# The Magic Items that WotC cannot publish



## hailstop (Dec 9, 2009)

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

I disagree with him.  I'd certainly buy a 'cool Magic Item' book.  It could be a book on 'Lesser Artifacts'.  The items wouldn't be full on Artifacts, but still could be controlled by the DM.

At the very least, it's worthy of a DDI article.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 9, 2009)

I was expecting this thread to include items such as "Rod of Furious Thrusting" and "Whoopi's Odoriferous Cushion".

On a serious note, as the article itself says there is nothing stopping a DM from introducing an "Orb of Dragon Control", but the problem is when PCs can design and create them--it sort of makes it pointless (reminds me of when I played under a very inexperienced DM who set us up against a dragon; my character had a vorpal sword--AD&D style--and decapitated the dragon in the first round). Of course DM's Fiat should always have veto power. Always. It is just up to the DM to come up with a good reason to nix a player's idea.

On the other hand, this allows for an interesting re-defining of artifacts simply as *unique items that cannot be reproduced* (for whatever reason). They could range from very minor to world-shaking, from a letter opener that glows a different color depending upon the mood of the letter, to _Changeling _in CJ Cherryh's Morgaine books or Elric's _Stormbringer, _to even more powerful items, like an orb that the gods used to magnify their powers when creating the world, etc.

How to differentiate a garden-variety magic item from an artifact? How about this: sentience. Every artifact has sentience, some kind of individuality and consciousness. A magic item can, in a sense, "ascend" and become an artifact through acquiring sentience. Think of artificial intelligence...actually, it is an interesting analogy, if I may say so myself.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 9, 2009)

I think what Peter is saying is that WotC can't publish them as regular magic items because they would be head and shoulders above any other regular magic items.

At the same time, they don't quite fit the mold of artifacts because they aren't as complex (possibly no concordance) or because of the built-in assumption that artifacts will only be with the PCs for a few levels before moving on.

If WotC ever publishes such items, they will probably need to add disclaimers (e.g. "DM discretion is advised because this might unbalance your game") and possibly exit strategies (e.g. "These are some things you can do if the item isn't working out in your game").

Without such statements, take the reaction to _iron armbands of power_ and multiply that by every single instance of such items - that's the kind of furor you're going to get.


----------



## Destil (Dec 9, 2009)

I'm fine with this book not existing.

If anything items are the single biggest power creep 4E has already seen. The original PHB items actually followed the rules (weak properties and daily item powers almost entirely). And everyone hated them. In a recent EN world poll only 1 person out of several dozen was interested in daily item powers vs. properties or encounter powers. And that was me, I like my items low-powered. Getting rid of the Christmas tree effect was a good thing.

I don't have a problem with items that beak this power level, but it's the sort of thing DMs would generally customize and that should fall well outside of the normal magic item economy. But they'd be rare enough that I can't imagine an entire book being useful. My players just found such a 'lesser artifact' and I'm wondering how they'll use it, it's pretty potent for 4E...


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 9, 2009)

I appreciate the goal of defining PCs by their own powers, not that of their gear, so I have to ask . . .

*Why can't PCs do any of that cool stuff?*

If 4e let players turn invisible constantly (like Bilbo's ring), or mind control a dragon (like the Dragon Orbs in Dragonlance), or control the four winds for more than a single attack an encounter, I think I'd be less inclined to complain about the crappy magic items. 

For instance, let's consider an epic destiny, Avatar of Death.

You are, according to the flavor text, 'not simply a cleric;
you are the Raven Queen incarnate.' At this point in the game you are perhaps the most powerful mortal servant of the god of death, and so you'd obviously expect some unnatural power over life and death. Well, let's see:



You ignore necrotic resistance. Mechanically useful.
You don't die very easily. Well, that's actually kinda cool, but by this point you've probably popped up from unconsciousness mid-combat a hundred times, so it's not really epic.
You kill weak things in an aura.
You keep people from healing occasionally, for a few little while.


It's all combat stuff, and not very epic. C'mon, toss us a bone here. How about some flavor, like, you can look at a dead creature and know its name and how it died. Or you can use the ritual speak with dead at will. You can will a creature that would die to hover at death's door, denying it its judgment as long as it serves you. You can summon the spirits of all the creatures that have died nearby in the past few minutes, and set them upon your foes. 

