there is more than one type of player attracted by the same game. At least you will know what you're doing and how to do it in 4E.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Jan 24, 2008)

jester47 said:
			
		

> This post really cleared up what I was missing in the article.  I agree now the new system will rock, especially since you can house rule that the slot/silo is not connected to a body part.



I'm not sure jester47 really did enough to stress the importance of this link.  Please see the comments by MIKE MEARLS in the other thread on this topic.  He clearly states that the assumptions that are built in will be clearly outlined in the DMG and that "even a newbie" DM will be able to adjust his campaign's "Christmas Tree" to taste.

Really. Everyone should read it before continuing to post here.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 24, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Please see the comments by MIKE MEARLS in the other thread on this topic.  He clearly states that the assumptions that are built in will be clearly outlined in the DMG and that "even a newbie" DM will be able to adjust his campaign's "Christmas Tree" to taste.



That sounds promising. Can you post his comments? I just don't want to have to wade through another thread on the subject, especially if you already know where the comments are. Thanks.


----------



## grimslade (Jan 24, 2008)

A few thoughts/opinions:

The whole 'no ring until you are this tall' thing is actually kind of neat. I like the synergy with the tiers. A magic item that means something. A 9th level PC is on top of the world until he sees the BBEG whip out two rings. 

I am annoyed with the incorporation of certain magic items into the math. (i.e. +2 armor at level 10). My expectations may have been exaggerated for the deforestation of the CTE, but I really wanted to be able to have Conan/Fafhrd/Grey Mouser like heroes, who spent all of their coin and equipment on ale and entertainment and could still be effective with whatever equipment was handy. Maybe in 5E.

:EDIT: Read the Mearl's retorts. Still miffed the baseline isn't at 0 necessary magic items, but that's my issue, I guess.


----------



## Corinth (Jan 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Only if the GM provides a setting and a campaign where
> - Trading magical items is possible
> - Time for creating magical item exists.



Players control time.  All that needs be said is "I'm (We're) going over here, to this secured space, and taking the time needed to make this stuff.", where "here" is someplace proofed against hostile NPCs and plausible deleterious events, and the GM gets to sit there trying to figure out what to do next.  Furthermore, players expect trade because--especially as your game moves into 5th level spells--the setting expands large enough to make trade in goods or services of any sort inevitable regardless of the GM's intentions.  ("We can teleport to any spot in the world, and none will trade with us?  No, it doesn't work that way.")


> Furthermore, just house-ruling that these things are simply _not_ possible is a lot easier if you know that the core assumptions only require 3 items. You can even replace these items with a slight adjustment to the advancement table for attack and defenses!
> 
> Yes, I know, some people don't want to start a new edition of D&D and begin house-ruling in the first minute. But that's unavoidable, if there is more than one type of player attracted by the same game. At least you will know what you're doing and how to do it in 4E.



You make rules all you like.  If the players don't accept your house rules, then they mean nothing; they are in control, not you, because you have no means to enforce your decisions.  This is part of the reasoning behind the Oberoni Fallacy, which you just asserted.  The rules as-written, and their emergent properties, are all that matter.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 24, 2008)

grimslade said:
			
		

> The whole 'no ring until you are this tall' thing is actually kind of neat. I like the synergy with the tiers. A magic item that means something. A 9th level PC is on top of the world until he sees the BBEG whip out two rings.




That's puke-inducing, frankly. What, you can "con" an NPC's level by using Detect Magic and checking out his hands? God I hope not.


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 24, 2008)

I don't get the "ring at 10th level thing."  How is a Ring of Warmth unsuitable for a low level character? What STOPS him from slipping it on his finger aside from the DM not introducing rings into his campaign? Or do rings have an inherent sense of how many XP their users possess  and don't work until they meet the required skill level?


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 24, 2008)

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4011654&postcount=16

See Mike Mearls post here.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Only if the GM provides a setting and a campaign where
> - Trading magical items is possible
> - Time for creating magical item exists.




What M_R said, plus the design articles mention that rituals are expensive, so the DM can also contain magic item creation by not compensating low magic with high gold.

Also, it seems the intent is that the effects of the optional slot items are not constant-buff effects like those of the "main three." They will allow your character to do "cool things" not just add +X to a stat, attack or defense. This was a problem for DMs such as myself that allowed free trade of magic items. The players would sell any item that didn't provide a stat, attack or defense boost so they could buy another item that did. And just about every slot had items that did so. They even provided guidelines for making non-standard-slot items so you could have a +2 mask of protection. Now the players will only have three slots to fill the need for combat-boosters, leaving the rest for hopefully "cooler" effects. The proof of this will have to wait, but the design article shows their intent to achieve this.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> That's puke-inducing, frankly. What, you can "con" an NPC's level by using Detect Magic and checking out his hands? God I hope not.




What is this "Detect Magic" of which you speak?

Quite frankly, we haven't seen any sign that such a divination can be easily done on the fly. When you're back home and safe, maybe you'll have the time for such a complex ritual.

Sucks to have to rely on your intuition, doesn't it?


----------



## Marshall (Jan 24, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> I think Campbell's issue with breaking supension of belief is that if all the items except rings can be heroic level, then why can't rings be heroic level. Why can't their be minor rings. THAT doesn't make sense. At least have a catagory of all magic amulets, necklaces, rings and other jewery are all paragon level then, why only rings? Anyone with working hands and some fingers can slip a ring on.
> 
> I know it doesn't seem like a big deal, but it was the first thing that jumped out at me as a game designer when I read the article. The second thing being that they still had a christmas tree because of all the items. They may not be needed items, but they are a checklist of slots none the list and gives the feeling that you have to have one of each magic item you can get. That is what makes the game feel more like a game and less like a heroic fantasy story.



 Thats a good point. I wonder if 'minor rings' are actually wondrous items that you keep in convenient location and its just *R*ings that have a tier limit.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 24, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> What is this "Detect Magic" of which you speak?
> 
> Quite frankly, we haven't seen any sign that such a divination can be easily done on the fly. When you're back home and safe, maybe you'll have the time for such a complex ritual.
> 
> Sucks to have to rely on your intuition, doesn't it?




No, actually, it doesn't. However, it's a lot more damn silly to claim that there's no Detect Magic than to believe that there is, frankly. I'll be really surprised if there isn't something along those lines, possibly even something that's "always on" for magic-users. Possibly something fancy like Harry Dresden's Third Eye.

What sucks, though, is when it's obvious what level an NPC is due to things he's wearing.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jan 24, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> This will work if, and only if, players can't acquire items through crafting or trade.  If they can get their gear independent of what the GM provides, then it's out of his hands and he will have to deal with properly-geared PCs.



 How do you know this?  Do you know what the types of items that can be put into these "optional" slots are?  What if the items are all relatively low power, limited use or situational?  Perhaps the reason these items are considered optional is that none of them will lead to a "properly-geared" PC.  

If you have a pair of boots that allows you to tumble past an opponent once per encounter with no penalty, is that going to so much better than a pair of boots that allows you to move an extra 10 feet, excuse me, 2 squares, once per encounter?  

Maybe the boots I listed above are the default power level of these optional items and therefore the lack of them won't dramatically unbalance the game from its default setting, and neither will having every slot filled.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 24, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> Players control time.  All that needs be said is "I'm (We're) going over here, to this secured space, and taking the time needed to make this stuff.", where "here" is someplace proofed against hostile NPCs and plausible deleterious events, and the GM gets to sit there trying to figure out what to do next.  Furthermore, players expect trade because--especially as your game moves into 5th level spells--the setting expands large enough to make trade in goods or services of any sort inevitable regardless of the GM's intentions.  ("We can teleport to any spot in the world, and none will trade with us?  No, it doesn't work that way.")




Maybe if the rest of the game world was on pause when the characters aren't involved this would be true, but time marches on. The villain grows in power while the PCs make stuff. People, places or things important to the characters are harmed due to their inactions. The DM needs to make the world a real place where the villains aren't just waiting around for the hereos to come ruin their plot. That would be the biggest "video-game-like-thing" that I've seen above any chages being made to the game.

You're 5th-level spells thing isn't relavent to 4E. Teleport may well be much higher and we know it will be a ritual and that it has been specifically mentioned as being time-consuming and expensive in and of itself.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> What sucks, though, is when it's obvious what level an NPC is due to things he's wearing.




Kinda, I guess.

0 Rings: level 1-30
1 Ring: level 11-30
2 Rings: level 21-30

Kinda like "He just cast _fireball_ so he's level 5-20" in 3e.


----------



## Set (Jan 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> What sucks, though, is when it's obvious what level an NPC is due to things he's wearing.




Note to self; wear two rings with Nystul's Magic Aura, and pretend to be much more uber.

Corallary; most Realms NPCs will be wearing four glowing rings, confusing matters mightly.  Is Elmunchster *really* 45th level, or are some of those rings fakes?

This vaguely reminds me of Michael Reeves Shattered Land setting, in which wizards wore a signature ring on a finger depending on which of the ten ranks of mastery they had attained, and could recognize at a glance where they stood, meeting a new mage.  Once one had mastered the tenth rank of magic, the mage could finally take the ring off, as he had transcended the ranking system...



			
				ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that everyone is now crying foul that 4e won't be ignoring previous editions ENOUGH.




Same thing happened from 2e to 3e.  Half of the respondents said, 'You changed *everything!*' while the other half said, 'You barely changed *anything!*'



> The funny thing is, even the people who think these changes didn't go far enough really have to acknowledge what a step forward this is. In 3e, attack bonuses increased with level but AC didn't (unless you were a monk), while magic item bonuses to AC stacked three or four times as high as attack bonuses. Obviously this meant that a magic-heavy game had a completely different balance than a magic-light game. That is GONE in 4e. The absolute worst-case scenario combat rejiggering you might have to do now is funnel some slightly lower-level monsters at the party if you've got no magic items in your campaign.




This is the ideal, IMO.  If I want to play a Conan of Cimmeria / Iron Heroes style game with few or no magic items, or a Forgotten Realms-style game where every barkeeper is a 25th level retired adventurer with a keep full of magic items, I should be able to use the same basic classes to do so.

Do I blindly trust the 4E designers to have gotten this blend totally right?  Not really.  I'll see it when I see it, and make no prejudgements.  They've gotten some things very right, they've gotten some things very wrong.  Time will tell which one this will be.

I'm not thrilled with the idea of different slots having different 'affinities,' as it seems entirely settings-assumption-specific, but it's not like almost every single item designer (including Monte Cook himself, in his Books of Eldritch Might) didn't end up completely ignoring those DMG body slot-to-item type in 3rd Edition, so I imagine it will be just as easy to house rule into oblivion in 4th edition.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 24, 2008)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> I don't get the "ring at 10th level thing."  How is a Ring of Warmth unsuitable for a low level character? What STOPS him from slipping it on his finger aside from the DM not introducing rings into his campaign? Or do rings have an inherent sense of how many XP their users possess  and don't work until they meet the required skill level?




Why would you assume 3E Rings = 4E Rings? I would assume that the power that is only able to be released by more powerful PCs is greater than that of keeping oneself warm.

"Rings: This slot has changed quite a bit. A starting character isn’t powerful enough to unleash the power of a ring."


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jan 24, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> What sucks, though, is when it's obvious what level an NPC is due to things he's wearing.



 How is that any different than telling what level an NPC is by the number of iterative attacks he makes, or what level spell he can cast?  It gives at best a 10 level range, and even then who says that it really does.

"You see a tall swordsman emerge from behind the tree."

"I cast Detect Magic"

"His sword, armor, cloak, boots and a ring on each hand all glow with a strong radiance."

"Crap, he's got two rings!  He's got to be at least Epic level!  Run Away!"

Of course what they never found out, since they ran away, was that the swordsman wore the rings as their are family hierlooms.  He had not yet unlocked the powers of the rings, but the idea of not wearing because of that never crossed his mind.​
Or, on the other hand, the 11th level PC in the Design and Development article, if encountered as an NPC didn't have any rings - would you then assume he has to be below 11th level?


----------



## Set (Jan 24, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> "Rings: This slot has changed quite a bit. A starting character isn’t powerful enough to unleash the power of a ring."




Which suggests that Rings might be the 'always on' or 'at will' items, such as a Hat of Disguise or Ring of Invisibility that doesn't have use limits per day or charges.  Each one could allow unlimited use of a single spell (or perhaps even multiple spells, for insanely powerful rings).

With spellcasters already having 'at will' blasting powers, and fighters (hopefully) having higher damaging single attacks instead of fat stacks of iterative die-rolling, it wouldn't even be out of line for someone to have a Ring of Scorching Ray or something, usable once per round.  By 11th level, any character should be able to match (or exceed) that anyway, and the Ring would just add them the option of doing Fire damage, instead of whatever their default 'blast at will' spell does.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 24, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Kinda, I guess.
> 
> 0 Rings: level 1-30
> 1 Ring: level 11-30
> 2 Rings: level 21-30




Or maybe some NPCs could be like some real-world people and wear *gasp* non-magical rings. Would serve meta-gamers right.

DM: The revolting priest of Yeenoghu stands proud before you bedecked in shining plate, a symbol of his foul god upon his shield, a flowing black cloak and a pair of onyx rings. He...
Player: He's 21st level! At least! We're only 9th level man, this isn't fair!
DM: (laughing internally) Roll for initiative!


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 24, 2008)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> I don't get the "ring at 10th level thing."  How is a Ring of Warmth unsuitable for a low level character? What STOPS him from slipping it on his finger aside from the DM not introducing rings into his campaign? Or do rings have an inherent sense of how many XP their users possess  and don't work until they meet the required skill level?




1)  No Ring of Warmth, presumably.  Makes more sense to be a cloak, right?  Or, better yet, a parka.

2)  I'm assuming that the ring doesn't jump off your finger.  More than likely, it simply doesn't activate for a heroic character.

3)  Reading between the lines, I think the jump from 10th to 11th level is a *BIG DEAL*.  You shouldn't be making the move from heroic to paragon without some big splashy end to your current adventure, some magical transformation ritual, blessing from the gods, etc.  Also, paragon paths don't start till 11th level...do they have an inherent sense of their practitioner's skill?  Why don't they start when the character is ready for them?  If that metagame aspect doesn't bother you, why do rings?


----------



## Spinachcat (Jan 24, 2008)

9 magic items at 11th level = Christmas Tree  
That's not even counting the potions / scrolls / other expendables.   This is NO fewer items than I see in 3.X games. 

Personally, I like 1 magic item per 3 levels, so an 11th level character would have 4 items.  I hand out magic items like candy in my games, but I prefer non-rechargable expendables that the heroes burn through and a few cool core items they value highly.   

I HATE the "no rings" crap.   Why not have Heroic / Paragon / Epic tiered items so the wee ring you find at 4th level suddenly reveals new powers when you hit 11th.   

Don't get me started on the Ioun Stones.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 24, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> What I find amusing, is that they say the 'christmas tree' is a bad thing and characters will be 'less dependent on magic items'.



They've done that. The relevant sort of dependence was "dependence, for mathematical viability at a given level, on a plethora of items". Now it is dependence upon 3, mutually independent, items. As others have noted, the task of taking out these items is mathematically trivial.



			
				Ander00 said:
			
		

> What I'd really like to know at this point is whether the assumptions of +X implements, +Y armor and +Z cloak/necklace are also worked into the math for NPCs or if this is an instance of PCs and NPCs working on different formulas.





			
				Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> No doubt every freakin' NPC in space will be laden down with similar items.



There's actually a lot of reason to think this won't be the case, and that NPCs will be handled very differently from PCs: see post #223 above.



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> @pemerton- thanks for detailed explanation.  I appreciate that.



No worries.



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> It seems really off that an orc with a +2 axe would be exactly the same as an orc without a +2 axe.



Exactly the same _as an Orc of the same level_. It can always go the other way as well: an NPC picks up a +2 axe and therefore becomes a higher-level opponent.



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> There's a level of risk vs. reward there that isn't really satisfying.  Since the PCs are going to end up with the axe afterwards, I'd much rather they took the extra risks of the level 7 brute having a +12/+12 with the axe bonuses, to prove they are worthy of it in some fashion.



I think I see what you're saying here: loot in effect becomes an alternative to XP, in that in some cases it is the loot that is the reward for a more challenging encounter. My sense of the logic of the 4e system here is that the PCs get the same XP whether or not there is loot at the end of the fight (because the challenge was of the same degree of difficulty) and that the rewarding of loot will not (as you suggest) be regulated as an alternative to XP, but rather will be capped in a different fashion: no weapons better than +X for characters of level Y (see post #216 above).

As I said in that earlier post, we're still waiting to learn what techniques will be used to achieve this capping. It may just be GM loot placement, but given what they've done with rings I suspect there will be some other device used also.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> What I'm hoping is that the DMG has their expectations explicit on these things. Like a chart of "By this level, we expect magic items of this much power" so it'd be pretty easy for me to just have the handful of magic items they'll get upgrade themselves at the appropriate times.



They're doing one better than that. Every item will have a level, which indicates what level of character it is appropriate for.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> The goal is not to "make rules which everyone has a easy time to houserule" but making "rules which don't need to be houseruled". And in this regard the ring issue simply fails.



Given that we don't know what rings do, and we don't know how the game handles the transition between tiers either at the metagame or ingame level, I think it's too early to judge this.


----------



## Voss (Jan 24, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> They've done that. The relevant sort of dependence was "dependence, for mathematical viability at a given level, on a plethora of items". Now it is dependence upon 3, mutually independent, items. As others have noted, the task of taking out these items is mathematically trivial.



The problem, however, is all the secondary items.  Bracers with offensive and defensive effects, gloves with attack effects, belts with strength boosting, the 'few' potions and whatnot that affect combat.  

All that will add up to quite a bit, even if they don't give numerical bonuses.  (And actually, will be harder to balance because they don't).  In combination, they could quite easily take appropriate level encounters and move them from challenging to cakewalk.




> Exactly the same _as an Orc of the same level_. It can always go the other way as well: an NPC picks up a +2 axe and therefore becomes a higher-level opponent.



Urk.  That makes even less sense.  Picking up or putting down an axe changes his level and hit points, and whatever else?  Attacking an NPC in the shower actually changes his level?



> I think I see what you're saying here: loot in effect becomes an alternative to XP, in that in some cases it is the loot that is the reward for a more challenging encounter.