Sure, from a cost perspective, most players won't reach epic levels, so devoting large page counts to awesome abilities they'll never use might seem like a waste. But hey, you could include some of that stuff at paragon, couldn't you? Heck, most of that stuff doesn't even affect combat balance. You could give it to 1st level characters if you wanted to.

I'm just saying, there is a paucity of compelling magic in this game. Saying that you can't have cool things because it would unbalance the game is a weak excuse.


----------



## Engilbrand (Dec 9, 2009)

To RangerWickett: I would advocate adding some of that stuff into your game. None of that would really break the system, so I don't know that it specifically needs rules. Do you not reflavor everything? I know that I like the ideas you presented and would allow them in a game.

My favorite Epic Destiny is the Undying Warrior. He literally can't die. That's absolutely awesome to me. I know that I'll be using that in future games as a DM and, hopefully some day, as a PC.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 9, 2009)

I personally don't need books to give me those sorts of ideas, but I _like_ those kinds of ideas, and I'd like to see more of them.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2009)

FireLance said:


> If WotC ever publishes such items, they will probably need to add disclaimers (e.g. "DM discretion is advised because this might unbalance your game") and possibly exit strategies (e.g. "These are some things you can do if the item isn't working out in your game").




Well, that's the thing, really.  The statement they _cannot_ publish them is... bogus.  In the extreme.  They darned well could publish them - put a big honkin' warning label on them saying, "These are dangerous to your game's balance, DMs may introduce these into their games at their own discretion".

This would violate their "all things are core" philosophy.  Big whoop.  Standing on principle here is not a virtue, if it prevents them from publishing things that inspire DMs.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 9, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> It's all combat stuff, and not very epic. C'mon, toss us a bone here. How about some flavor, like, you can look at a dead creature and know its name and how it died. Or you can use the ritual speak with dead at will. You can will a creature that would die to hover at death's door, denying it its judgment as long as it serves you. You can summon the spirits of all the creatures that have died nearby in the past few minutes, and set them upon your foes.
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm just saying, there is a paucity of compelling magic in this game. Saying that you can't have cool things because it would unbalance the game is a weak excuse.



I think D&D has struggled with the issue of powergaming creative rules lawyers players attempting to turn flavor text into a mechanical advantage from day 1. It didn't help that in earlier editions, there was little to no way to distinguish the flavor text from the (balanced, at least in intent) mechanical effects. 

Many flavorful powers also tend to be open-ended, which makes it difficult for the DM to adjudicate their effects. Take the proposed "know the name and manner of death of a dead creature" power. It is flavorful, it can be useful on occasion, but a player who uses it often might significantly tax the DM's ability to come up with stuff on the fly (some DMs can do this easily, but others can't - if it's not too obvious a statement, different DMs have different strengths). On the other hand, if he doesn't use it often, why have it as a power in the first place? I suspect that the difficulty of adjudicating open-ended abilities is the reason why some DMs subtly discourage the use of rituals in their game.

I wonder if there might be a couple of solutions to this, though:

First would be for DMs to be more flexible about allowing the player to do stuff that isn't a codified power or ability. If it is important for the Avatar of Death to find out how somebody died, maybe the DM could just ask for a Perception check to represent her ability to discern stuff related to death. If she wants to send the spirits of the dead against her foes, treat it as an improvised stunt.

Second would be to actually codify some "Flavor powers" for each magic item, epic destiny, etc. with the upfront understanding that these are not intended to grant any mechanical advantages whatsoever, e.g. a sword that causes a cool breeze to blow on the wielder. Of course, the DM may make the ability occasionally useful (or be persuaded that it could be useful), but that would be entirely up to him, and he can always make the argument that they are not intended to give any mechanical advantages if he doesn't want them to.


----------



## Destil (Dec 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Well, that's the thing, really.  The statement they _cannot_ publish them is... bogus.  In the extreme.  They darned well could publish them - put a big honkin' warning label on them saying, "These are dangerous to your game's balance, DMs may introduce these into their games at their own discretion".
> 
> This would violate their "all things are core" philosophy.  Big whoop.  Standing on principle here is not a virtue, if it prevents them from publishing things that inspire DMs.




Actually, I'd think they can't publish them because they would end up as 'DM Only'. Thus for the cost of production they have a smaller audience than a Player/DM supplement. And I have a feeling their willingness to publish such material, at leas in book form, doesn't go much beyond monster manuals and DMGs.

Though it would be a good sort of ideas for a Dragon article, since that's how they're splitting them these days.