  Actually, no, not really.  Its more that I think that if the PCs are going to earn an item, the best way of showing they are worthy of it is to face it.  (Barring one-use consumables, of course.  But thats its own issue, since stockpiling potions helps really break the game).  I think, if they are getting the +2 axe from the orc, the orc should get the actual bonus from the axe.  So, if the party is fighting two 7th level orcs (and whatever else to make it an appropriate encounter) the two orcs should be whatever is appropriate for 7th level orcs, and the one using the +2 axe should have the bonuses that a +2 axe gives.  Without... weird metagame side effects that increase the orcs level in some weird way.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 24, 2008)

I actually like the idea of wondrous items in the shape of rings... it was always difficult to explain my characters, why a wondrous item can not have the shape of a ring, bu an amulet , cloak, etc...

just for those not liking magical items, and high fantasy... play a different game or just realize, that most monsters, for which player characters are balanced are also high fantasy, and notice, that now NSCs and PCs without magical items have the same chances to hit each other as NSCs an PCs with them.

This thread could easily be locked, because it is very repetitive.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 24, 2008)

I think I will chime in on the necessity or lack thereof of the secondary items...

I don't think the idea behind secondary magical items is that they somehow do not increase character power. After all, having something is always better than having nothing unless the something is completely useless. A character who has secondary magical items _will_ be stronger than a character without secondary magical items. However, the important thing is _how_ the former will be stronger, not whether he is.

I imagine that a lot of secondary magic items will provide situational benefits, compared to the "always useful" benefits of the primary magic items and the old 3E "Big Six". Powers like water-breathing, flight, or darkvision are all situational benefits. Darkvision is useless in daylight, but great underground. Flight is useless in a cave, but great in open areas. Water-breathing is useless on land, but invaluable in a flooded cavern. These kinds of abilities are certainly useful in certain situations (or even many situations), but they are not the kind of abilities you need for every fight in the game, no matter what, like attack bonuses or AC. Items like this are among the most fun of the magic items, but were cast aside by the "Big Six" of 3E. One of the great advantages of the new system is that it encourages using such items, rather than discouraging them by providing obviously better alternatives.

Anyways, the thing about items with situational benefits is that they are the kinds of things that they are never completely necessary. If you need to fly, you can find a pegasus, hire a dragon to carry you, or even find an airship. If you need to breathe underwater, there may be magic rituals to let you do so temporarily or you can just choose a race which has that ability. Darkvision can be replaced with a mundane torch or lantern. Finding an alternative to a secondary magic item is incredibly easy compared to adjusting the math to make up for a lack of primary magic items (which is not all that hard itself in 4E).

Because of this, while a single PC who does not have secondary magic items may be weaker than his ally who does have secondary magic items, a _group_ of PCs who do not have secondary magic items can still get through a campaign just as well as a group of PCs who do have secondary magic items, simply because there are so many alternative solutions to the kind of challenges that can be overcome by those kind of items. Secondary magic items really are optional for campaigns.


----------



## Slander (Jan 24, 2008)

> There is no such thing as "optional" when it comes to personal power. Those that strive to maximize their character's personal power will be the norm, the standard against which all others compare, and that means that players that fail to fill their character's slots with all of these items--and, at that, the best attainable--shall be penalized for failing to meet this de facto standard of performance.




But what "standard"? Unless there is an array of items for the 6/8 non-math slots that every PC needs to have (which the designers have said they are trying to avoid), every character is likely to have an array of different items doing different things. There is no "de facto standard of performance" ... can't be unless all players are picking up the same items. The ability for a PC to do "something better sometimes" isn't really much of a standard.

Look at the example items from his character, Dessin. Assuming WotC did things right, then the other characters in Dessin's party likely have items that do completely different things. So, are other members in Dessin's party _penalized_ because they can't walk on water like Dessin can? Shouldn't be unless the meta-setting is Waterworld. If Dessin's other party members aren't penalized for not having Wavestrider boots, how can a character with no magical boots be penalized? 

Bottom line, the lack of a situational bonus is not a penalty, whether it's lacking one situational bonus or six.

Edit: Alright, TwinBahamut said it much better.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 24, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I think I will chime in on the necessity or lack thereof of the secondary items...
> 
> I don't think the idea behind secondary magical items is that they somehow do not increase character power. After all, having something is always better than having nothing unless the something is completely useless. A character who has secondary magical items _will_ be stronger than a character without secondary magical items. However, the important thing is _how_ the former will be stronger, not whether he is.
> 
> ...




QFT

Also, many of those secondary items will more than likely have charges that renew each day, meaning they are "temporary" effects. For example:

Bracers of Quick Strike: 1/day one extra melee attack.
Gloves of Fortunate Striking: 3/day, re-roll a "to hit" roll.
Belt of Giant Strength: 3/day +2 to hit and damage (and str-related checks) for 1 round. 
Boots of Haste: up to 10 rounds of +6 squares to movement. 

Unlike weapons, armor, or cloak/amulets and rings, these effects work for limited durations or limited times per day. Thus, they boost your power level, but not as dramatically as a +2 thundering warhammer or a cloak of survival would.


----------



## Rokes (Jan 24, 2008)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Would you test a car at 5mph ?




They do all the time, usually in the form of an impact tests, to make sure none of the fascia or exterior lighting is hurt at those speeds.  

Of course they do high-speed testing on the car as well, but low speed is equally important.



			
				Zimri said:
			
		

> or an airplane at umm whatever minimum velocity to remain airborne is ?




God I'd hope they do this (in a wind tunnel that is).  The engineer's will calculate the minimum velocity required, but I'd sure as heck hope they test it...

edit:  removed snarkiness


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 24, 2008)

I think the standard will be all the slots filled.

But, they've left the rules open for those _groups_ who want less.

Note that I said "groups" who want less. I have to wonder if people worried that their players won't want to play in such a setting are approaching the low-magic-item issue from the wrong side of the equation. If your group is in agreement with play style, why worry about it, after all. The best way to approach the situation of others in your game wanting more magic items is to discuss what kind of campaign you want to play. 4e will allow either way, so long as everyone wants similar game styles.


----------



## Thundershield (Jan 24, 2008)

What I see in this thread is people defending one playstyle and others complaining about it breaking with their playstyle. But it's not really about playstyle. It's about playability.

When they said they wanted to get rid of the Christmas Tree Effect (CTE), they meant that they wanted to cut away all the "necessary" items. Items that the system expected you to have, and to such a degree that a person without these items could not function properly (particularly as soon as you hit mid- to high-level play). They didn't promise to remove magic items entirely from the game or make them rarely-seen wonders, because that would only cater to such a playstyle and even get in the way of other playstyles.

Instead they wanted to make it simpler for players, and by reducing the number of item slots, they have done so. They wanted to reduce the way stacking magic items could be abused, and by differentiating between primary and secondary slots, they've done so as well.

Really, when it comes down to it, don't ask yourself if this is what you want it to be, because the answer will likely not be satisfying. They can't make a system that takes everybody's playstyle into consideration. Some like lots of magic, and others like little or no magic. No, rather ask yourself if you can create your game and use your playstyle with this system.

Can you drown players in magic items and still keep the game fairly balanced? Considering the 9 items slots and the way things don't stack, easily! Can you reduce the amount of magic or eliminate it entirely? Considering you can easily see what boni the magic items would give a character, simply transfer these to inherent abilities of the characters and you can ditch the magic items entirely. Granted, some things can't quite be translated (_flying carpet_ translates to, uh, large ears?), but that's what flavors that game, then.

Really, ask yourself if you can play the game you love with this system. It's playability that counts. Whatever the system implies is for newbies to rely on, and veterans such as us can then modify it (and much more easily in 4E it would seem) to fit whatever campaign we wanna play.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 24, 2008)

Thundershield said:
			
		

> What I see in this thread is people defending one playstyle and others complaining about it breaking with their playstyle. But it's not really about playstyle. It's about playability.
> 
> When they said they wanted to get rid of the Christmas Tree Effect (CTE), they meant that they wanted to cut away all the "necessary" items. Items that the system expected you to have, and to such a degree that a person without these items could not function properly (particularly as soon as you hit mid- to high-level play). They didn't promise to remove magic items entirely from the game or make them rarely-seen wonders, because that would only cater to such a playstyle and even get in the way of other playstyles.
> 
> ...




Well said! In fact, Mike Mearls even said in the other thread that a newbie DM could reengineer 4e to remove items entirely in about 30 minutes. Thats impressive.


----------



## Thundershield (Jan 24, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> QFT
> 
> Also, many of those secondary items will more than likely have charges that renew each day, meaning they are "temporary" effects. For example:
> 
> ...



While I fully agree with this and do think that secondary items will be somewhat like this, I do hope they won't be "per day" as you put them here. That would simply keep the 5-minute workday around as a lingering shadow, waiting to step onto the scene again...


----------



## Rokes (Jan 24, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Well said! In fact, Mike Mearls even said in the other thread that a newbie DM could reengineer 4e to remove items entirely in about 30 minutes. Thats impressive.




The questions remains whether or not they'll provide those newbie DMs with the tools to do it in 30 minutes (i.e. provide the math behind the assumption of wealth)

Mike?  Scott?    (of course if I were them, I'd be too busy to wade through 12+ pages)


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jan 24, 2008)

Yep, sounds good on paper, doesn't it? I'll believe it when I see it 1 year after 4E has hit the market, and the predominant playing habits for that edition have formed and spread via the internet and virtual tabletop gaming.


----------



## Just Another User (Jan 24, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> So much for getting rid of the so-called Christmas tree effect....



They seems to have introduced the wardrobe effect. I mean, if a 11 character have so many magic items, what about a 20 level? or a 30? I can see a high level character with a a copule of dozen between headwear, foot wear and uh, neck wear wonder what to put on for his next adventure, or continuosly swappng betwen one item and the other depending on the situation, non necessarly a bad thing, but it could quickly become redicolous, or worse boring (expecialy if secondary items had "per day" abilities.)


----------



## Thundershield (Jan 24, 2008)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Magic items should be classified by function.  No matter what form they come in.   Its not about what a ring does.  Its about how you can't have a gradient of rings.  Why not a neaklace of 3 wishes?  or elemental comand?  Or a ring that operates like a potion?  Or a potion that operates like a constant item.  Its the limitation of the form that irks me, not the mechanics of the effect.  The effect of not being able to access a magic item until a certain level is awesome.  I like it.  But limiting that to a ring?  Please, I want to be able to use it on hats, boots, belts, swords, etc.



Well, the seperation of function by item slot does make sense. It's what we expect. Let me whip up a few examples:

*Goggles of Minute Seeing* - Goggles go over your eyes, and you use your eyes to see, so a magic item that improves your sight would have something to do with your eyes. Makes sense.

*Boots of Speed* - Boots go on your feet, and you use your feet for locomotion, which is a common interpretation of speed, even if the effect of this magic item also increased the number of attacks you get (in 3.5, anyway).

Now, if we removed that and simply went with stuff on a whim (or even better, slapped the wholly random tables of 2nd Edition on this), we might end up with items like:

*Nylons of Giant Strength* - Really masculine, ain't they? Nylons really isn't something one would associate with neither giants nor strength, so if the party's Wizard identified these, he'd likely get quite a shock. But, hey, they might match your _Tooth Fairy Full Plate_.

*Vorpal Potion* - And this one does.. what? Cuts off your head if you drink it? Or can you knock peoples' heads off if you swing the potion vial at them?

Magic items are categorized like that simply because it makes sense and gives whoever finds it an intuitive idea of what it can do and how to use it.

The added benefit is, of course, that it ensures your character will at least be a little all-round and not solely have items that improve a single aspect, leaving him falling short in every other area. The variety of associated abilities for each item slot, however, means that you can still find _something_ that will be relevant and useful for your character.


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 24, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Rings are special.  They are endless, without beginning or end.  And their shape, a bound circle, allows them to contain magic far beyond any simple spell embedded in your common "magic" sword or item made of cloth.  Where any other item or weapon would warped and destroyed by the restless force that is magic, the magics within a ring swirl silently, falling back upon themselves ... contained.  Although less than an artifact, they are more than anything else you will encounter (other than perhaps the legendary Stones of Ioun).
> 
> Sauron knew this.  It is no coincidence that he chose the form of the Ring when making his weapon.  Nothing else would have contained his terrible power, or serve his terrible purpose.
> 
> ...




Very well written.  Seriously I do that kind of stuff myself.  However, not seeing the sense in a rule and being Capable of Rule Zero/having an imagination are not mutually exclusive.

I have house ruled many things over the years and will continue to do so.  But, I sometimes enjoy debating the pros and cons of an idea on message boards when I encounter them.  And for some reason, the ring thing did provoke an extreme reaction from me.  Can't explain totally, but it still bugs me.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 24, 2008)

Rokes said:
			
		

> The questions remains whether or not they'll provide those newbie DMs with the tools to do it in 30 minutes (i.e. provide the math behind the assumption of wealth)
> 
> Mike?  Scott?    (of course if I were them, I'd be too busy to wade through 12+ pages)




If you would actually read Mike's response over in the other thread, you'll notice he talked about one of the design goals of Fourth Edition being to have the transparency of the math right there for all DMs to see. Complete with the assumptions.

Items won't be given just a cost, but a level as well. So you no longer have to guess what level PC a 5,000 gp item (or 10,000, or whatever) is appropriate for. They'll tell you right out that, for example, "a flying carpet is an appropriate item for 18th-level PCs." Or that a _+2 flaming longsword_ is a 10th-level item. (Both these examples are from the earlier article _Design & Development: Magic Item Levels_).

That alone is more transparency than was present in 3e.

Trust Mike guys. He learned how hard it was to strip items out of the Core Rules when he designed _Iron Heroes_. And he's probably made a very good case to the other WotC designers that the best way to handle that in 4th Edition is to make the game more customizable "out of the box."

More transparent rules seems to have been their goal since the release of _Unearthed Arcana_. And it seems Fourth Edition will launch with that in mind.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 24, 2008)

Rokes said:
			
		

> God I'd hope they do this (in a wind tunnel that is).  The engineer's will calculate the minimum velocity required, but I'd sure as heck hope they test it...



Rejoice for your hopes are met!  All aircraft going into production are extensively tested often for several years.  And not just in computer or wind tunnel models.  Before that aircraft gets certified the first few pre-production models are tested in every mode and stage of flight, sometimes to destruction in order to test their reliability.

Damn, I sound like a Boeing rep  Buy Lockheed Martin!


----------



## Sadrik (Jan 24, 2008)

I have not read through this huge thread but felt like I had to comment on what I thought of the changes.

Are these changes for changes sake?   

I mean reducing the number of slots and making some of them required while others are optional? 

This does nothing for reducing the christmas tree effect. 

Of which I would define as having bonuses coming from multiple items that all stack together to break the average assumptions of the game. 

Quite honestly I don't care how many slots there are. When writing 4e, dealing with the bonuses issue it could have been done in many other ways but they seemed to select the most game rulesy fix. A cloak or an amulet can only do this, a feet slot item can only do that etc. Wrong approach entirely in my opinion. 

My fix to the 3.5e item bonus problem is a problem of bonus stacking not of arbitrary item slots.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 24, 2008)

Sadrik said:
			
		

> I have not read through this huge thread but felt like I had to comment on what I thought of the changes.
> 
> Are these changes for changes sake?
> 
> ...




It sounds like you didn't really read the article. Bonus stacking will no longer be an issue in 4e. Only 3 types of items are "required" for a PC to be able to handle monsters of his level, and the math behind what magical bonuses are needed for balance will likely be explicitly laid out in the DMG.

Per Mike Mearls (in a post on another thread), even a newbie DM could strip all magic items from 4e without upsetting game balance in about 30 minutes simply by granting appropriate bonuses to the PCs at the level they would normally be expected to have a particular item.

This is a vast improvement over all prior editions of D&D.


----------



## Thundershield (Jan 24, 2008)

Sadrik said:
			
		

> I have not read through this huge thread but felt like I had to comment on what I thought of the changes.
> 
> Are these changes for changes sake?
> 
> ...



Seems like you should've read through it...

Anyway, here goes: All of them are optional, even the "primary" ones. If you don't want magic items in your game, simply don't and give people an inherent +X bonus to attack, damage, AC, and defenses equal to what seems to be 1 per 4 levels.

And the reason they're dividing them into primary and secondary it to not have them stack up and break the game. This way only one item with consistently increase your attack and damage (weapon or implement), AC (armor), and Defense (cloak or amulet). Other items will them be able to provide other or similar boni temporarily, such as an item that temporarily gives you damage reduction or boosts your speed, or similar things.

Anyway, it's an elegant and transparent way of approaching magic items that makes it possible for DMs to tailor it to suit their playstyle, so if you don't like it, rework it. It's much easier now.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 25, 2008)

Sadrik said:
			
		

> This does nothing for reducing the christmas tree effect.
> 
> Of which I would define as having bonuses coming from multiple items that all stack together to break the average assumptions of the game.
> 
> ...




Actually, yes, it does reduce the Christmas Tree effect.

A weapon or implement provides attack and damage bonuses.

Armor improves your AC.

The "Cloak/Amulet" slot improves _all your other defenses_, as well as providing some other snazzy magical affect.

That's it. Every other item provides benefits that are situational, not, AFAICT, numerical.

So, 3 items, no stacking.

Still think they haven't fixed the Christmas Tree problem?


----------



## Sadrik (Jan 25, 2008)

Zowey, it seems the only ones left on this thread are diggin' the changes.

I agree that it reduces the christmas tree effect by artificially setting limits on slots and what those slots can do. Like I said, "A cloak or an amulet can only do this, a feet slot item can only do that etc." If they had just done some stacking limits on items then there would be no, "You have to have a cloak to get this bonus."

And I don't really care if magic items are modular in the game and can be ported in or out. I want them in the game and to work appropriately. Rings only at higher level. 

Also, items should be able to take on any form it wants. If I want boots that give +2 to reflex saves and gloves that give +2 to attack when wielding a sword so be it. They just wont stack with similar bonuses. That is how I would have resolved the issue.

Not by saying arbitrarily that all neck slot items only give a bonus to defenses and no other item slot can give bonuses to that. Bleh


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Actually, yes, it does reduce the Christmas Tree effect.
> A weapon or implement provides attack and damage bonuses.
> Armor improves your AC.
> The "Cloak/Amulet" slot improves _all your other defenses_, as well as providing some other snazzy magical affect.
> ...