----------



## Hjorimir (Dec 9, 2009)

I'm fine with WotC not publishing such a book, really. Leave it to DM creativity (or stealing from other sources) to create unique items for their campaign. I find that my four volumes of Encyclopedia Magica are extremely useful in this regard, but I injest such items when I want to.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 9, 2009)

So, let me get this straight.

WotC has put itself in the position that they can't publish material that would actual be fun, intriguing, cool, and entertaining for fear it would be unbalancing?  Are they now openly admitting that because they made the decision remove the DM from the equation, that they now can't print material they admit is really cool because such the material would have to be the provenance of the DM?

Quote: "Because magic items are carefully balanced based on level, we cannot publish items that...are more interesting and exciting than any others I see in D&D right now."  

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAA...ha...ha...ha.................

*cry* 

Maniacs! You blew it up!

*cry*


----------



## Orius (Dec 9, 2009)

Hjorimir said:


> I'm find with WotC not publishing such a book, really. Leave it to DM creativity (or stealing from other sources) to create unique items for their campaign. I find that my four volumes of Encyclopedia Magica are extremely useful in this regard, but I injest such items when I want to.




Unfortunately, not everyone has the Encyclopedia Magica, particularly newer players, so yeah sometimes it feels as if the game is missing the magic (so to speak) that it had in the old days.  

This started with 3e's reorganization of magic items.  As a DM, I generally liked it as it made some things easier for me, but there was a lot of stuff under the old rules that just didn't work in the framework.  I suppose 4e's more solid rules on having a +1 every 5 levels and whatever else it does make the old items harder to do.  

And there is a lot of really weird, cool and wacky stuff in the old EM.  Some examples:


A semi-intelligent, malevolent vending machine that dispenses soft drinks that can do anything from giving a PC a bad case of acne to outright killing him.
A huge apparatus that can plane shift from world to world, creating asphalt roads in it wake.
An expansion on the _deck of many_ things that uses every card in a full tarot deck.
A chess set, incomplete, and carved from dragon's teeth where every piece has its own unique powers.  Pawns have relatively weak effects, while the qeen and king are very powerful.

And that's just in the first volume.  There's four books of this stuff, not just the standard magic items from the pre-3e game, but all kinds of strange wonderful, and definitely unbalanced material.

WotC could publish stuff like this if they wanted, but it probably doesn't fit into the design philosophies they're following.  A pity.  Magic items are more fun when they're not just following standard bonuses but instead have a lot of mystery to them, IMO.


----------



## Hjorimir (Dec 9, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> So, let me get this straight.
> 
> WotC has put itself in the position that they can't publish material that would actual be fun, intriguing, cool, and entertaining for fear it would be unbalancing?  Are they now openly admitting that because they made the decision remove the DM from the equation, that they now can't print material they admit is really cool because such the material would have to be the provenance of the DM?
> 
> ...



I think that WotC just knows that if you print it players will cry for it. Players tend to moan a lot. They kick and scream and claw for power and when you deny them that power you're a badwrongDM.

Let DMs tempt fate by messing with gamebalance at their own peril; sometimes it will work, but sometimes it will be disasterous. It is probably wise to leave potentially disasterous magic items outside of published material if you can.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Well, that's the thing, really.  The statement they _cannot_ publish them is... bogus.  In the extreme.  They darned well could publish them - put a big honkin' warning label on them saying, "These are dangerous to your game's balance, DMs may introduce these into their games at their own discretion".
> 
> This would violate their "all things are core" philosophy.  Big whoop.  Standing on principle here is not a virtue, if it prevents them from publishing things that inspire DMs.



For what it's worth, it's just one guy saying this on his personal blog. I do recall that towards the end of 3.5e, we did get right-out broken magic items (with "wahoo" warning labels) in Dragon and in the Magic Item Compendium. 

I doubt that we will ever see an entire book devoted to this class of items (from WotC, at least - if there appears to be sufficient demand for it, some enterprising 3PP might take a risk on such a product) but we may get one or two showing up in Dragon or in AV3 (suitably caveated, of course).


----------



## Hjorimir (Dec 9, 2009)

Orius said:


> Magic items are more fun when they're not just following standard bonuses but instead have a lot of mystery to them, IMO.



I certainly agree with you in spirit, I just think I see the wisdom in not making such items core to the ruleset and anything printed by WotC is considered core these days.

It could back some DMs (who maybe are not as firm as they should be with certain players) into a corner.

Heck, this could be ripe for a 3PP if done well.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 9, 2009)

This here - not the actual post, but the philosophy behind it - is why 4e is a mixed bag, not a brilliant game.


----------



## Orius (Dec 9, 2009)

Hjorimir said:


> I certainly agree with you in spirit, I just think I see the wisdom in not making such items core to the ruleset and anything printed by WotC is considered core these days.
> 
> It could back some DMs (who maybe are not as firm as they should be with certain players) into a corner.
> 
> Heck, this could be ripe for a 3PP if done well.




Yeah, I know that some of those really off the wall items can play havoc with the rules.  I understand both sides of the argument: the need to have consistant rules, but writing the rules to meet those needs sometimes robs the game of the charm it once had.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Dec 9, 2009)

For the record, I actually disagree with Peter (disagreeing with each other is something like 46% of the developer's job). We totally could publish the wacky stuff. We just haven't done it yet.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Dec 9, 2009)

I'm actually pleased by this article. 4E magical items are a balanced (for the most part) baseline from which I can deviate where I see fit. I can do the imagination part, they come up with the rules and numbers.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 9, 2009)

Moridin said:


> (disagreeing with each other is something like 46% of the developer's job).




I doubt that.


----------



## samursus (Dec 9, 2009)

I really don't see the problem.

While I understand, and even empathize with those lamenting the loss of "magical" magic items from D&D, I don't think its that big a deal.

4e has merely adjusted the bar to a default low-magic-ish setting, which many DMs have houseruled on their own throughout the editions.

I mean, they can't please everyone right?  

This way however, as I think most people might agree, it is always easier to ADD something into a rules set than to take it away.

And with 4e's philosophy of "saying Yes" and "everything is core", it would be problematic (only on a conceptual level, but potent nonetheless) to have powerful magic items "in the system" as a default.

It feels to me like there is no happy medium... either you have a system where the magic items are powerful and then become required/no-brainer choices to own OR have a pared down system, where the DM can inject such wonders when and where it fits his game.

I am not saying DM's cannot restrict such items if they were there, but with the prevailing technology (CB) and "Say Yes" attitude, I think its more efficient and just plain easier to not tempt the players by having an uber-powered shopping list.

Plus, what could be more mysterious and magical than introducing a magic item into the game that the players would have never even conceived or read of in the RAW? (assuming 4e knowledge only)  AND is waaay more powerful than anything they can buy or create?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 9, 2009)

samursus said:


> It feels to me like there is no happy medium... either you have a system where the magic items are powerful and then become required/no-brainer choices to own OR have a pared down system, where the DM can inject such wonders when and where it fits his game.




Or they're items you can't buy.

*:U

*Honestly, I think the issue here is that "say yes" isn't advice, it's mandated.  You can talk about DM rulings as much as you want, but when the game itself states that it's built specifically for DM rulings to _not matter_, you have an issue.

As for "Well I can just make my own awesome items," yes, you can.  You, the DM who has been playing D&D for years and has tons of experience.

I thought 4e was for the new player?


----------



## samursus (Dec 9, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Or they're items you can't buy.
> 
> *:U
> 
> ...




My point being that the new player probably has no problems with the magic item system as is... its mostly we grognards who miss the stronger magic items of earlier editions.

Mandated is a strong word.  Every edition has its biases.  And I think Rule 0 is just as potent in 4th... its just that the system endeavors to take away the most glaring of mechanical reasons to say NO.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Dec 9, 2009)

The new players I've introduced to RPG's to with 4E haven't complained about magical items at all. Given, it's only been 2 people, but just anecdotally the wonder or whatever of magical items might be the result of comparison to previous editions rather than considering the merits objectively. Now, I have no idea how to consider the merits objectively, but since it wasn't a complaint, that's all I have to go off of.


----------



## Hjorimir (Dec 9, 2009)

samursus said:


> ...it is always easier to ADD something into a rules set than to take it away.




Exactly what I was trying to say only you said it much better.


----------



## vagabundo (Dec 9, 2009)

Magic items are the one source of disappointment for me in 4e. I'd rather they get rid of them all together; or just keep the iconic cool ones.

I've had only disinterest from my players with them, I have to keep reminding them to use their magic item powers. And there are just tooo many, with minor plus here and a small power there. 