The problem is there is a sliding definition of "christmas tree"

To some, its the stacking bonuses and bonus types that created an ever-scaling level of numbers to track (+6 armor, +4 shield, +3 natural armor, +2 deflection, +1 dex, +2 sacred, +2 dodge, etc)

To others, its having magical armor, shield, amulet, ring, boots, hat, cloak, etc on at the same time.

To the third, its having ANYTHING that adds a constant +X to any number (+1 longsword, +2 gloves of dexterity, +1 cloak of resistance)

The last group is having a conniption that magical gear is anything but optional or DM fiat.

And, of course, there is the aptly named "put me down for two or more of the above combined". 

Since everyone took "Christmas Tree" to mean "My personal pet peeve about magic" its no wonder we all disagree on a.) whether WotC lived up to its promise and b.) whether it will really "fix" anything. 

If you were in the first category, your the winner of the betting pool. Congrats.

If you were in group 2, you get the concession that there are less slots now and not all of them are as necessary as others.

If you were group 3, take solace its only 3 categories, not all 11 fighting for those boring +X slots. Six of them are actually for "cool" items. 

If you were in group 4, you probably missed the memo.


----------



## Stogoe (Jan 25, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> To some, its the stacking bonuses and bonus types that created an ever-scaling level of numbers to track (+6 armor, +4 shield, +3 natural armor, +2 deflection, +1 dex, +2 sacred, +2 dodge, etc)
> ....
> If you were in the first category, your the winner of the betting pool. Congrats.




Well, considering that they explicitly laid out WotC's Definition of CTE as your first option, it would be fully and completely foolish to expect that WotC's Definition of CTE would be anything other than your first option.  I mean, come on.


----------



## FourthBear (Jan 25, 2008)

Sadrik said:
			
		

> Are these changes for changes sake?



I don't think that really fits these changes.  None of them really thrill me, but I can clearly see the reasons for each change.  Even the oddest bit with the level dependent rings, I can see what some of the advantages might be in terms of showcasing the special nature of magical rings or bringing the level mechanics to magic item usage.  I do think they will reduce the Christmas Tree, but I think eliminating it would likely be unrealistic in D&D.  Too many DMs, players and writers love creating and obtaining new magical items.  Unless those magical items have no significant effect on a character's power, they will need to be somehow accounted for when deciding how the level dependent challenges are designed.  I see this system as a way of guiding and controlling this to the extent it can, while making the classes of items and their bonuses clear enough that DMs can account for them in house-ruling.  I do think it's a better system than previous editions, which either had no real guidelines or had ones that did not suit many campaigns.  Is it as elegant or clever as I was hoping?  No, but I can't think of anything better that wouldn't be soundly rejected by most players and DMs.

In terms of magic items, I think that guidelines in the DMG for the appearance and creation of magic items will be just as critical.  If they can reduce the incidence of low level magic items in treasure lists and on NPCs, it will go a long way to helping magical items seem a bit more magical.  Frankly, the Christmas Tree Effect was bad, but the piles of +1 leather armor and rings of protection +1 to be sold after an adventure was finished were just as rotten.


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 25, 2008)

Sadrik said:
			
		

> Zowey, it seems the only ones left on this thread are diggin' the changes.




When it comes to D&D 4e, I've learned to choose my battles carefully.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 25, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> This is a vast improvement over all prior editions of D&D.



Did you ever play BECMI?

Only one stat-boosting item in the entire game (Gauntlets of Ogre Power), and that overlapped, did not stack.  So if your Ftr had an 18 Str, you didn't need the Gauntlets, and if you had 16 or 17 Str, you got a marginal benefit.
All ability scores capped at 18.  No matter what.
No Natural Armor or weird bonus types.
Fixed cap of AC -10 (equivalent to 30). 
Saves became relatively easier to make with level (basically every spell was DC 18 or so).  I think Rings of Protection gave a saving throw bonus as well as an AC bonus, but I don't think the rings above +1 appeared until the Companion Set (levels 15-25); IDHTBIFOM.  I also don't recall what the AC bonus of the rings did and didn't stack with (I don't think they stacked with magic armor).
NO MAGIC SHOPS.  You got the items that the DM handed out.
More difficult to craft potions, scrolls, wands, and magic items.  Wands were really valued, because casters were more limited in their spells.

Players wanted magic swords and armor, of course, but it would have been just as easy as in 4E to say "okay, no magic swords or armor, but your hit rolls, damage, and AC improve by 1 every 4 levels." 
Players also enjoyed the neat magic items that 4E is trying to bring back.  Flying Carpet, Horn of Blasting, Medallion of ESP, and a bunch of other things.

In this one regard, at least, 4E is going in the direction of BECMI.  I approve of that.


----------



## Ahglock (Jan 25, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as "optional" when it comes to personal power. Those that strive to maximize their character's personal power will be the norm, the standard against which all others compare, and that means that players that fail to fill their character's slots with all of these items--and, at that, the best attainable--shall be penalized for failing to meet this de facto standard of performance.







			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Bingo!




Double Bingo.

Unless the "optional" slots had no combat effects at all this will occur.  So when your bracers are bracers of I make a mean ham sandwich, and your boots are boots of pine fresh scent, all "optional" slots aren't optional when trying to optimize your character.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 25, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Double Bingo.
> 
> Unless the "optional" slots had no combat effects at all this will occur.  So when your bracers are bracers of I make a mean ham sandwich, and your boots are boots of pine fresh scent, all "optional" slots aren't optional when trying to optimize your character.




And any DM who lets his characters change boots between encounters is inviting this problem into his campaign. The boots we've seen on an 11th-level character are _wavestrider boots_, which probably provide some special movement modes related to water. That's hardly combat advantageous, except under very rare circumstances. Those _boots of levitation_, on the other hand, might be pretty handy, but by 13th-level, I doubt they're game breaking.

In Fourth Edition, all items of the same level have the same cost (_Design & Development - Magic Item Levels_).

The DM, and only the DM, will have total control over the number of magic items in his game. Three are necessary to make the math work. All the others are "extra" - as in "DM's option."


----------



## Ahglock (Jan 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> And any DM who lets his characters change boots between encounters is inviting this problem into his campaign. The boots we've seen on an 11th-level character are _wavestrider boots_, which probably provide some special movement modes related to water. That's hardly combat advantageous, except under very rare circumstances. Those _boots of levitation_, on the other hand, might be pretty handy, but by 13th-level, I doubt they're game breaking.
> 
> In Fourth Edition, all items of the same level have the same cost (_Design & Development - Magic Item Levels_).
> 
> The DM, and only the DM, will have total control over the number of magic items in his game. Three are necessary to make the math work. All the others are "extra" - as in "DM's option."




I'm not talking about changing boots between encounters.  Boots of striding and springing, movement oriented and yes help in a fight.  Bracers of precision I'm guessing help in a fight somehow.  These things might not provide a +2  your whatits combat ability, but they still increase your combat ability. 

 By not giving a +2 and instead improving movement or maybe giving a re-roll or whatever precision does they are harder to balance.  And since they aren't factored into the balance when designing encounters that means the DM like in all other editions and well all other games are basically back to eyeballing encounters when determining if its too hard or just right.  

I'm not to worried about the last part since I can't think of a game with any level of options available to the PCS that actually had a built in encounter design system that actually worked out of the box.  Like every other system they will provide some guidelines which hopefully will be enough to adjust to your own campaign and PC play style.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 25, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about changing boots between encounters.  Boots of striding and springing, movement oriented and yes help in a fight.  Bracers of precision I'm guessing help in a fight somehow.  These things might not provide a +2  your whatits combat ability, but they still increase your combat ability.




Sorry, the only items we have are _bracers of the perfect shot_ and a _belt of battle_. I admit that I don't know what _bracers of the perfect shot_ DO, but I can hazard that they might allow a character to designate a single shot per encounter as a critical hit. That sounds like a perfect shot to me.

And it's hardly unbalancing if the character can crit once per encounter on purpose, cuz he might very well do it _by accident_.

See, I have faith that the designers are professionals who know their jobs. I know that they know the game, and how it works, better than a couple of self-appointed experts on an internet message board.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Trust Mike guys. He learned how hard it was to strip items out of the Core Rules when he designed _Iron Heroes_.".




Well, I wish I could. Unfortunately,  last thing that Mike worked on that I liked was The Book of Iron Might.  As such, I am now wary of anything he works on.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 25, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Well, I wish I could. Unfortunately,  last thing that Mike worked on that I liked was The Book of Iron Might.  As such, I am now wary of anything he works on.




Funny comment to read from a guy with 3 Monte Cook quotes in his sig. 

So, let's see. That means you hated _Iron Heroes,_ which I assume means you're not opposed to magic items in general, or that book would be right up your alley. Unless you just oppose it because it's a variant PHB.

I guess you're saying you hate Mike's work at WotC. Well, considering we haven't seen much of it, I guess you're entitled.

Quite honestly, I don't care if you trust Mike or not. Personally, I think there's ample reason to. But if you don't like 4E, well, you can always keep playing Third Edition. Of course, Monte won't still be making stuff for it...


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 25, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> The problem is there is a sliding definition of "christmas tree"
> 
> To some, its the stacking bonuses and bonus types that created an ever-scaling level of numbers to track (+6 armor, +4 shield, +3 natural armor, +2 deflection, +1 dex, +2 sacred, +2 dodge, etc)
> 
> ...




I think you've made an argument for differing views on "decreased reliance on magic items", but not the Christmas Tree Effect.

The Christmas Tree Effect is I cast Detect Magic and the PCs light up like Christmas tress b/c of they myriad items they posses.

You can make compelling arguments from both sides of the aisle as to whether magic item dependency has been reduced.

Based on an example character with 8 different magic items effectively covering his entire body...unfortunately that's a very weak case for reducing the Christmas Tree effect.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Actually, no, not really.  Its more that I think that if the PCs are going to earn an item, the best way of showing they are worthy of it is to face it.  (Barring one-use consumables, of course.  But thats its own issue, since stockpiling potions helps really break the game).  I think, if they are getting the +2 axe from the orc, the orc should get the actual bonus from the axe.  So, if the party is fighting two 7th level orcs (and whatever else to make it an appropriate encounter) the two orcs should be whatever is appropriate for 7th level orcs, and the one using the +2 axe should have the bonuses that a +2 axe gives.  Without... weird metagame side effects that increase the orcs level in some weird way.



The point being, in 4e monster design, level is simply a metagame device for interacting with a monster stat table and an XP table. So if the stats change, the level changes and hence the XP.

Suppose (for the sake of argument) that a 7th level Brute has a to-hit bonus of +10. Your 7th level Orc with that bonus (but who the GM has decided is unarmed) loots a dead body and picks up a +2 axe. The Orc now has a +12 to hit. To find out how many XP the Orc is worth, we now look at the table again, see that a Brute with a +12 to hit is 8th level, and award XP accordingly.

If in the above scenario the XP didn't change despite the fact that the monster gets tougher, then in effect you would be doing what I suggested above: using the magic item as part of the reward, in lieu of XP, for the tougher fight.



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> That makes even less sense.  Picking up or putting down an axe changes his level and hit points, and whatever else?  Attacking an NPC in the shower actually changes his level?



First, just to make sure we're on the same page, I asuume you know that in 4e there are no monster hit dice of the sort that previous versions of the game have had. Hit points are level and role dependent and called out in a table, the same as to hit bonuses and damage ranges.

So the question about hit points is this: what happens if the Orc above has the to hit bonus of an 8th level Brute, but the hit points of a 7th level Brute. how many XP is the Roc worth? I assume the table will handle this by suggesting a range of hit points for each level, or otherwise giving some guidance.

On the other hand, if the table tells us to add or subtract hit points, that's not necessarily absurd: someone's capacity for self-defence may well be less when they are unequipped.

Undoubtedly this would destroy any simulationist reading of hit points. But that's already been well cofimred by Chris Sims on the Healing thread.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> So, let's see. That means you hated _Iron Heroes,_ which I assume means you're not opposed to magic items in general, or that book would be right up your alley. Unless you just oppose it because it's a variant PHB...




I liked the goal of IH. However,  I didn't like the classes (too much built into them for my tastes), skill groups, tokens, and several other bits.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 25, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> I think you've made an argument for differing views on "decreased reliance on magic items", but not the Christmas Tree Effect.
> 
> The Christmas Tree Effect is I cast Detect Magic and the PCs light up like Christmas tress b/c of they myriad items they posses.
> 
> ...




False dichotomy. The "Christmas Tree Effect" is about the fact that _any random PC_ is going to have multiple magic items that show up when a _detect magic_ is used. If there's no guaranteed "multiple magic item dependency," then there's, by definition, no Christmas Tree Effect. 

In Fourth Edition, there's only going to be 3 required items: Weapon (or implement), Armor, and Cloak (or necklace). That's hardly a Christmas Tree.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> If you would actually read Mike's response over in the other thread.




Link please?


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 25, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Link please?




The thread is here. Mike's post is about halfway down. On the first page.


----------



## Zweischneid (Jan 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> In Fourth Edition, there's only going to be 3 required items: Weapon (or implement), Armor, and Cloak (or necklace). That's hardly a Christmas Tree.





Sure it is...


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 25, 2008)

These two lines I thought were pertinent:


"Even though this is called an item slot, that doesn’t mean you can’t wield more than one weapon, because that would make the ranger cry."

"Magic armor adds an enhancement bonus to your Armor Class. 3.5"


So I guess they're still clinging to this _Dawson's Drow_ action, and enhancement bonuses are still in.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The thread is here. Mike's post is about halfway down. On the first page.



Usabilty note: You can also post a link to a specific post by using the number/link provided in the upper right corner of a post. (Unfortuantely, only the post will be displayed then, not the entire thread.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Sorry, the only items we have are _bracers of the perfect shot_ and a _belt of battle_. I admit that I don't know what _bracers of the perfect shot_ DO, but I can hazard that they might allow a character to designate a single shot per encounter as a critical hit. That sounds like a perfect shot to me.
> 
> And it's hardly unbalancing if the character can crit once per encounter on purpose, cuz he might very well do it _by accident_.
> 
> See, I have faith that the designers are professionals who know their jobs. I know that they know the game, and how it works, better than a couple of self-appointed experts on an internet message board.



There is no hard evidence on this yet, but I believe one goal of balancing other items will be that abilities that directly affect combat stats (aside from the three primary items) will present you an oppertunity cost. To actiate the Bracers of Perfect Shot, you might need to spend a swift action. Judging from the things I read about the Bo9S, the Starwars Saga edition, the PHB II and other late 3.5 supplements, these action types will become an important part of the things a character can and will do.
Using a magic item might mean not being able to use a different item or ability, simply because you don't have any actions left for it.

Obviously, for some things this won't apply. Boots of Flying (if they exist) will probably not cost much actions to activate. But then, the oppertunity cost might be not wearing the Boots of Striding. Sure, flying is pretty cool and powerful, but sometimes you just want to be fast! (and in a dungeon or building, flight isn't as useful as in the wilderness).


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 25, 2008)

Sadrik said:
			
		

> Also, items should be able to take on any form it wants. If I want boots that give +2 to reflex saves and gloves that give +2 to attack when wielding a sword so be it. They just wont stack with similar bonuses. That is how I would have resolved the issue.




No, items should be restricted to thematically appropriate slots, so that there's no need to check for stacking in the first place.


----------



## Sadrik (Jan 25, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> No, items should be restricted to thematically appropriate slots, so that there's no need to check for stacking in the first place.



Wrong


----------



## Thaniel (Jan 25, 2008)

Sadrik said:
			
		

> Wrong



 Good argument. I'm convinced.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Still think they haven't fixed the Christmas Tree problem?



Not when a presumably average hero is walking around with nine items on his person and bemoaning the fact that he doesn't have a tenth yet.

You can say that only three are required, as if that somehow mitigates this character walking around with nine items on him, but I'm not even sure that'll be true regardless. I think it's more likely that the definition of what is required will likely change. "You're a fighter and you don't have the headband that allows you to force a reroll on a will attack each encounter?" "You're a rogue and you don't have the boots that let you move faster and shift farther?" "You're a paladin and you don't have an item that lets you fly?"

I suppose I can hope that these supposed 'optional' items are so ridiculously weak that they are in fact effectively optional, in that they really add next to nothing to a character's power. Even if that held true in the core books, which is very unlikely in my opinion, you can virtually guarantee that when the first magic item splat book comes out that the power level of those 'optional' items is going to go up. After all, people want cool magic items, and that 'coolness' is tough to pull off consistently in a nearly worthless magic item.

Anyway, it looks like it's again going to take house ruling to do away with the Christmas Tree effect, just like it did in third edition. Maybe not as much house ruling, there's no way to know yet, but house ruling nonetheless.


----------



## Sadrik (Jan 25, 2008)

Thaniel said:
			
		

> Good argument. I'm convinced.



Well, my original argument was right there and my "new" argument was the same as twosix's, non-existent.


----------



## Andor (Jan 25, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Not when a presumably average hero is walking around with nine items on his person and bemoaning the fact that he doesn't have a tenth yet.
> 
> You can say that only three are required, as if that somehow mitigates this character walking around with nine items on him, but I'm not even sure that'll be true regardless. I think it's more likely that the definition of what is required will likely change. "You're a fighter and you don't have the headband that allows you to force a reroll on a will attack each encounter?" "You're a rogue and you don't have the boots that let you move faster and shift farther?" "You're a paladin and you don't have an item that lets you fly?"
> 
> ...




If I understand you correctly (and if I do not please explain how) you are saying that the proposed 4e system is unsatisfactory to you because it allows for the _possibility_ of a high level PC owning several magic items?

I'm hoping I have that wrong because otherwise you would seem to be stating that having more than a couple of magic items per PC is badwrongfun, regardless of the group or campaign, and the the rules of the game should, indeed must, preclude the possibility of anyone, anywhere enjoying themselves in such a twisted and abhorrent manner. 

It's not enough that you could easily houserule a limit on magic items in your campaign. It's not enough that you could simply give out fewer magic items (or turn some down as a player.) The only way you can possibly enjoy 4th edition is if even people you will never meet are not allowed to have more items than they have limbs. And presumably the formation of game police to make sure no one houserules away those limits.

Incidently if 'literature' is the driving force behind your hatred of items I'll just point out that at about the time of Shelobs lair Frodo was carrying the one ring, Sting, the mithral shirt, Galadrial's Phial, a magic walking stick, an elven cloak, and rope of climbing. 7 items.