Big Wazzoo: I wants it. I can handle it, I can....


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 9, 2009)

Even if the PCs couldn't buy/create these "greater magic items", there's STILL the problem that once they do have them, they'll warp the campaign as the DM for the next 10plus levels has to deal with them.

Artifacts have an out as they naturally, thanks to them being sentient, can move on of their own free will.


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 9, 2009)

This is yet another example of why 4E is not my cup of tea.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Well, that's the thing, really.  The statement they _cannot_ publish them is... bogus.  In the extreme.  They darned well could publish them - put a big honkin' warning label on them saying, "These are dangerous to your game's balance, DMs may introduce these into their games at their own discretion".
> 
> This would violate their "all things are core" philosophy.  Big whoop.  Standing on principle here is not a virtue, if it prevents them from publishing things that inspire DMs.




Hell yes.  As much as it makes me glad to see that the designers "realize" that they could have made magic items much more dynamic and interesting, it greatly pains me that they have no intention of doing anything about it (at least in this point of the lifecycle of 4e; toward the end of 4e that sentiment might change).

I would purchase a DM book of Special Magic Items in a heartbeat. I've aleady been adding some of my own to the campaign, but my players tend to completely forget about magic items in the Character Builder doesn't make it official. Which sucks. 

Is there a way to contribute to a community project where we can actually make a free book like this?


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 9, 2009)

FireLance said:


> For what it's worth, it's just one guy saying this on his personal blog. I do recall that towards the end of 3.5e, we did get right-out broken magic items (with "wahoo" warning labels) in Dragon and in the Magic Item Compendium.



In the MIC? Really? Do you remember any?

Anyway, as I've mentioned before I'd like to see 'weapons of legacy' for 4e. While I can design my own using the guidelines in AV, the 3e book with it's interesting backstories was very inspiring.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 9, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> In the MIC? Really? Do you remember any?



I was thinking of the _vest of the archmagi_ (MIC p. 145). I just went back to check it and the book doesn't actually say that it's broken, but ... just read the description.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 9, 2009)

I think there is something very seriously wrong with WotC's design philosophy if they can't create and publish what players clearly want.

It's good they finally address the issue; it's just that I'm convinced their conclusion "What We Can Do About It: Nothing" is going in absolutely the wrong direction.

Don't they realize people will simply switch to other games if WotC's game becomes so balanced it becomes _boring_?!


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 9, 2009)

FireLance said:


> I think what Peter is saying is that WotC can't publish them as regular magic items because they would be head and shoulders above any other regular magic items.
> 
> At the same time, they don't quite fit the mold of artifacts because they aren't as complex (possibly no concordance) or because of the built-in assumption that artifacts will only be with the PCs for a few levels before moving on.



Then they simply need to solve that. 

Who set in stone there can only be two item categories?

The _real_ problem is that 90% of all published regular items are utterly vanilla, bordering on the mind-numbingly boring.

I don't care that this is a consequence of some well-meant decision made previously. I only see it as the huge mistake it is.

Why play a fantasy game if there's no mystery, and where all "magic items" are as exciting to use as your toothbrush or vacuum cleaner?

WotC is going down the wrong path. Now they only need to realize it themselves. 

Hint: not being "allowed" to create cool stuff because of the "rules" probably mean there's something wrong with the rules...


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 9, 2009)

Really...so people want to go back to the era where your magic items definied your character?

Where a PC without magic items was basically a commoner with extra HP?

A 4e (non magic class) PC without magic items is STILL a fearsome character which is an improvement in my mind.

Besides, we have the artifact system and I don't understand WHY those magic items Chris P talked about use said system.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 9, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Really...so people want to go back to the era where your magic items definied your character?



No... "people" want to play a game where magic items aren't so boring they suck your skull dry. There's a difference. 

I realize there's tension between these two goals, but really, how to both have the cake and eat it too is something we pay the designers to handle.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 9, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> I think there is something very seriously wrong with WotC's design philosophy if they can't create and publish what players clearly want.
> 
> It's good they finally address the issue; it's just that I'm convinced their conclusion "What We Can Do About It: Nothing" is going in absolutely the wrong direction.
> 
> Don't they realize people will simply switch to other games if WotC's game becomes so balanced it becomes _boring_?!



Unfortunately, giving the players what they want is likely to be something that many DMs will not want, if it unbalances their games.