If I have misinterpreted your point please elucidate how, because I don't see another way to interpret your stance.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 25, 2008)

Bah. This would be SOOOOO much easier if the designers just listened to me and catered to my wishes!


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 25, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> If I understand you correctly (and if I do not please explain how) you are saying that the proposed 4e system is unsatisfactory to you because it allows for the _possibility_ of a high level PC owning several magic items?



It's not so much the _possibility_, it's more the _eventuality_ of it.



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> I'm hoping I have that wrong because otherwise you would seem to be stating that having more than a couple of magic items per PC is badwrongfun, regardless of the group or campaign, and the the rules of the game should, indeed must, preclude the possibility of anyone, anywhere enjoying themselves in such a twisted and abhorrent manner.



That's a pretty wild mischaracterization. I'm not sure how I even implied anything about badwrongfun. If someone wants to run a game where every hero extremity contains a different magic item, fine, great. I just don't think it should be the standard.

And one other thing. It seems that if someone is against the idea of everyone wearing 10 magic items, it's assumed they're for heroes only wearing 'a couple'. It's like 'if you're not at this extreme, you must be at the other extreme'. No, I want the middle ground.



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> It's not enough that you could easily houserule a limit on magic items in your campaign. It's not enough that you could simply give out fewer magic items (or turn some down as a player.)



Of course I can house rule the game, I even said as much! "...it looks like it's again going to take house ruling to do away with the Christmas Tree effect..."

I also find this comment kind of ironic. "You can just house rule!" Well, yeah, so could you, if it happened to be different.



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> The only way you can possibly enjoy 4th edition is if even people you will never meet are not allowed to have more items than they have limbs. And presumably the formation of game police to make sure no one houserules away those limits.



Another wild mischaracterization. This one's just bizarre. Game police? You got that out of my comments?



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> Incidently if 'literature' is the driving force behind your hatred of items I'll just point out that at about the time of Shelobs lair Frodo was carrying the one ring, Sting, the mithral shirt, Galadrial's Phial, a magic walking stick, an elven cloak, and rope of climbing. 7 items.



I'm guessing this is the most extreme example that you could come up with on the spot, right? I guess I'm supposed to ignore the entirety of the rest of fantasy literature because this one character had this many items? I mean, really, what does this one example prove? Certainly nothing more than me saying "Random Hero from Fantasy Book B only had two magic items! Check and mate!"

And the ironic thing about this comment is that I've repeatedly said I would have liked to have seen characters limited in some way to having around six magic items. So your Frodo example, you know, kinda fits that.

Listen, man, this isn't some confrontation. We don't need to aggressively come at each other, to butt heads in an attempt to out-argue the other guy. I prefer one thing, you prefer another. That's fine. If we can't discuss that without wild mischaracterizations or ascribing motives, let's just not discuss it. It's D&D magic items, it's not worth that level of discourse.


----------



## Sadrik (Jan 25, 2008)

Aw crap, I put my cloak on to go outside, now, I have to take off my necklace.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The thread is here. Mike's post is about halfway down. On the first page.




Thanks


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 25, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> And one other thing. It seems that if someone is against the idea of everyone wearing 10 magic items, it's assumed they're for heroes only wearing 'a couple'. It's like 'if you're not at this extreme, you must be at the other extreme'. No, I want the middle ground.




Yes, but what is the middle ground?  It's not 12 (3e).  It's not 9, 10, or 11 (4e heroic, paragon, epic).  You said it's not a couple (2-3)?  So is it 5?  Or 6?  I'd just like to see a number so I understand where you're coming from.


----------



## Mirtek (Jan 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> And any DM who lets his characters change boots between encounters is inviting this problem into his campaign.



Lol, didn't even think about this until now. Boots with x/day powers and the fighter telling the party to wait with opening the next doors because he has to change his shoes first


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 25, 2008)

Sadrik said:
			
		

> Well, my original argument was right there and my "new" argument was the same as twosix's, non-existent.




You're right...neither of us has an argument; it's purely taste-driven.  I agree with the designer's rationales, and can easily fit it into my games.  You feel differently.  Fortunately for me, the way I like is in the book.


----------



## Siberys (Jan 25, 2008)

Sadrik said:
			
		

> Aw crap, I put my cloak on to go outside, now, I have to take off my necklace.



Nobody said you had to take it off. In 3.x, for example, you could wear more than two rings - its just that only two of them ever functioned, their auras interfering.

At least, that's how I and everyone I know's always interpreted it.


----------



## Sadrik (Jan 25, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> You're right...neither of us has an argument; it's purely taste-driven.  I agree with the designer's rationales, and can easily fit it into my games.  You feel differently.  Fortunately for me, the way I like is in the book.



Any, rule can fit into a game. The problem is that believability is being strained by arbitrary slot limits (and level limits for rings).

I have always felt that the advantage that table top rpg's have over CRPG's is that we can reason outside the box at the game table and as everyone should know computers cannot do that. So, the designers should be embracing that concept and not falling into: "Arbitrary limits that have to be there for game play sake." I don't care if my players look like Mr. T and have 50 necklaces on as long as they all don't stack together I am fine and the game is fine. Two approaches, and it appears that your ideal method is the direction they went with. So far this is the only 4e thing I have absolutely not liked what I heard.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 25, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> Yes, but what is the middle ground?  It's not 12 (3e).  It's not 9, 10, or 11 (4e heroic, paragon, epic).  You said it's not a couple (2-3)?  So is it 5?  Or 6?  I'd just like to see a number so I understand where you're coming from.



And I've repeatedly said around six, _even in the same post you quoted_.

I've said that I like the idea of the three main ones that affect the attack/damage/AC/saves, and that I'd have around three 'accessory' slots for the various other things they're going to have in 4E.

If that's not enough of a 'collection' game for some, they could have added things you could collect that would allow you to upgrade or make a magic item in some way. For example, let's say if you had a flawless ruby, a quantity of adamantine, and a specific enhancement scroll, you could have a wizard add the 'flaming' ability to your weapon. Players could even be rewarded with drops that merely make light of these elements, like a formula in an eladrin's journal or a map showing a long lost mineral deposit.

That's just an off-my-head example of some sort of system that could allow for a reasonable number of magic items with a high level of collection and reward that doesn't result in characters hauling around backpacks of unused magic items on their trek to a Magic Depot.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 25, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> And I've repeatedly said around six, _even in the same post you quoted_.
> 
> I've said that I like the idea of the three main ones that affect the attack/damage/AC/saves, and that I'd have around three 'accessory' slots for the various other things they're going to have in 4E.
> 
> ...




But you have to admit that 6 being "reasonable" and 9 being "Christmas Tree" is, ultimately, a matter of taste, and there's no way that the designers could have been right by everyone on this.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 25, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> And I've repeatedly said around six, _even in the same post you quoted_.




To be fair, you have to have repeated something to have said it repeatedly. Which I suppose you now have.

Yes, in that post, a few paragraphs later, you said "six items." But it was so buried, someone could have easily missed it.

So, you're okay with the Core 3 and 3 more. Fair enough. Set your campaign's limit there. Done, and done. People are complaining all about 4E taking power and fiat away from DMs. Guess what? Here's your chance for absolute fiat.

In your campaign, characters can't have more than 1 weapon (or implement), one set of armor, one cloak or amulet, and three other items. There. Now you've got your 6.

What does it matter if the rules provide the _option_ for more?


----------



## rkanodia (Jan 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> What does it matter if the rules provide the _option_ for more?



Especially since Mike Mearls explicitly that the math behind the monsters only takes the weapon, armor, and cloak into account - Monster Manual monsters have been tested for their difficulty against a character who is otherwise naked.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> To be fair, you have to have repeated something to have said it repeatedly. Which I suppose you now have.



I've actually now said it at least four times in this thread, but really, who's counting?



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> So, you're okay with the Core 3 and 3 more. Fair enough. Set your campaign's limit there. Done, and done. People are complaining all about 4E taking power and fiat away from DMs. Guess what? Here's your chance for absolute fiat.
> 
> In your campaign, characters can't have more than 1 weapon (or implement), one set of armor, one cloak or amulet, and three other items. There. Now you've got your 6.
> 
> What does it matter if the rules provide the _option_ for more?



But they haven't provided the option. If they had provided options, I could say, "Hmm, I like that one, I'm going to use that one in my campaign" and be done with it. 

But instead, they've provided the standard. And since that's the standard, if I want to do something differently, I've got to do the work. If I want tables for random treasure, I've gotta make them for my game. If I want fewer slots, I've got to house rule them and communicate those to my players. If I use published adventures, I have to modify them.


----------



## Sadrik (Jan 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> So, you're okay with the Core 3 and 3 more. Fair enough. Set your campaign's limit there. Done, and done. People are complaining all about 4E taking power and fiat away from DMs. Guess what? Here's your chance for absolute fiat.



Am I in the minority on this? How about no limit outside the obvious ones? As long as the bonuses don't stack...

I have always been a fan of the concept that items dont care what they look like but rather their effect is what is important.
Example:
Flagon of the dragons (an old 1st edition item) is essentially a cornucopia with a stopper, when you uncorked it, a random breath weapon shot out. I dont think this item can exist in this brave new world of 4e items that must always be defined. It is an implement by nature but is a wondrous too.

Others:
bracers of defense (armor/arm)
ring of protection (ring/neck)

And then, there was all those cool items from some book, where potions were more than just potions (they could be little clay symbols that you break, powders, ointments, oils, and all manner of things). I am not suggesting that they are not moving in this direstion with potions MIC shows otherwise. However, I wish that the concept of "three required core items" was tossed out in favor of "three core types of bonuses" and you can only take the highest item bonus in each from your gear.

Again, christmas tree effect in my book is the bonus stacking problem. I don't care much about the sheer number of items. Characters won't wear useless trinkets. Rather they will sell them. If I have boots that give me +1 Move and I have a necklace that gives me +2 Move I would use the necklace and sell the boots.

In the "arbitrary slot limit model" players are forced to select less optimal items so they can fill a slot rather than the best one. Condensing the slots does in no way mitigate this problem it exacerbates it.

Certain slots are obvious: 2 implements, feet, hands, arms, body, back, waist, and head after that it is a grey area.

To figure out the grey area you have to look at the specific magic items:
Goggles, mask, glasses these would all interact with the head slot. Now you cannot use a magic helmet and magic glasses. I would be screwed in a D&D world  

More head problems the neck: amulets, necklaces, brooches, scarabs, capes and cloaks have been assigned to the neck slot and are given the core duty of giving bonuses to defense of which nothing else can give bonuses too. How about neck and back?

Then, hands run into a problem too: people have 10 fingers and like to wear jewelery but in prior editions you could wear 2 magical rings and have them be active (an arbitrary limit). But now, they are saying, that you cannot even use the magical powers of a ring until a certain level. And then you can use two at another later level.

Like I said, people like to wear jewelery. What about: ear rings, nose rings, toe rings, and the myriad of different necklaces, bracelets and other jewelery there are. I would have rather seen an arbitrary limit based on total jewelery, as a whole. It is better than limiting rings or the neck slot (amulet or cloak?) or head slot (goggles or helmet?). 

Why not say, "Characters can only use up to four pieces of magical jewelery period" and treat them as non-slot wondrous items? 

Of course, go with the 9 original obvious slots: 2 held implements, feet, hands, arms, body, back, waist, and head.

In the video game version of 4e (which I am sure is a big component of the slot reduction plan) just put 4 slots off on the side to be filled with the jewelery class of wondrous items.

For whatever reason that implementation of a slot system makes sooooooo much more sense to me.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 25, 2008)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> Especially since Mike Mearls explicitly that the math behind the monsters only takes the weapon, armor, and cloak into account - *Monster Manual monsters have been tested for their difficulty against a character who is otherwise naked*.



Do you have that quote handy?


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 25, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> But you have to admit that 6 being "reasonable" and 9 being "Christmas Tree" is, ultimately, a matter of taste, and there's no way that the designers could have been right by everyone on this.



I suppose. But that seems like a pretty defeatist approach to design. I mean, everything's a matter of taste, and there's no way the designers could do anything right by everyone so what's the point to it all?

But the designers are tasked with coming up with fun, creative ways of running a game that closely matches what most people want the game to be. They can't just write their decisions off as matters of taste if they want to have a successful game. There's gotta be more design to it than that, otherwise any average joe could be a designer for WotC.

In my opinion, from a design standpoint, there's three key benefits to limiting the magic characters wear. First, it helps get rid of the Christmas Tree effect. Characters are no longer decked out in magic items like hockey gear, which I'd imagine would help the verisimilitude of a number of players on a number of levels during the game. Second, it would re-value magic items as something special, something wonderful, which I think most would say is a good thing. And third, it would be much, much closer to fantasy literature, which is probably a major source for a lot of people in where they get their expectations for the game.

The only significant drawback I see is that players like being rewarded, and they like cool magic items, so the more the merrier. That's a valid point, I'm not dismissing it. But I think there's a number of ways to replicate that sense of reward that doesn't devolve into characters hauling around backpacks of cheap magic items looking for a Magic Depot to sell them at.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 25, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> I suppose. But that seems like a pretty defeatist approach to design. I mean, everything's a matter of taste, and there's no way the designers could do anything right by everyone so what's the point to it all?
> 
> But the designers are tasked with coming up with fun, creative ways of running a game that closely matches what most people want the game to be. They can't just write their decisions off as matters of taste if they want to have a successful game. There's gotta be more design to it than that, otherwise any average joe could be a designer for WotC.
> 
> ...




And you're not wrong in any of that.  But there's no reason that 6 slots re-values magical items as wondrous and special and 9 slots is Magic Depot.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 25, 2008)

Sadrik said:
			
		

> Am I in the minority on this? How about no limit? As long as the bonuses don't stack...




Doesn't address the issue of a PC with lots of items. Which is the comment that I was specifically addressing.

I'm fine with "no limit." And it seems to me that "the bonuses don't stack" is precisely what we're getting with Fourth Edition.

But if you want PCs to only have 6 items, it's not going to solve your issue. So, for that, it's a simple issue of restricting the number. It won't effect game balance. Set the limit wherever you want (or set no limit at all), but be aware that if you eliminate the Core 3, you have to account for those assumed bonuses.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 25, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> And you're not wrong in any of that.  But there's no reason that 6 slots re-values magical items as wondrous and special and 9 slots is Magic Depot.



This is kind of the premise of the whole deal, you know?

If you limit the number of magic items a character can wear, presumably you're also going to limit the number of magic items he has access to. That makes magic items rarer, which increases their luster. Also, if they have access to fewer magic items, they have fewer unwanted magic items to sell. In fact, if magic items are rarer, their might not be a notable magic item market at all.

Those are precisely the reasons that take magic items from Magic Depot to wondrous and special. Maybe it's not about the six slots I've thrown out there, or the 9-11+ that 4E will have, but it's about having the expected basics, an implement, armor, and cloak, and a couple of other special magic items instead of having the basics and another magic item for each part of the body that can conceivably hold one.

There's certainly plenty of discussion on how to walk the road from Magic Depot to Wondrous & Special, and how far down that road to in fact walk, but I think the basic idea is evident.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> That's just an off-my-head example of some sort of system that could allow for a reasonable number of magic items with a high level of collection and reward that doesn't result in characters hauling around backpacks of unused magic items on their trek to a Magic Depot.





			
				Bishmon said:
			
		

> In my opinion, from a design standpoint, there's three key benefits to limiting the magic characters wear. First, it helps get rid of the Christmas Tree effect. Characters are no longer decked out in magic items like hockey gear, which I'd imagine would help the verisimilitude of a number of players on a number of levels during the game. Second, it would re-value magic items as something special, something wonderful, which I think most would say is a good thing.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think there's a number of ways to replicate that sense of reward that doesn't devolve into characters hauling around backpacks of cheap magic items looking for a Magic Depot to sell them at.



I don't quite follow. Suppose it were the case that a PC can only use 6 items at a time - how would this stop that PC carrying round spare items in his/her backpack (and swapping them in and out as necessary)? To make magic items "special", and get rid of the "Magic Depot", it seems to me you have to do something about the supply of items in the game.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 25, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I don't quite follow. Suppose it were the case that a PC can only use 6 items at a time - how would this stop that PC carrying round spare items in his/her backpack (and swapping them in and out as necessary)? To make magic items "special", and get rid of the "Magic Depot", it seems to me you have to do something about the supply of items in the game.



Heh. I just beat you in with a post that addressed that.

Presumably, if a character is wearing fewer magic items, he'll also have access to fewer magic items. It's not just scaling the character back a little bit, it's scaling the magic item system back a little bit. Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer with that.

Edit: As for the swapping, I think that putting a rule in place that made it so a character needed a day to attune himself to an item's magic would work nicely to prevent abusive swapping of per day/per encounter items.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 25, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> But the designers are tasked with coming up with fun, creative ways of running a game that closely matches what most people want the game to be.




Is it your contention that they haven't?



> In my opinion, from a design standpoint, there's three key benefits to limiting the magic characters wear. First, it helps get rid of the Christmas Tree effect.




Are you sure that getting rid of the Christmas Tree is what most want? Or is it something WotC sees as something many want, but ultimately not the best direction to take the base game in? If the second is true (and I think it is) then a better option is what they've done - allow the easy removal of the Christmas Tree from the game by groups who don't want it, which is something 3e had a _lot_ of trouble with.

So the Christmas Tree isn't necessarily bad, but they decided to make it easily removable. Where they should be lauded here, they have gained nothing but scorn. They might as well have just left it alone, apparently. Few seem to be noting how easily they can run their preferred low-magic-item play style but are instead complaining that their preferred play style isn't the standard in the game.

Well, quite frankly: tough. Your play style doesn't trump mine, and in 4e we can both play the way we want to. I can play badwrongfun and you can play badwrongfun and neither of us will muck the other's game up. People's constant complaining that my game isn't mucked up isn't really winning brownie points on my perspective.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 25, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> So the Christmas Tree isn't necessarily bad, but they decided to make it easily removable. Where they should be lauded here, they have gained nothing but scorn. They might as well have just left it alone, apparently. Few seem to be noting how easily they can run their preferred low-magic-item play style but are instead complaining that their preferred play style isn't the standard in the game.



Please stop with the 'if your opinion is different than mine, you're just complaining that you're not getting you way'. That's not gonna do any good. I've already said why I think what I think is better for the game. If you disagree, fine. But please don't acribe motives to my opinions.

The only other thing I'll comment on in your post is about how supposedly easily removable magic items will be from the system. Call me a cynic, but I'll need to see it to believe it. I'm willing to give WotC some benefit of the doubt, but I'm also not willing to accept it as a foregone conclusion merely because a designer said so.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 25, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> There's certainly plenty of discussion on how to walk the road from Magic Depot to Wondrous & Special, and how far down that road to in fact walk, but I think the basic idea is evident.




That's all fine.  I don't think cutting down the slots NECESSARILY limits the magic depot; after all, they could have just introduced scads of potions and scrolls.  But it certainly doesn't hurt.

My personal magic number for slots would have been 8, incidentally...Weapon, Armor, Shield, Helmet, Cloak, Gloves, Belt, and Boots.  But I'm OK with what we got.


----------



## Benimoto (Jan 25, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> If you limit the number of magic items a character can wear, presumably you're also going to limit the number of magic items he has access to. That makes magic items rarer, which increases their luster. Also, if they have access to fewer magic items, they have fewer unwanted magic items to sell. In fact, if magic items are rarer, their might not be a notable magic item market at all.



Of all the ideas for limiting magic items more than the current system, I like your idea best.  In this thread I've seen a lot of people saying "gah, I hate it" without clearly articulating what the problem is, or how it might be fixed.  You certainly seem to have a good idea of what you want and a reasonable plan on how to achieve it.  With that in mind, a few problems off the top of my head that I see with your idea.

Mainly, given that so many people seem to be chafing at arbitrary limits on things, you must realize that the "3 secondary items only" idea will not be popular.  Look at all the people complaining that you can't wear a cloak and a necklace, or that rings only work once you're 11th level.  Having a limit of three magic items is, in the current jargon, pretty arbitrary and gamist, while having a limit by slots is more simulationist.

I certainly don't see that it will ever make magic items rare enough that there's no noticeable magic item market.  If the PCs get a magical mace, and nobody wants to use a mace, then they're always going to want to sell or trade it.  Without any sort of a magic item market then any treasure the PCs find that they can't use is worthless.  If the items are to have any sort of value at all then the PCs are going to expect to be able to both buy and sell them.

I like your system, and I hope it will be easy to adapt to it for the (apparently large) number of people who want fewer magic items, but I don't see it as a total cure-all.  Further, I admit that I kind of prefer the 4th edition system outlined.  I don't really want a world where I can't wear my new magic belt because I've already got a helmet, boots and a shield.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> False dichotomy. The "Christmas Tree Effect" is about the fact that _any random PC_ is going to have multiple magic items that show up when a _detect magic_ is used. If there's no guaranteed "multiple magic item dependency," then there's, by definition, no Christmas Tree Effect.
> 
> In Fourth Edition, there's only going to be 3 required items: Weapon (or implement), Armor, and Cloak (or necklace). That's hardly a Christmas Tree.




Sorry, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  The Christmas Tree Effect definition I listed has existed pretty consistently for years.  Magic Item dependency has nothing to do with the Christmas Tree Effect.  Hell, the Christmas Tree Effect pre-dates 3e - it's a D&Dism that's gotten progressively worse.  And it negatively (IMO) affects the game.  If you want to change the definition to align it with what WotC has done, that's your perogative.

Hard-wiring the magic items, i.e. forcing the players to rely on them, is definitely a problem within 3.x, esp. at high levels.  Assuming that a 4e character "must" have 3 types of magic items, then yeah, you can argue a decreased reliance on magic items from 3.x.  (Which is what the actual design objective was listed as being.)  Whether the decrease is enough is open to opinion.  However, the sample character presented is covered head-to-toe in magic items.  From where I sit that's a friggin' Christmas Tree, amigo.  

The rules might dictate he only needs 3 of those items, but I bet 4e players won't part with their "non-essential" magic items any easier than they did in previous editions.  I've known players who defined their characters by their equipment long before 3.x, and I doubt it's going to become a rare phenomena.   Since 4e seems to be even more concerned with player rewards than prior editions, I'm betting magic-item load-outs like the example will be the rule, not the exception, in most 4e campaigns.


----------



## rkanodia (Jan 25, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Do you have that quote handy?



From http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=217331&page=2&pp=30



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> The key is that, in most cases, magic items give more options, rather than improvements to existing options.
> 
> Strictly speaking, the fighter with no items is less powerful than the fighter with a ton of items, yet if the campaign tends toward few or no items, the game still functions fine. For instance, the math behind monsters looks to magic items only for the static bonuses that they grant.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 25, 2008)

You can't eliminate the magical item market completely as long as unwanted magical items exist, and as long as whoever makes magical items requires consumer goods.

Wizard: I finished my identification ritual.  This flail is QUITE enchanted.
Rogue: Sweet!  I've always wanted to lay eyes upon enchanted armament, and never thought the day would come!  Can I see it?
Wizard: Sure, take a look.
Rogue: *swings the flail around a bit*
Wizard: Uh, are you sure you know what you're doing with that thing?
Rogue: I've got no idea! *swings flail wildly*
Fighter: *watches cynically* He's telling the truth.
Wizard: Do you know how to use a flail?
Fighter: Sure, I know _how_, but its not my favorite weapon.  I'm a grandmaster swordsman, and that's a horseman's flail.
Wizard: Hey, warlock, do you know how to use a flail?
Warlock: _*feed me souls...*_
Wizard: I'll take that as a no.  What are we going to do with it?
Fighter: Well... the Baron favors a flail.  We could give it to him.
Rogue: What? No way! We're not giving this thing away! Do you know how rare these are?
Fighter: The baron breeds excellent warhorses.  Maybe we could trade.
Wizard: This is worth more than a warhorse, I assure you.
Fighter: Uh, he's also got... what else does he have that we might want?
Warlock: _*a soul...?*_
Wizard: Right.  I seem to recall that he also has huge piles of money.
Fighter: Money? Are you suggesting that we take this rare object of high value that we cannot particularly use, and exchange it for cartloads of currency, which we might then exchange for goods and services we actually require?
Wizard: Yes.
Fighter: Ingenious!


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 25, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Please stop with the 'if your opinion is different than mine, you're just complaining that you're not getting you way'. That's not gonna do any good. I've already said why I think what I think is better for the game. If you disagree, fine. But please don't acribe motives to my opinions.




No.

You don't get to cry out "My playstyle is being stepped on!" while at the same time calling for _my_ playstyle to be stepped on, and claim to be in the right here. You believe, with no supporting evidence, that WotC will not deliver what they state in the article. Fine. You want low-magic-items games to be the norm. Fine. But, then when they hand you a compromise that can give us both what we want, you can't throw it in their face and say "Not good enough."

They've given us both a _great_ compromise. I can play my way, and you can play yours. Is that really not good enough? Do I not get to play my way for you to be happy? You say you are giving them the benefit of the doubt. Well, if that is true, then isn't it true that you shouldn't be assuming they're going to fail?


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 25, 2008)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> Mainly, given that so many people seem to be chafing at arbitrary limits on things, you must realize that the "3 secondary items only" idea will not be popular.  Look at all the people complaining that you can't wear a cloak and a necklace, or that rings only work once you're 11th level.  Having a limit of three magic items is, in the current jargon, pretty arbitrary and gamist, while having a limit by slots is more simulationist.



True. But the current system is already arbitrary. People have just gotten used to it. I mean, in 3E, I can use a magic shirt, but not if I have a magic vest on also? I can't use a magic necklace if I already have another magic necklace on, unless I ad hoc it into a bracelet and put it on my wrist? I can use two magic rings, but not three?

I don't think it's any more arbitrary. It's just different.



			
				Benimoto said:
			
		

> I certainly don't see that it will ever make magic items rare enough that there's no noticeable magic item market.  If the PCs get a magical mace, and nobody wants to use a mace, then they're always going to want to sell or trade it.  Without any sort of a magic item market then any treasure the PCs find that they can't use is worthless.  If the items are to have any sort of value at all then the PCs are going to expect to be able to both buy and sell them.



You wouldn't necessarily have to completely get rid of the magic item market. But maybe the increased rarity means only very large cities and metropolises can feasibly support a magic item store or two. And maybe the limited number of shops makes the rates unfavorable to the PCs, so instead of expecting to just slay some stuff, get some random drops, sell those, and buy what they actually want, they'd be more interested in short adventures to explore rumors of treasure, or track down a powerful item they want for their character from an evil person known to have one, etc. Maybe they'll trade an unwanted magic item with an NPC adventurer they run into at a local guildhall. Or maybe they can get a better rate on their unwanted magic item if they first do a favor for the prospective buyer.

But I'm just thinking out loud at this point. I certainly haven't given detailed thought on all of this.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 25, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> You don't get to cry out "My playstyle is being stepped on!" while at the same time calling for _my_ playstyle to be stepped on, and claim to be in the right here. You believe, with no supporting evidence, that WotC will not deliver what they state in the article. Fine. You want low-magic-items games to be the norm. Fine. But, then when they hand you a compromise that can give us both what we want, you can't throw it in their face and say "Not good enough."
> 
> They've given us both a _great_ compromise. I can play my way, and you can play yours. Is that really not good enough? Do I not get to play my way for you to be happy? You say you are giving them the benefit of the doubt. Well, if that is true, then isn't it true that you shouldn't be assuming they're going to fail?



Honestly, I'm not sure where you're getting most of this from. Since you've already taken my comment to mean...that...I'm not sure what me saying anymore to you would really help, you know? So take care, man.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 25, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Honestly, I'm not sure where you're getting most of this from. Since you've already taken my comment to mean...that...I'm not sure what me saying anymore to you would really help, you know? So take care, man.




That's fine, I just think it needed to be said.


----------



## Benimoto (Jan 25, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> True. But the current system is already arbitrary. People have just gotten used to it. I mean, in 3E, I can use a magic shirt, but not if I have a magic vest on also? I can't use a magic necklace if I already have another magic necklace on, unless I ad hoc it into a bracelet and put it on my wrist? I can use two magic rings, but not three?
> 
> I don't think it's any more arbitrary. It's just different.



I see it as a little less arbitrary only because with slots, particularly with the 4e revamp, you get a general sense that the magic items can't be too close to each other and still work.  It's not perfect, but it's something.  Maybe it is just that I'm used to it, but I can imagine a character in such a world being able to figure it out and theorize about it.  It's kind of a physical-based arbitrary as opposed to a pure number arbitrary.



			
				Bishmon said:
			
		

> You wouldn't necessarily have to completely get rid of the magic item market. But maybe the increased rarity means only very large cities and metropolises can feasibly support a magic item store or two. And maybe the limited number of shops makes the rates unfavorable to the PCs, so instead of expecting to just slay some stuff, get some random drops, sell those, and buy what they actually want, they'd be more interested in short adventures to explore rumors of treasure, or track down a powerful item they want for their character from an evil person known to have one, etc. Maybe they'll trade an unwanted magic item with an NPC adventurer they run into at a local guildhall. Or maybe they can get a better rate on their unwanted magic item if they first do a favor for the prospective buyer.
> 
> But I'm just thinking out loud at this point. I certainly haven't given detailed thought on all of this.



It's possible.  As a DM who often works pretty hard to get his players to follow the shreds of plot or story in his games, that sounds to me like a lot of time and energy spent pursuing magic items as opposed to more interesting stuff.  In fact, that's kind of why I prefer the present system of plentiful, not-particularly-special items: because it means that as a DM I don't have to think about them that much and can spend my time on more interesting stuff.  The rarer and more special the items become, the important they are in the game and the more the game becomes about them.


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 26, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Characters are no longer decked out in magic items like hockey gear, which I'd imagine would help the verisimilitude of a number of players on a number of levels during the game. Second, it would re-value magic items as something special, something wonderful, which I think most would say is a good thing. And third, it would be much, much closer to fantasy literature, which is probably a major source for a lot of people in where they get their expectations for the game.




I think you clarified a reason I am not "feeling" the informatin on magic items.

All the goals you listed above I agree with.  And as a DM/player we with worked within a framework to meet those goals and enjoy our game.  (Because we could revalue and have our magic items special by the way WE played).  Now that will be built into the rules.  Good idea and effective.  But, it takes away our latitude in play style.  And with the solutions built into the game for us, it will make it harder if OUR play style is out of the range of that solution.

Man I hope that made sense, but anyway reading your post clarified it for me...THANKS!


----------



## Andor (Jan 26, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Honestly, I'm not sure where you're getting most of this from. Since you've already taken my comment to mean...that...I'm not sure what me saying anymore to you would really help, you know? So take care, man.




We're getting it from the simple fact that you are looking at a system which appears to be easily adaptable and complaining that you do not want it to be adaptable, you want it to exactly reflect your own prejudices. If you don't know where I'm getting this it is from: _But they haven't provided the option. If they had provided options, I could say, "Hmm, I like that one, I'm going to use that one in my campaign" and be done with it. 

But instead, they've provided the standard. And since that's the standard, if I want to do something differently, I've got to do the work. If I want tables for random treasure, I've gotta make them for my game. If I want fewer slots, I've got to house rule them and communicate those to my players. If I use published adventures, I have to modify them."_

That seems to me to state very clearly that you know you can adapt the rules to your own playstyle, you just don't want to. You'd rather everyone else do the work to adapt from your style. Some of the rest of us are okay with concept of the happy compromise.



			
				Bishamon said:
			
		

> Presumably, if a character is wearing fewer magic items, he'll also have access to fewer magic items. It's not just scaling the character back a little bit, it's scaling the magic item system back a little bit. Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer with that.




I don't think your presumption follows at all there. It's like argueing that because men only have two hands no one would ever own more than 2 guns. Most shooters I know own several. 

If your problem is really with the existance of a magic system which allows magic items to be easily produced than you should address that directly, because I think limiting application in order to limit supply is perhaps not the most efficient way to reach your goal.

You might want to take a look at Earthdawn. In that system most magic items are not manufactured per se, rather they aquire powers as their legend grows. A sword made by a wizard? Big deal, dime a dozen. But the sword that slew the great blue dragon Valhuuzichik? The blade that pierced the heart of the demon of the bloody crossroads? Now you're talking...


----------



## Ahglock (Jan 26, 2008)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> Especially since Mike Mearls explicitly that the math behind the monsters only takes the weapon, armor, and cloak into account - Monster Manual monsters have been tested for their difficulty against a character who is otherwise naked.




  And that is the only thing I take issue with.  I never had a Christmas tree problem, sure maybe they looked like one but no one cared and they had fun, so 9 item s, 12 items whatever.  But saying monsters are balanced around these 3 items, oh yeah you can have 9 items seems silly.  If the other 6 items were pure non-combat items it wouldn't throw off that 3 item balance thing, but they do have combat effects just not a +X to your combat stat type effects on combat.  So in effect there 3 item balance thing is thrown off from the get go.  It is not a huge issue because it basically puts the DM back where he always is, with a crappy CR system.

Its just a  silly statement, monster Manuel monsters are tested against something you wont see in the game a PC with just these 3 items.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Jan 26, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> And that is the only thing I take issue with.  I never had a Christmas tree problem, sure maybe they looked like one but no one cared and they had fun, so 9 item s, 12 items whatever.  But saying monsters are balanced around these 3 items, oh yeah you can have 9 items seems silly.  If the other 6 items were pure non-combat items it wouldn't throw off that 3 item balance thing, but they do have combat effects just not a +X to your combat stat type effects on combat.  So in effect there 3 item balance thing is thrown off from the get go.  It is not a huge issue because it basically puts the DM back where he always is, with a crappy CR system.
> 
> Its just a  silly statement, monster Manuel monsters are tested against something you wont see in the game a PC with just these 3 items.



The impression I get is that the intent with the non-'big 3' items is that their combat usefulness ranges from very minor/situational to non-existent (utility).


----------



## Lenaianel (Jan 26, 2008)

the charater in the article have these magic item (not counting the big 3)

Bracers of the perfect shot
Wavestrider boots
Shadowfell gloves
Diadem of acuity
Belt of battle 
Bag of holding

Do these items make an encounter easier : yes probably for some of them
Do these items make an encounter unfair (as too easy for the character) : i don't think so

Looking througt the magic item compendium we can try to see how powerful these items are 

*Bracers of the perfect shot * compare to Bracers of accuracy (Lvl8 item)(3charges a day , 1 charge : ignore Cover (except total), 2 charges : ignore concealment (except total), 3 charges : ignore cover and concealment (except total) . Useful but you can go without

*Wawestrider boots : *  assuming some sort of water related movement power it's situational : can go without 

*Shadowfell gloves :*compare to Gauntlets of ghost fighting (lvl8 item) : ignore incorporeal miss chace, +1d6 damage against incorporeal creatures : useful but situational

*Diadem of acuity : *  : probably perception bonuses of some sort (initaitive bonus maybe) : i can't tell

*Belt of battle : *  : lvl 13 item : +2 to initiative, 3 charges/day , 1 charge : extra move action, 2 charges : extra standard action, 3 charges : extra full round action : Useful, even very useful but that item could have been toned down (it would be a 20th level item in 4E) 

Bag of holding : nothing to say 


None of these items seems powerful enought to change the odds in a fair encounter.

Comments ?


----------



## Rallek (Jan 26, 2008)

I don't think that the concern is that any given item is too powerful, but rather that certain items will "combine" in a way that is overly beneficial to a particular class/build. When I say "overly beneficial" what I mean is that a build using items with the proper synergistic abilities will be notably more powerful than that same build without. As splat books hit the market, and the number and variety of "optional" magic items expands, this will almost certainly be the case. Consider an "archer" build with items of the following type/ability. (I assume that these are times per day or times per encounter effects)


Boots: allow spiderclimb or levitation
Bracers: allow a ranged weapon to "autocrit"
Gloves: ignore some kind of miss chance
Belt: allow an extra move action
Headband: reduces range-to-hit penalties


Now some of that can be said to be situational, but there is no doubt that in a large number of common scenarios an archer with those items (in addition to the mathematically assumed weapon/armor/cloak) would perform much better than an archer without them. So while the assumptions may not be built into the math, there are (or rather, will be) combinations that are advantageous enough for given "builds" that PCs will feel the need to have them all, or a variation of them. We have heard from the developers that the "core" books assume the "big 3" magic items and nothing else. Now the question becomes that once "ideal" combinations of extra magic items come about, will supplements begin to assume that every archer has an uber boots-belt-glove combo, and design encounters with that as the new assumed standard?


----------



## Lenaianel (Jan 26, 2008)

Seeing how items are designed in the Magix Item Compendium (and assuming 4E follow that design) i believe most of that sort of "crazy combo" would be a 1 or 2 /day occurance


----------



## Rallek (Jan 26, 2008)

I'm not so sure. The developers have been pretty vocal about making the encounter the base unit of play, that leads me to believe that there will be more 1/encounter abilities as opposed to 1/day abilities. I could be wrong about that, but that is the general impression I am left with at this point.


As far as my feelings about the synergistic potential for optional magic items goes, well I'm using the past to predict the future. I saw what happened with splat books released by WoTC and 3rd parties in 3.Xe, and I'm going to assume that those same general trends will likely occur in 4e. This leads me to believe that very soon there will be "optional" magic items that badly distort the math. I also think that we are one "Complete Role" supplements away from a feet that boosts your use of per encounter abilities. There has been a great deal of talk about 4e making combat faster and smoother to run. Based on the various bits and pieces we've seen, I think this translates directly into setting up PCs, NPCs, and Monsters in such a way as to limit the number of rounds that combat lasts. When combat is sufficiently "short", there isn't much distinction between a 3/encounter ability and an at will ability. 



These are simply my concerns about potential issues. It could all run like a swiss watch... then again it could very easily not. You seem to lean towards the former opinion, whereas I seem to lean towards the latter. Time will tell.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Jan 26, 2008)

Rallek said:
			
		

> I don't think that the concern is that any given item is too powerful, but rather that certain items will "combine" in a way that is overly beneficial to a particular class/build. When I say "overly beneficial" what I mean is that a build using items with the proper synergistic abilities will be notably more powerful than that same build without. As splat books hit the market, and the number and variety of "optional" magic items expands, this will almost certainly be the case. Consider an "archer" build with items of the following type/ability. (I assume that these are times per day or times per encounter effects)
> 
> 
> Boots: allow spiderclimb or levitation
> ...



Except, I have a feeling that you won't be able to use all of these items simultaneously. Many Magic Item Compendium items have charges/use per day, which has a two-fold effect: limits how many actions benefit from the power (obviously), and _require an action to activate._ 

 Both of these features will reduce especially synergistic combos of items from being auto-kill all the time, because you can't use them all the time or all at the same time. Also, it may mean a choice between activating a cool class feature or using a magic item. Opportunity cost seems to be another "under the hood" design principle of the new edition.

My only hope is that the DMG spells out these design principles for DM's creating items, and especially for 3rd party publishers who are adding them in their products. Comments along these lines about rules transparency being added to the game are very encouraging.


----------



## Corinth (Jan 26, 2008)

> Originally Posted by mearls
> The key is that, in most cases, magic items give more options, rather than improvements to existing options.
> 
> Strictly speaking, the fighter with no items is less powerful than the fighter with a ton of items, yet if the campaign tends toward few or no items, the game still functions fine. For instance, the math behind monsters looks to magic items only for the static bonuses that they grant.



/facepalm

This?  It will fail, and it won't be pretty.  No one in their right mind fails to gear up as best they can, so I fully expect properly-geared PCs to ROFL-stomp such encounters.  It's this sort of thinking that makes me wonder what's going on at WOTC HQ, and if they really are paying attention to what's actually happening in the gaming world.


----------



## Benimoto (Jan 26, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> /facepalm
> 
> This?  It will fail, and it won't be pretty.  No one in their right mind fails to gear up as best they can, so I fully expect properly-geared PCs to ROFL-stomp such encounters.  It's this sort of thinking that makes me wonder what's going on at WOTC HQ, and if they really are paying attention to what's actually happening in the gaming world.



Well considering they've been running playtests where at least one character has all but one available slot filled with an item, I think they understand that.  I think their idea is that even the best available gear will not allow you to ROFL-stomp encounters.  It may make some encounters easier, but since the gear is situational, unless you have the perfect set of gear for every available situation, you won't have that large of an advantage.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong.  Looking through the 3.5 Monster Manual, I still roll my eyes at the pathetic ACs and HP of some of the mid-high level creatures, especially compared to the later Monster Manuals, where presumable the designers had a better idea of what dedicated minmaxers could do.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jan 26, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> No one in their right mind fails to gear up as best they can, so I fully expect properly-geared PCs to ROFL-stomp such encounters.




It's this kind of thinking that makes me wonder what is going on in the minds of the 4e bashers.   

4e Magic Items don't give numerical bonuses (Except for the special 3).  They give neat actions that swap in for other powers in the action economy.  They don't add on, they replace something else.


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 26, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> 4e Magic Items don't give numerical bonuses (Except for the special 3).  They give neat actions that swap in for other powers in the action economy.  They don't add on, they replace something else.



And if those new options are clearly better than that character's previous options?

It's not quite as black-and-white as "Since there's no numerical bonuses, they'll be fine and won't have much of an impact."


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 26, 2008)

Rallek said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure. The developers have been pretty vocal about making the encounter the base unit of play, that leads me to believe that there will be more 1/encounter abilities as opposed to 1/day abilities. I could be wrong about that, but that is the general impression I am left with at this point.
> 
> 
> As far as my feelings about the synergistic potential for optional magic items goes, well I'm using the past to predict the future. I saw what happened with splat books released by WoTC and 3rd parties in 3.Xe, and I'm going to assume that those same general trends will likely occur in 4e. This leads me to believe that very soon there will be "optional" magic items that badly distort the math. I also think that we are one "Complete Role" supplements away from a feet that boosts your use of per encounter abilities. There has been a great deal of talk about 4e making combat faster and smoother to run. Based on the various bits and pieces we've seen, I think this translates directly into setting up PCs, NPCs, and Monsters in such a way as to limit the number of rounds that combat lasts. When combat is sufficiently "short", there isn't much distinction between a 3/encounter ability and an at will ability.
> ...





First I think combat will last long enough to see a difference between /encounter and /at will. It is also mentioned in races and classes, that at least for mages, per encounter abilities are the main weapons. per day are for special situations and at will abilities are as reserve. (fighters at will powers seem a bit stronger though)

second I share your concerns, that splatbooks will once again imbalance the game, but this time I see a big difference: hopefully, the balance between classes and weapons and the math for multiclassing and attack vs armor etc is correct. So splatbooks are not needed as fixes for those things, so you can run the game without those books. (it was not that bad in 3.x if you constantly reminded your players not to specialize too much in single skills/combat options) And every splatbook with fixes opened new room for exploits :/

last: the core books set standarts: there are only two races of elves, player character races should be of equal power, only primary slots can have magical +X. Sure, some books will begin to make exceptions, but here the DM can easily say "stop".


----------



## Stogoe (Jan 26, 2008)

No, *here's what YOU don't get.*

There are only three numerical bonuses in the entire realm of magical items.  Three only, and no stacking.

The rest of them are "Walk on walls for one encounter per day" or "Breathe water for one encounter per day" or "The Gauntlets of Ogre Strength give you a double damage maneuver that you could use instead of your class maneuvers."  More options, and not making your numbers bigger.

I suggest you go back and actually read the Design & Dev article before you try to join the discussion.

And 'gear up'?  'Gear up'?  This simple, naive statement opens a whole can of worms about the (non)existence of magic shops and how many items your particular DM gives out.  I'm not even going to touch that.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 26, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> No one in their right mind fails to gear up as best they can, so I fully expect properly-geared PCs to ROFL-stomp such encounters.




No DM in his right mind allows his players to gain access to all those pretty items. IF they happen to find items which combine very well, and they realize how to use them in the right situation, the players deserve to have an easier encounter.

If all encounters are equally difficult no mater how well equipped they are, then something is actually wrong with the math. A certain standard must be chosen, or do you like entries in the monster manual like this (in 3.x terms): CR 15. +5 if in antimagic zone, -3 if players have item x, -2 if players have item z, +1 if a mage is in party, -5 if enemy is an elf. Halflings may jump on it and kill it immediately -> CR -15


----------



## Sadrik (Jan 26, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> It's this kind of thinking that makes me wonder what is going on in the minds of the 4e bashers.
> 
> 4e Magic Items don't give numerical bonuses (Except for the special 3).  They give neat actions that swap in for other powers in the action economy.  They don't add on, they replace something else.



I doubt it will be as binary as: give bonus/not give bonus.


----------



## Kraydak (Jan 26, 2008)

Stogoe said:
			
		

> No, *here's what YOU don't get.*
> 
> There are only three numerical bonuses in the entire realm of magical items.  Three only, and no stacking.
> 
> ...




We have seen comments about Flying Carpets.  This means that there will be people who can't fly, and can afford magic items that let them fly.  If flying is at all reasonably available, flying is not optional.  Flying is that powerful.  A lot of mobility items are nice, but not needed until you hit a critical mass of people who have that form of mobility, at which point they become required because you *assume* you have the tactical flexibility that they grant.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 26, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> And if those new options are clearly better than that character's previous options?
> 
> It's not quite as black-and-white as "Since there's no numerical bonuses, they'll be fine and won't have much of an impact."




Well if any new option is > not having an option, then yes.

If having a situational benefit =/= having a permanent benefit, then no.

Imagine back to 3.5. Which would you rather have?

a. )Gauntlets of Arrow Snaring: 2/day use snatch arrows feat (4,000 gp)
b.) Gloves of Dexterity: +2 to dexterity score (4,000 gp)
c.) No Glove Slot Filled

A and B are clearly better than C, since both grant a tangible benefit to the wearer. In most games, B > than A, since the ability to grab (and thus stop) a nonmagical projectile twice in a day is not equal to a +1 AC, +1 reflex save, +1 dex-based skill checks, +1 initiative, and +1 ranged attacks.

Now, in a hypothetical situation where two PCs (each wearing a set of appropriate gloves) come under missile fire from some gnoll archers. The first PC (a) uses his two charges to completely negate two separate non-20 arrow attacks. After that, he's done, and those gauntlets become equal to Option C (none). The second PC's gloves are only granting him a minor bonus (+1) to his AC against the arrows, but this minor bonus persists the entire encounter (assuming the gnolls are not defeated in two rounds, the net benefit of a +1 to AC begins to improve over negating two whole attacks for every round after the second). Furthermore, his bonus extends to his initiative roll to act against the gnolls and his ranged attacks to return fire. 

Now, on the second round, a gnoll jumps into melee. PC A still has a snatch arrow charge, but against the gnolls battle axe, its useless (equal to option C), while PC be is still grooving on that +1 to AC vs. that gnoll in melee. 

This was the dilemma facing a 3.5 character. Nobody ever said "I don't want magic gloves, they make my hand's chafe". They said "why should I buy/make/acquire a set of gauntlets that grant me a limited benefit in a limited situation when I can have a set of gloves that grant me a bonus over a huge amount of rolls for as long as I wear them?" Fourth has removed option b from the equation (by regulating things like AC bonuses to armor and ranged atk bonuses to weapons) so you now get options A and C. A is useful against those gnoll archers for two rounds (and is certainly doing better than a PC with no gauntlets) but after two rounds (and against the melee gnoll) options A and C are equal. 

That is the balancing factor: limited uses, limited situations. In a situation where having the magical item is useful (such as negating the gnoll archer's arrows) its nice to have. When dealing with a situation where the item no longer works (two uses) or is ineffectual (melee gnoll) its not any better than having nothing at all.


----------



## Corinth (Jan 26, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> It's this kind of thinking that makes me wonder what is going on in the minds of the 4e bashers.
> 
> 4e Magic Items don't give numerical bonuses (Except for the special 3).  They give neat actions that swap in for other powers in the action economy.  They don't add on, they replace something else.



The ability to act in a manner that provides an advantage that your foe doesn't have, to take away your foe's advantage, or to change the fight entirely is nothing short of fundamental to a successful adventurer's operation.  Items do this, and that means that they can be--and will be--collected and hot-swapped as required to meet current conditions.


----------



## Corinth (Jan 26, 2008)

Stogoe said:
			
		

> And 'gear up'?  'Gear up'?  This simple, naive statement opens a whole can of worms about the (non)existence of magic shops and how many items your particular DM gives out.  I'm not even going to touch that.



Players can still have their PCs craft items.  Trade for items will remain legal.  That removes the control over gearing up from the DM's hands and puts it into the players' hands.  It also makes gear expendable and replaceable for everything short of an artifact.  Welcome to August 2000.


----------



## Thaniel (Jan 27, 2008)

I'm seeing a lot of ranting about the "No rings below Paragon level" tidbit of info we've received. Has it not occurred to the detractors (and I'm guessing it hasn't) that the reason 'Heroic' characters can't use rings is because rings (and all rings) have magic inherently tied to powers that aren't usable before Paragon level?

For example, let's take a hypothetical Magic Ring (in 3.Xe) that doubles the damage bonus granted by Improved Weapon Specialization. To a 6th level fighter, that ring is absolutely worthless. The "No rings below Paragon level" doesn't say that the character can't WEAR the ring. That would be a hard trick to pull off. It merely means that they get no benefit from it, similar to our hypothetical ring.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 27, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> Players can still have their PCs craft items.  Trade for items will remain legal.  That removes the control over gearing up from the DM's hands and puts it into the players' hands.  It also makes gear expendable and replaceable for everything short of an artifact.  Welcome to August 2000.




I remember wizards crafting magical items in 2e (High Level Campaigns) and we've been trading magical items since BECMI (+1 full plate for a ring of fire resistance? sold!)

Welcome to 1989.


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Jan 27, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> The ability to act in a manner that provides an advantage that your foe doesn't have, to take away your foe's advantage, or to change the fight entirely is nothing short of fundamental to a successful adventurer's operation.  Items do this, and that means that they can be--and will be--collected and hot-swapped as required to meet current conditions.



This is, of course, my opinion based on the information we've been provided - I think you're thinking these secondary items are much more powerful than WotC is designing them.  

My extrapolation from the way they've been talking about magic items and their seeming attitude toward the game is that they might give you a minor advantage in a specific situation, or a nice advantage for one encounter once a day.  

I don't think there will be any items that have the ability to "change the fight entirely" - at least not beyond the opponent's ability to counter.  I'm assuming you're talking about flight here (and, in any case, it's the easiest example to think of).  It appears that flight will be a much more high-powered capability than it was in 3.X, and I think this is true of many abilities associated with spellcasting.  Their article on magic item levels said that flying carpets were 18th level.  Just about Epic, and judging by the rest of their magic items talk, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a limit on the amount of time it could be airborne in a day, meaning you couldn't fly in every encounter.  Of course, we don't know if that number is solid or not, but I think I've made my point.  As far as I can see, you're exaggerating the potential of these secondary items.  

~LS


----------



## Voss (Jan 27, 2008)

I think he's spot on.  A +1 or +2 bonus (or even higher) can be negligible compared to some of the options that can come in through the secondary items, particularly when they are interacting with other game elements.  And WotC has a long history of missing the subtle interactions.  

Think about items like metamagic rods, and the complete debacle that is the humble Nightstick, or the Amulet of Throwing Giant Scorpions around.   No enhancement bonuses to be seen, but they make a huge difference or help break the game entirely.  And yeah, I know they aren't the answer to everything, but they blow some encounters and situations right out of the water.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 27, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I think he's spot on.  A +1 or +2 bonus (or even higher) can be negligible compared to some of the options that can come in through the secondary items, particularly when they are interacting with other game elements.  And WotC has a long history of missing the subtle interactions.
> 
> Think about items like metamagic rods, and the complete debacle that is the humble Nightstick, or the Amulet of Throwing Giant Scorpions around.   No enhancement bonuses to be seen, but they make a huge difference or help break the game entirely.  And yeah, I know they aren't the answer to everything, but they blow some encounters and situations right out of the water.




It should be noted that the first two issues deal with increasing the power of magic spells, which already were the most powerful, versatile effects in the game. WOTC has said that 4E _HAS_ taken a nerf bat to this though....

Well, I have a thread on this but I can also ask it here. We've been talking theoretical but let's look at the possible options.

Assuming you were using the Magic Item Compendium, but had to follow the rules of 4E, what would be the most powerful set of secondary items a person could wear? What's the best set of gear a person with half that money could wear? 

For example, in the *arms* category, the best a character could have is either the Bracers of Dawn or the Overbearing Shield.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 27, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> No DM in his right mind allows his players to gain access to all those pretty items.




You do realize that you've essentially stated that no DM in his right mind would play 3e. 

Because this is the most significant flaw with 3e when it comes to magic items: Item Creation and the ability to trade in magic items.



> IF they happen to find items which combine very well, and they realize how to use them in the right situation, the players deserve to have an easier encounter.




And *this* is the problem with the Big Six. Not that they ever existed in 3e, simply that the designers did not anticipate (for whatever reason) that players would zero in on those six items as the best possible place to focus their resources. It was not anticipated that players would all have the Big Six constantly enchanted to a bonus appropriate for their level. 

The Big Six _in brutally efficient combination_ broke the 3e math, and it was Item Creation and the trade in magic items that got them there.



> If all encounters are equally difficult no mater how well equipped they are, then something is actually wrong with the math.




I remain highly skeptical that the math is "fixed," despite only having three "+" items. The example we saw showed some +2 items in the hands of 9th level character, and everyone says, "Oh, sure, that makes sense. I could live without a +2 bonus. A character with no items can hang with a character with items."

What of the +5 items? It doesn't much matter what you do with the math, a +5 bonus on a 1d20 is _not_ irrelevant to the outcome. 

If one fighter has a +5 sword and +5 armor and the other does not, the math is not fixed.

It seems to me that the game is "fixed" only in the sense that the DM could have a campaign with magic items or without, and it's equally balanced-- but that's mostly true of 3e already. "Everyone sucks!" is certainly balanced-- the math works just fine. 

It certainly doesn't appear to be the case that within a given 4e campaign, two different characters could have a different baseline of gear and the "math still works."


----------



## broghammerj (Jan 27, 2008)

I'll throw out a few thoughts which may differ from much of this thread (I did read 16 pages..ugh)

By tying the +'s to specific spots you really can limit some character concepts.  What if I want to make a swashbuckler type character who doesn't wear armor?  No more bracers of defense really hurts him.  Or perhaps an unarmored fighter who simply wields a longsword and shield?  To make the concept playable, his shield certainly needs a defense bonus.  We haven't seen if there are benefits for some classes for being unarmored.  Wizards are addressed in that their robes can be "armor", but there are a lot of other non-armored characters around.

Who really cares if there is stacking as long as it's limited to +5.....Why is leather armor +3 and a magic shield +2 so dangerous?  Achieves the same goal, but isn't so limiting.

Ring level restrictions....I'll echo what a lot of others have said.  Seems pretty arbitrary.  The previous poster who brought up the ring of warmth is spot on for a great ring for heroic level characters.  Heck I would even argue that all body slots should have some items restricted or at least suggested for paragon and epic level characters.  Why can't there be a super powerful belt that only and epic character can wear?

I agreed with many that DnD is defined by having +1 swords, but the more I think about it the more we should think out of the box.  Would you really complain if you had a sword which was a flame tongue at heroic, allowed fire resistance at paragon, and allowed you to transform into a fire elemental 1/day as an epic character.  The +1 sword would be left in the dungeon.

Lastly, as Jester said.  Function should take precedent over body slots.  You may like boots of speed but perhaps I like a similar concept of cheetah leather armor.  Either way we could be restricted to one movement item.


----------



## broghammerj (Jan 27, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Because this is the most significant flaw with 3e when it comes to magic items: Item Creation and the ability to trade in magic items.




Do we know item creation is limited in 4E?  It may be appropriate for a 9th level character to have a +2 sword, but nothing will stop a character from purchasing or creating a +5 items ASAP.

The only way I could see this being prevented is limiting the PC from what could be wielded by level.  Many that have already cried that ring restrictions are gamist or MMORPG-like would be unhappy.  I would be cool with the concept


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 27, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> .
> 
> It certainly doesn't appear to be the case that within a given 4e campaign, two different characters could have a different baseline of gear and the "math still works."




Hmm? 

The article explicitly states that you must have the primary 3 for your level and the secondary is all optional. Unless I'm reading it wrong, what WOTC is saying is that,
Level X characters must have 3 items, everything else is optional.

What exactly is your complaint?

re: Item slot restrictions.

I think they did this to make an endrun around future supplements. If you allow function to top form, you could end up with the same problem as 3.5 later supplements that introduced new types of bonuses.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 27, 2008)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> Do we know item creation is limited in 4E?  It may be appropriate for a 9th level character to have a +2 sword, but nothing will stop a character from purchasing or creating a +5 items ASAP.
> 
> The only way I could see this being prevented is limiting the PC from what could be wielded by level.  Many that have already cried that ring restrictions are gamist or MMORPG-like would be unhappy.  I would be cool with the concept




I think we already know that Item Creation exists, but is limited to _Rituals_-- but we don't know what those are.

With regards to the trade in magic items, we can extrapolate some things from the default "Points of Light" setting, but we don't know for sure.

The bottom line is quite simply this:

If it is in any way possible to purchase or create magic items, players are still going to be inclined (some say "required") to loot everything that isn't nailed down in order to afford to consistently maintain their BIG THREE at whatever enhancement bonus is appropriate for their current level.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 27, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> You do realize that you've essentially stated that no DM in his right mind would play 3e.
> 
> Because this is the most significant flaw with 3e when it comes to magic items: Item Creation and the ability to trade in magic items.




this is my biggest grief with 3.x

a lot of players i played with began with baldurs gate always expected magic item shops to be everywhere. I was used to magical items beeing rare.

The problem in 3.x is exactly, that I could not easily restrict accessibility because gold + xp = magical item. (No ingredients or manual needed). And without defensive items the math didn´t work at all.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> And *this* is the problem with the Big Six. Not that they ever existed in 3e, simply that the designers did not anticipate (for whatever reason) that players would zero in on those six items as the best possible place to focus their resources. It was not anticipated that players would all have the Big Six constantly enchanted to a bonus appropriate for their level.



actually every high level NSC in the DMG 3.0 had those items. not all of them, but 2 or 3 of them. The Problem of the big six is, that they are good in all situations!



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The Big Six _in brutally efficient combination_ broke the 3e math, and it was Item Creation and the trade in magic items that got them there.




yes, and they are out of 4e



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I remain highly skeptical that the math is "fixed," despite only having three "+" items. The example we saw showed some +2 items in the hands of 9th level character, and everyone says, "Oh, sure, that makes sense. I could live without a +2 bonus. A character with no items can hang with a character with items."




no, having a +2 armor vs +0 armor can be as much as a 67% damage reduction (criticals not factored in) so that armor is important for the fighters, but if this is the case, the exact same fighter without that armor would only have been hit by 18+

So this armor makes a very good fighter nearly invincible. But for a bad fighter the bonus is not that great.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> What of the +5 items? It doesn't much matter what you do with the math, a +5 bonus on a 1d20 is _not_ irrelevant to the outcome.
> 
> If one fighter has a +5 sword and +5 armor and the other does not, the math is not fixed.



if you are the only one in the world posessing a sword of that greatness, it should better give you an edge over the rest. otherwise a +5 sword would be senseless. The important fact is, that all other characters can have a fair fight if noone else has magical items, and the one having such a great weapon can really shine.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It seems to me that the game is "fixed" only in the sense that the DM could have a campaign with magic items or without, and it's equally balanced-- but that's mostly true of 3e already. "Everyone sucks!" is certainly balanced-- the math works just fine.




no, even a lvl 20 fighter can easily be hit by a lvl 1 commoner. (not considering combat expertise and fighting defensively and that hp represent dodging in a certain way)

You actually should be able to hit him, but not if he is aware of you. Defense and BAB should go up, and 1/2 per level seems exactly right to me. (look at gleemax, i expected this before R&C came out)



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It certainly doesn't appear to be the case that within a given 4e campaign, two different characters could have a different baseline of gear and the "math still works."




no, but that actually should not work. look at any war. Those sides with better equippment mostly won. But then there were always some battles, where the underequipped won because of other circumstances. There is a point in 3.x, where that is no longer true. 

You had to be constantly restricting the availability of magical items to the players. Sometimes you could only help yourself by ruling, that most players just don´t know such items exist, but having a bard and a mage with reasonable knowledge skills in the group makes this a bit hard to believe...

And to make it clear: secondary items also should have an impact on encounters, but they should not make all encounters equally easy. "Gearing up" and "buffing" IS a viable option, but it should not be the standard for every encounter. Only on the most important quests!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 27, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Hmm?
> 
> The article explicitly states that you must have the primary 3 for your level and the secondary is all optional. Unless I'm reading it wrong, what WOTC is saying is that,
> Level X characters must have 3 items, everything else is optional.
> ...




First, I don't have a _complaint._ I have some observations.

Second, I think we've seen them say consistently that you don't have to have magic items to feel effective. That is true only if there is a campaign standard, confirmed by this:



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> Strictly speaking, the fighter with no items is less powerful than the fighter with a ton of items, yet if the campaign tends toward few or no items, the game still functions fine.




Setting aside for a moment the case where there is not a campaign standard-- my fighter has +5 sword, armor, and resistance bonus and you don't-- it is curious that the monsters are balanced in a campaign both with +5 items, and without. That math doesn't work out. 

If the default setting is balanced around magic items (and we have indications from Mearls that it's so, but that a newbie DM could run a magic-lite campaign with 30 minutes of work...) then there's a problem. If the monsters are balanced around magic items, then _not_ having the new Big Three is _sub-optimal_.

Sub-optimal play is not the default. The players won't allow it.

While it's certainly true that only having to spend your cash on the Big Three instead of the Big Six is an improvement-- you'll have plenty of money left over for those other magic items they assure us are worthless-- it is my observation that that isn't exactly the fix that a lot of folks were anticipating.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 27, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> The article explicitly states that you must have the primary 3 for your level and the secondary is all optional. Unless I'm reading it wrong, what WOTC is saying is that,
> Level X characters must have 3 items, everything else is optional.
> 
> What exactly is your complaint?



The complaint is there in Wulf's sig:


			
				Corinth said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as "optional" when it comes to personal power. Those that strive to maximize their character's personal power will be the norm, the standard against which all others compare, and that means that players that fail to fill their character's slots with all of these items--and, at that, the best attainable--shall be penalized for failing to meet this de facto standard of performance.




If they design the "optional" items as so trivial that they don't really increase a PC's power (or, if they all cost actions and the opportunity cost of using them is very high), then it might work.  But if items give a significant bonus without a significant cost, they cease to become optional.  PCs with them will be much stronger than PCs without them (especially once the right combos are discovered), the DMs must make "level X" monsters tougher, and the baseline shifts.

Having played a druid, I can tell you this: "More Options" DOES equal "More Power."  Versatility is powerful.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 27, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> First, I don't have a _complaint._ I have some observations.
> 
> Second, I think we've seen them say consistently that you don't have to have magic items to feel effective. That is true only if there is a campaign standard



right.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Setting aside for a moment the case where there is not a campaign standard-- my fighter has +5 sword, armor, and resistance bonus and you don't-- it is curious that the monsters are balanced in a campaign both with +5 items, and without. That math doesn't work out.
> 
> If the default setting is balanced around magic items (and we have indications from Mearls that it's so, but that a newbie DM could run a magic-lite campaign with 30 minutes of work...) then there's a problem. If the monsters are balanced around magic items, then _not_ having the new Big Three is _sub-optimal_.
> 
> ...




imagine a low magical campaign. Then, when you give out magical items, you give out really great items. (About double of the expected bonuses)

imagine a +4 armor at level 9. If you then face a standard monster which relies on physical attacks, the math still works out. Both of you hit less than expected. This is actually only true in an optimal case, but it is better than when the monster was balanced for no magic at all, because then, no matter how bad the magical item is, it gets unfair.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 27, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Having played a druid, I can tell you this: "More Options" DOES equal "More Power."  Versatility is powerful.




But mostly because it leaves more room for creativity. And this is a design goal i can live with. The problem of the "big 6": they eliminated all creativity.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 27, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> If they design the "optional" items as so trivial that they don't really increase a PC's power (or, if they all cost actions and the opportunity cost of using them is very high), then it might work.




No, it won't work-- at least, not if there is still a trade in magic items.

If Fred the Fighter finds a suit of +1 armor, and Bob the Bard finds a pipe full of magical tobacco that lets him summon forth a leprechaun 3/day to entertain him with ribald limericks,  and the monsters are balanced with Big Three built in, then Bob is a goddamned fool if he doesn't sell his magic pipe at the first possible opportunity and buy himself a +1 chain shirt.



			
				UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> But mostly because it leaves more room for creativity. And this is a design goal i can live with. The problem of the "big 6" eliminated all creativity.




It seems the designers share this pollyanna attitude about the playerbase. But in the real world, players don't want creativity if there is a path to power. 

Anecdotally, yes. In your campaign, sure. But in the giant, brutal, ruthless crucible of the players at large, no. That is the lesson _proved_ by the Big Six/Item Creation.


----------



## Andor (Jan 27, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> No, it won't work-- at least, not if there is still a trade in magic items.
> 
> If Fred the Fighter finds a suit of +1 armor, and Bob the Bard finds a pipe full of magical tobacco that lets him summon forth a leprechaun 3/day to entertain him with ribald limericks,  and the monsters are balanced with Big Three built in, then Bob is a goddamned fool if he doesn't sell his magic pipe at the first possible opportunity and buy himself a +1 chain shirt.
> 
> ...




I don't think I understand your point. In a game where standard access is given to magic items players will aquire the core 3 and be roughly balanced with each other.

In a corner caser light magic campaign the PCs will not have access to the core 3 and will be weaker in comparison to PCs who... are in a different campaign? Not sure how relevant that is. They will also be computably weaker than the monsters in a standard encounter which the GM can compensate for by A) Handing out non magic bonuses that just happen to fill the void left by the missing big 3, B) Weakening the encounters, C) Providing more healing or D) Nothing and the the PCs whine a lot.   

I don't see any of this being a symptom of poor design. Am I missing something?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 27, 2008)

And i am glad, the rules suport some creativity over power.

And as a DM, you can encourage your players to be creative. The problem of 3.x is:
you can´t be consistent, since some items are essential.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 27, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> First, I don't have a _complaint._ I have some observations.
> 
> Second, I think we've seen them say consistently that you don't have to have magic items to feel effective. That is true only if there is a campaign standard, confirmed by this:
> 
> ...




Ah I see. My reading of Mearls post was that he was talking about the SECONDARY magic items and not the primary.

You were assuming that 4E would eliminate the NEED for ALL magic items. A valid idea though but which wouldn't be possible as long as there were +1 items and which I don't think WOTC was talking about. WOTC did say we were getting a shrub instead of a tree since last year.

I do see it as a good thing and a vast improvement that we have dropped from the big six (which even then, didn't apply to all classes) to the big three.

As for the optional secondary items being too powerful, I have asked a couple times posters worried about it to point out which items in the 3.5E Magic Item Compendium become the next "MUST HAVEs" based on the 4E rules.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 27, 2008)

I also would prefer not to call them big three. The "big six" (i hope we were speaing about the stat boosters) were eliminated, and the big three are even a less important than the old AC, attack and Saving throw boosting items.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 27, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> As for the optional secondary items being too powerful, I have asked a couple times posters worried about it to point out which items in the 3.5E Magic Item Compendium become the next "MUST HAVEs" based on the 4E rules.




That seems like a bit of a silly question, to me, isn't that like asking which items from oWoD are likely to be problems in nWoD? I mean, quite possibly the answer is "none", but that it no way means that new items won't cause problems, does it? So why are you asking that question?


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 27, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> That seems like a bit of a silly question, to me, isn't that like asking which items from oWoD are likely to be problems in nWoD? I mean, quite possibly the answer is "none", but that it no way means that new items won't cause problems, does it? So why are you asking that question?




Not necessarily since we can see the "effects" which might be unbalancing. I'm one of those DMs that likes to head things off of the pass.

For example, with the arms slot in 4E replacing the shield/arms slot of 3.5, what effects previously seen as "not worth it" become "must haves".

An example is Flight. In the Magic Item Compendium, there are two Feet items that give Flight. The Winged Boots at 16K and the Cloudwalker Ankelets at 50K and for most campaigns I imagine, the Winged Boots are good enough.

However, as mentioned before, Flight doesn't change the combat math, but it does change the number of options which in a way does give more power which isn't as easily calculated.

Another example would be the Belt of Battle. In the Action Economy charwoman gene pointed out we have in 4E, Belts of Battle look like a must have (or at least, a heavily picked one).


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jan 27, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> I also would prefer not to call them big three. The "big six" (i hope we were speaing about the stat boosters) were eliminated, and the big three are even a less important than the old AC, attack and Saving throw boosting items.




The big six weren't ability boosters. They were, IIRC, the magic armor (and shields), Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, magic weapon, Cloak of Resistance and stat-boosting items. It didn't always amount to six for each character; a fighter could use all but one of those (Con-boosting items and Cloaks of Resistance took up the same slot).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 27, 2008)

ok, thx for clarification!


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 27, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> No, it won't work-- at least, not if there is still a trade in magic items.
> 
> If Fred the Fighter finds a suit of +1 armor, and Bob the Bard finds a pipe full of magical tobacco that lets him summon forth a leprechaun 3/day to entertain him with ribald limericks,  and the monsters are balanced with Big Three built in, then Bob is a goddamned fool if he doesn't sell his magic pipe at the first possible opportunity and buy himself a +1 chain shirt.



Personally, I despise magic shops.  But if 4E wants them, it's possible to make it so they don't break the system.  

For example: make Miscellaneous Six so low-priced that you can't trade them in for the Big Three.  The Leprechaun Pipe sells for 50 GP, and you need 5,000 GP for the +1 armor.  

And the Big Three need such limited availability that Heroic-tier PCs can't just buy their way to more valuable items than they should have at their level.  Perhaps the only people who would have Paragon-tier items to sell are in the capital city, which is a journey the PCs won't be able to make until they're Paragon-tier.

While the DM can try to control how much gold the PCs have, that just isn't possible in any world with a degree of freedom for the PCs.  The PCs can always choose to raid the caravan they're supposed to be guarding, or try to steal back the money they paid to the armorer.  Limiting what the PCs can do with that money is a far better solution.  That's why 3E's assumption of a magic shop in every village was such a disaster, and why BECMI never had that problem IME.  You had a lot of money in BECMI?  You might buy a ship and hire a crew to go explore The Savage Coast.  Or you might save up to build a castle.  But the game was clear that there were no magic shops.


----------



## glass (Jan 27, 2008)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> But instead, they've provided the standard.



This, you have said repeatedly. Despite the fact one example character is in no way evidence of what the standard is (or even if there is a standard!). Everything else they have said indicates that for secondary  items, at least, there is no standard.


glass.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 27, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Personally, I despise magic shops.  But if 4E wants them, it's possible to make it so they don't break the system.
> 
> For example: make Miscellaneous Six so low-priced that you can't trade them in for the Big Three.  The Leprechaun Pipe sells for 50 GP, and you need 5,000 GP for the +1 armor.




I'm not sure that solves the problem. It just means the players will be as attentive (and dependent) on looting 50 gp Leprechaun Pipes as they (currently) are about 50 gp gems. 

You get the behavior you reward for: If there is a reward for looting, PCs will loot. 

If there were no Item Creation feats and no demand for gold pieces to drive that mechanic, the players would not care one whit whether or not the goblins they just vanquished had 2d6 gold pieces each.

Of course the classic treasure hoard is an important part of the game, but I'd prefer that it was a story element rather than simply a path to upgrading the Big Six (Big Three).



> Limiting what the PCs can do with that money is a far better solution.  That's why 3E's assumption of a magic shop in every village was such a disaster, and why BECMI never had that problem IME.  You had a lot of money in BECMI?  You might buy a ship and hire a crew to go explore The Savage Coast.  Or you might save up to build a castle.  But the game was clear that there were no magic shops.




Could not agree more. This, to me, is the best solution (although perhaps not a popular one). PCs should not be _money_ driven-- that is, there should be no direct connection between money and mechanics. I would much rather that PCs were _adventure_ driven. 

Of course it is important to find something for the PCs to do with their money-- that is, assuming it is important to your players that they ever _find_ any money-- but it is imperative to sever the connection between money and mechanics. 

I am hoping that the Item Creation Rituals are much more adventure driven (and I strongly expect they will be).


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 27, 2008)

This is why I like Reign so much. It offers a mechanical reward for losing your money in-between adventures for whatever reason, simulating the "eternally poor" band of traveling adventurers in fiction.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 27, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Limiting what the PCs can do with that money is a far better solution.  That's why 3E's assumption of a magic shop in every village was such a disaster, and why BECMI never had that problem IME.  You had a lot of money in BECMI?  You might buy a ship and hire a crew to go explore The Savage Coast.  Or you might save up to build a castle.  But the game was clear that there were no magic shops.




Ok, but what if your character has no interest in settling down into a castle or buying a boat and exploring foreign lands? What if he's perfectly happy to continue to wander, explore, and stay close to "home". What if the DM's campaign doesn't allow for or hasn't room for landed PCs or "lets go sail to the savage coast" games? 

I played a game in the Hollow World, where magic, even civilization is rare, but treasure is kinda plentiful. I had bags of gold, an entire collection of magical swords and axes (who needs that stuff when you have blackrazor?  ) and absolutely nothing to spend/use it on except my own upkeep. We often started "ruining" local economies by dumping excess magical junk and gold at the local shaman's to allow for trade, commerce and war. The DM was less than amused, but what could we do?

While I personally don't like the idea of "Ye Olde Magik Shoppe" in every village, I do think there would be a viable buy/sell/trade market for magic and I was was happy to see 3e support it (in principle). However, in execution, it left much to be desired.


----------



## Belorin (Jan 27, 2008)

> Magic Items
> Posted By: WotC_Logan, 10/15/2007 5:27:39 PM
> 
> 
> ...




From Logan Bonner's blog at WotC.

One of the biggest discrepancies I think people make is when talking about any 4E article is that they use 3.x items, monsters, etc as a comparison for what ever the article is about. Which is why I searched out LB's blog, it states that magic items have been reworked, so even if an item has the same name as one in 3.x it may not function the same. Example, rings, rings are now restricted to use of one at paragon tier and two at epic, why?
It could be that rings have now been patterned after the Rings of Power from Tolkien or mythology and folklore or they may have just removed items that duplicate spells, powers or other magic items.

Bel


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 27, 2008)

I've gone through most of this thread but I might have missed if this statement was discussed (from the front page):



> Just give PCs steadily increasing, additional bonuses to their AC, saving throws, and attack and damage, directly proportionate to the enhancement bonus they're "expected" to get, and eliminate the enhancement bonus those items provide.




To which Mike Mearls responds:



> Yup, that's pretty much the intent. We went out of our way to embrace transparency in the rules, to better help DMs understand how magic items interact with PCs, how they interact with the system math, and what happens when you start to change things.




His answer was a little vague but overall, this bothers me somewhat.

If it's understood that the Big 6 caused an arms race/numbers bloat problem, then why replace those "expected" bonuses at all, regardless of their source?  I understand why Mike had to do it with Iron Heroes (those classes had to "compete" without magic items) but if you are creating a new scale (i.e. 4E), why keep those sources of bonuses at all?  If you are creating a new system, there should be no "expected" bonuses at all.  Remove the magic items that were troublesome in 3ed (the Big 6) and but don't replace them with an equivalent bonus from another source. 

That just seems like semantics to me.


----------



## Lab_Monkey (Jan 27, 2008)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> I'll throw out a few thoughts which may differ from much of this thread (I did read 16 pages..ugh)
> 
> By tying the +'s to specific spots you really can limit some character concepts.  What if I want to make a swashbuckler type character who doesn't wear armor?  No more bracers of defense really hurts him.  Or perhaps an unarmored fighter who simply wields a longsword and shield?  To make the concept playable, his shield certainly needs a defense bonus.  We haven't seen if there are benefits for some classes for being unarmored.  Wizards are addressed in that their robes can be "armor", but there are a lot of other non-armored characters around.



I think you've solved your problem in your own post.  Swashbuckler type characters could wear magically protected clothing which provide the equivalent of 3e bracers of armor, similar to the wizard's magic robes.  Same goes for the fighter that wants to carry only a sword and shield.



> Who really cares if there is stacking as long as it's limited to +5.....Why is leather armor +3 and a magic shield +2 so dangerous?  Achieves the same goal, but isn't so limiting.



The difference here is that +3 armor and a +2 shield are far cheaper (and therefore can be attained at an earlier level) than +5 armor.  Add that to inexpensive items that stack like a ring of protection and an amulet of natural armor and you've recreated the christmas tree effect.  By siloing defense enhancements into a single item you avoid this problem.


----------



## Shroomy (Jan 27, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> His answer was a little vague but overall, this bothers me somewhat.
> 
> If it's understood that the Big 6 caused an arms race/numbers bloat problem, then why replace those "expected" bonuses at all, regardless of their source?  I understand why Mike had to do it with Iron Heroes (those classes had to "compete" without magic items) but if you are creating a new scale (i.e. 4E), why keep those sources of bonuses at all?  If you are creating a new system, there should be no "expected" bonuses at all.  Remove the magic items that were troublesome in 3ed (the Big 6) and but don't replace them with an equivalent bonus from another source.
> 
> That just seems like semantics to me.




I think that the designers had to strike a balance between the desires of PCs for magic items that directly impact their abilities and the X-mas Tree/Big 6 effects of 3.x edition.  I think that decrease and streamlining of the items is probably the best achievable result given this need.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 27, 2008)

Another thought on the topic of item creation...

Overall, I feel that the arms race/numbers bloat problem isn't caused by item creation itself but the "static plus"/Big 6 items, and specifically, allowing the players to cherry-pick and create these items for themselves.

As Wulf pointed out, players (and humans in general) are always going to choose the easiest path to power.  The Big 6 are by far the clear choice.

Removing item creation is certainly a step in the right direction but if you run a campaign of "standard" modules or an Adventure Path, you are still going to have to deal with these items.

I'd rather have a system in which players can create items themselves (but perhaps not as money-based as the 3ed system) but items that exist to solely provide a "plus" be toned down or removed entirely.

To implement this, however, the system would have to be created with this in mind from the ground up.  For example, how would 3ed play, especially using published "standard" modules if you suddenly removed all static plus items on both sides - players and the monsters/NPC's?

I think it would work, but most likely not without some extra effort on the DM's part.  Regardless, I think it would make for a really cool play experience...


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 27, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Another thought on the topic of item creation...
> 
> Overall, I feel that the arms race/numbers bloat problem isn't caused by item creation itself but the "static plus"/Big 6 items, and specifically, allowing the players to cherry-pick and create these items for themselves.
> 
> ...




No, I disagree with both you and Wulf.

It isn't the magic item creation system that is the problem, but the magic spell system itself. Even in the Big 6 era, you could strip a cleric or mage of all of that gear and you wouldn't affect them that much. 

Sure, their stamina goes way down, but all those magic effects from items are based on SPELLS which they have access to. The cleric no longer can do 4 encounters per day at the effectiveness of his magic item laden previous self but he probably can manage at least one or two encounters where mechanically, he's exactly equal to his previous self.

This is the main reason why a new edition is needed since once you touch the magic system itself, the ENTIRE system changes and buckles.


----------



## broghammerj (Jan 27, 2008)

Lab_Monkey said:
			
		

> I think you've solved your problem in your own post.  Swashbuckler type characters could wear magically protected clothing which provide the equivalent of 3e bracers of armor, similar to the wizard's magic robes.  Same goes for the fighter that wants to carry only a sword and shield.




Well, we really don't know if there is a mechanic to enchant clothing.  Robes may be special.  If clothing can be enchanted here comes my magical cod piece.



			
				Lab_Monkey said:
			
		

> The difference here is that +3 armor and a +2 shield are far cheaper (and therefore can be attained at an earlier level) than +5 armor.




Well, cheaper is relative to creation rules in 3.5.  We don't know if those rules will be similar for 4E.  I am not a game designer but I am sure if I got paid for it I could come up with a system to reflect cost increasing for each plus.   Say when a shield or armor is created it must be attuned to the wearer by a mage for a cost which increases exponentially with each plus.  Perhaps even found items must be attuned to the wearer.  This would prevent dead PCs from being looted by their companions because the item would be too expensive for others to equip.   Using this mechanic, it could even prevent a heroic characters from wielding a +5 sword.  Carry more items than +5 the effect cancels one another out resulting in only a total +5 bonus.



			
				Lab_Monkey said:
			
		

> Add that to inexpensive items that stack like a ring of protection and an amulet of natural armor and you've recreated the christmas tree effect.  By siloing defense enhancements into a single item you avoid this problem.




If you read my original post I said you can't stack items past a +5.  Carry all the +5 suits of armor, amulets of natural armor, and ring of protections you want.....you still only get +5.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 28, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> No, it won't work-- at least, not if there is still a trade in magic items.
> 
> <snip pithy example>
> 
> But in the real world, players don't want creativity if there is a path to power.



Wulf, first I should not that, as with some other posters, I think you have misread Mearls a little bit.

He is saying (i) that the Big Three are assumed, but there mathematical contribution is simple enough that you can take them out and add the numbers back in as inherent level bonuses. This doesn't make room for variable item ownership across a party, but (together with Wizard implements, Holy Symbols etc) it does mean that Fighters and spell-users are no different in terms of item dependence.

He is also saying (ii) that having secondary items does increase power, but it does so by increasing the power suite for a character, rather than making the numbers of their existing powers bigger. So such items don't affect the game to the same extent as the Big Three.

Now turning to the issue of buying and sellilng: assuming that (i) and (ii) above are true, players will do their best to get access to the best of the Big Three that they can get. Their hunger for secondaries might be less, if the sorts of abilities one gets from buying mundane equipment can also enhance the power suite (eg does having a castle and steward, or blowing money by living the high life, give rerolls in some categories of social challenge?).

So how to control Big Three access? My prediction is not that they will necessarily abolish magic item creation and trade, but that in some fashion access to items will be level-capped (the new rule for Rings is evidence of a general trend in this direction). Such a cap could be imposed by the Ritual rules, by putting magic item shops on other planes (a version of the Paragon-level capital city idea of a post above), etc.

In this case there would be no need for wealth-by-level guidelines either.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 28, 2008)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> If you read my original post I said you can't stack items past a +5.  Carry all the +5 suits of armor, amulets of natural armor, and ring of protections you want.....you still only get +5.




Not really and I'll use your example. The problem is that Armour Class is actually calculated from different sources as were Saves.

An amulet of natural armour increases your natural armour class by 4 but then you give the player a pair of ring of protection +5.  So it raises the question of why my armour class can't improve especially if in the same party, another character has raised his dexterity by 5 points with the ability increase method and he has picked up an amulet of natural armour.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 28, 2008)

Thaniel said:
			
		

> I'm seeing a lot of ranting about the "No rings below Paragon level" tidbit of info we've received. Has it not occurred to the detractors (and I'm guessing it hasn't) that the reason 'Heroic' characters can't use rings is because rings (and all rings) have magic inherently tied to powers that aren't usable before Paragon level?
> 
> For example, let's take a hypothetical Magic Ring (in 3.Xe) that doubles the damage bonus granted by Improved Weapon Specialization. To a 6th level fighter, that ring is absolutely worthless. The "No rings below Paragon level" doesn't say that the character can't WEAR the ring. That would be a hard trick to pull off. It merely means that they get no benefit from it, similar to our hypothetical ring.



That doesn't jive with the idea that you can only use one ring at 11th and two at 21st.  Unless there's only two rings in the whole game, one for paragon levels and one for epic levels.


----------



## Andor (Jan 28, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> That doesn't jive with the idea that you can only use one ring at 11th and two at 21st.  Unless there's only two rings in the whole game, one for paragon levels and one for epic levels.




"Behold! It is the One Ring of Power!"

"What's that on your left hand?"

"It's the Other Ring of Power, shush, you're spoiling my drama."


----------



## Greg K (Jan 28, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> While the DM can try to control how much gold the PCs have, that just isn't possible in any world with a degree of freedom for the PCs.  The PCs can always choose to raid the caravan they're supposed to be guarding, or try to steal back the money they paid to the armorer.  Limiting what the PCs can do with that money is a far better solution.  That's why 3E's assumption of a magic shop in every village was such a disaster, and why BECMI never had that problem IME.  You had a lot of money in BECMI?  You might buy a ship and hire a crew to go explore The Savage Coast.  Or you might save up to build a castle.  But the game was clear that there were no magic shops.




I give my players a lot of freedom. However, I would not stand for  players raiding a caravan that they were supposed to be guarding or stealing back the money.  If they were to try such a thing, I would tell them that their characters were now NPCs. I would then offer them the option to create new PCs and act heroically.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 28, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> I give my players a lot of freedom. However, I would not stand for  players raiding a caravan that they were supposed to be guarding or stealing back the money.  If they were to try such a thing, I would tell them that their characters were now NPCs. I would then offer them the option to create new PCs and act heroically.




We all have our preferences.

I'd just switch gears to "evil campaign."


----------



## Spatula (Jan 28, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> And *this* is the problem with the Big Six. Not that they ever existed in 3e, simply that the designers did not anticipate (for whatever reason) that players would zero in on those six items as the best possible place to focus their resources. It was not anticipated that players would all have the Big Six constantly enchanted to a bonus appropriate for their level.
> 
> The Big Six _in brutally efficient combination_ broke the 3e math, and it was Item Creation and the trade in magic items that got them there.



I have to agree with AllisterH that it's not item creation (which should be more adventure-driven, imo) or magic item trade that's the problem, but rather the nature of the 3E magic items.  The "Big <#>" was always a part of D&D, but the ridiculous bonuses were not.  In 1e & 2e, you could get a +1 to some stats from an item (STR excepted), and another +1 from a tome/manual... and that was it.  Rings & cloaks of protection did not stack with each other(although they both provided bonuses to AC & saves, instead of just one or the other), and I dimly recall them not stacking with magic armor, either.  There was no natural armor bonus.  That said, the ogre/giant STR items were really disgustingly powerful.

The mistake in 3e was ramping up all the bonuses that you could get from items, allowing them all to stack, and creating an exponential pricing scheme where lots of smaller bonuses were cheaper, and more effective, than a few big bonuses.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 28, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> We all have our preferences.
> 
> I'd just switch gears to "evil campaign."




And, I see know problem with that if that is what you want..


----------



## broghammerj (Jan 28, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Not really and I'll use your example. The problem is that Armour Class is actually calculated from different sources as were Saves.
> 
> An amulet of natural armour increases your natural armour class by 4 but then you give the player a pair of ring of protection +5.  So it raises the question of why my armour class can't improve especially if in the same party, another character has raised his dexterity by 5 points with the ability increase method and he has picked up an amulet of natural armour.




No I get that.  3E delved into all sorts of different types of AC, natural armor, dodge bonus, etc.  That was a problem people exploited in the system.  For 4E I don't care where you derive your AC from.  If I designed 4E there should be a limit to how much magical enhancement one PC can have (ie +5).  Whether it comes from an amulet of natural armor, bracers AC5, shield +5, or ring of protection +5 doesn't matter to me.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 28, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Wulf, first I should not that, as with some other posters, I think you have misread Mearls a little bit.




Based on what follows in your post, I think I understood perfectly:



> He is saying (i) that the Big Three are assumed, but there mathematical contribution is simple enough that you can take them out and add the numbers back in as inherent level bonuses. This doesn't make room for variable item ownership across a party, but (together with Wizard implements, Holy Symbols etc) it does mean that Fighters and spell-users are no different in terms of item dependence.




Point already granted upthread. Campaign-wide, having magic items or not having magic items is an easy fix. 



> He is also saying (ii) that having secondary items does increase power, but it does so by increasing the power suite for a character, rather than making the numbers of their existing powers bigger. So such items don't affect the game to the same extent as the Big Three.




Meaning folks will be primarily driven to the Big Three, followed by the best of the secondary option suite. If in fact one of the redesign goals was to drive players towards the less combat focused magic items, then on that point I think it is "poor design." But folks should note that's actually the first time in this thread I have made any such accusation, because as far as my personal preference goes, *I like to accumulate power*. I don't particularly want a Magic Item Compendium full of Leprechaun Pipes and other dross.

Again: Observations, not complaints.



> Now turning to the issue of buying and sellilng: assuming that (i) and (ii) above are true, players will do their best to get access to the best of the Big Three that they can get. Their hunger for secondaries might be less, if the sorts of abilities one gets from buying mundane equipment can also enhance the power suite (eg does having a castle and steward, or blowing money by living the high life, give rerolls in some categories of social challenge?).




Exactly.



> So how to control Big Three access? My prediction is not that they will necessarily abolish magic item creation and trade, but that in some fashion access to items will be level-capped (the new rule for Rings is evidence of a general trend in this direction). Such a cap could be imposed by the Ritual rules, by putting magic item shops on other planes (a version of the Paragon-level capital city idea of a post above), etc.




I predict a drastically curtailed ability to optimize your magic items, either through creation or trade. And for the record again, I think that's also a good thing.

Would I enjoy a Leprechaun Pipe if I found it, and couldn't sell it, couldn't churn it over into something more useful?

Yeah, probably. You might even get me to roleplay a little bit, if only to assume the role of my leprechaun as he regales the party yet again with the Old Man From Nantucket and the Hermit Named Dave.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 28, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> We all have our preferences.
> 
> I'd just switch gears to "evil campaign."



I wouldn't even go that far -- could just be "outlaw campaign" or "political campaign."  An outlaw campaign doesn't have to be an evil one, especially if the local regime is pretty despicable OR if the PCs justify their law-breaking in the service of a greater good.  Comes up in all kinds of fantasy and sci-fi (thinking of, say, Star Trek III).  Even beyond that, in a great many campaigns, politics exist in shades of grey.  Switching from guarding a caravan to looting it could be a result of switching allegiances from one lord or kingdom to another, or perhaps a result of obtaining a letter of marque.

The "stealing from the armorer" scenario would be most likely to happen IME if the armorer was ripping the PCs off or had otherwise offended or insulted them.  Perhaps he uses his guild power to shut down their competing shop, and the PCs send the rogue to loot his shop on their way out of town.  I'd hardly consider that "You're all evil so now you're all NPCs."  It's defiant, it's Chaotic, but it makes for a good story and it's not Evil.  

I suppose that it is possible to have a game where PCs cannot break the laws, where rogues can never steal from shops or people, and where PCs can never make more money through any enterprise or scheme (even legal ones) than the DM intends them to have.  In that case, the "wealth by level" guidelines work.


----------