Come to think of it, another good place for these types of these magic items (or at least a discussion of them, with a few examples) would be the DMG along with artifacts, alternate rewards (divine boons, grandmaster training) and other things which some DMs might not be comfortable adding to their campaigns.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 9, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Why play a fantasy game if there's no mystery, and where all "magic items" are as exciting to use as your toothbrush or vacuum cleaner?
> 
> WotC is going down the wrong path. Now they only need to realize it themselves.
> 
> Hint: not being "allowed" to create cool stuff because of the "rules" probably mean there's something wrong with the rules...



See the post above. DM advice is the way to go, IMO.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 9, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> No... "people" want to play a game where magic items aren't so boring they suck your skull dry. There's a difference.
> 
> I realize there's tension between these two goals, but really, how to both have the cake and eat it too is something we pay the designers to handle.




Which is the artifact system.

1. Artifacts are not under the control of the players. They can neither be created, bought or wished for by the players. The DM gets to decide when they are allowed.

2. Artifacts won't define the character since they move on after a few levels so a DM doesn't have to worry about dealing with the long term consequences of said artifacts.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 9, 2009)

Problem is they specifically said the artifact system wasn't the solution.

The solution isn't doing nothing (like how the blog says), the solution is designing a system that gives the game real magic items without wrecking the system.

I don't know how to do that - but then, I'm not paid to do that either.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 9, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Unfortunately, giving the players what they want is likely to be something that many DMs will not want, if it unbalances their games.



Why create a rift between players and DMs. 

I'm sure lots of DMs suffer because of the dullness of items too, and want a solution just as much as the players.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 9, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Unfortunately, giving the players what they want is likely to be something that many DMs will not want, if it unbalances their games.
> 
> Come to think of it, another good place for these types of these magic items (or at least a discussion of them, with a few examples) would be the DMG along with artifacts, alternate rewards (divine boons, grandmaster training) and other things which some DMs might not be comfortable adding to their campaigns.



Yes. I think there is design and "publication" space for it, but one has to keep in mind its "DM" material not player material. Of course, once they do this, people will complain that the PHB or the AV are the "kiddie table" and that players deserve these type of items, and spending 30 $ just for WotC finally getting magic items right and buying 60 $ for an incomplete game... yadayadayada.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 9, 2009)

Some further thoughts: there might also be ways to retain mechanical balance while allowing for more powerful magic items:

One idea could be magic items that are actually "worth" two, three or more magic items (say, a single magic item that is "worth" a 6th-level item, a 7th-level item and an 8th-level item). Using the standard treasure parcels, a DM would just give out that one item in place of three regular items. 

Another possibility would be to have magic items whose full powers are only unlocked by feats. This is something that I have actually done in my home campaign. I gave out crystal shards that had various themes: a brown shard which was related to earth, a blue shard related to water, healing and acid, a green shard related to polymorph and poison, and a clear shard related to air and lightning. With these shards, the players could:

1. Invent a power related to the theme, and use it as a daily magic item power; and

2. If they spent a feat, exchange one of their encounter powers (of an appropriate level) for the shard power. 

The players who have claimed a shard have come up with their own powers for them (except for the clear shard, which they just picked up last session), but none of them have taken up the power swap offer yet.


----------



## Stoat (Dec 9, 2009)

I'll be the voice of dissent.

I don't find magic items in 4E any more boring than magic items in 2E or 3.X.  In my experience, most items in previous editions were pretty bland: +1 longsword, +1 chainmail, +1 ring of protection +1 yawn.  

An orb that controls dragons?  That's not an item, it's an artifact. 

A necklace that increases fire damage and allows you recall a fire spell?  I'm not aware of anything analogous to this from previous editions.  (also, it really doesn't sound like it would break 4E, but I guess that's a different discussion).

A sword that controls the elements?  Again, I don't recall seeing anything like this in previous editions.  It sounds cool, but it sounds like an artifact.

When I wanted different, flavorful items in 2E or 3.X, I made 'em up.  When I want different flavorful items in 4E, I'll make 'em up.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 9, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Some further thoughts: there might also be ways to retain mechanical balance while allowing for more powerful magic items:
> 
> One idea could be magic items that are actually "worth" two, three or more magic items (say, a single magic item that is "worth" a 6th-level item, a 7th-level item and an 8th-level item). Using the standard treasure parcels, a DM would just give out that one item in place of three regular items.
> 
> ...



I doubt that such a conceptual big thing is something for Dragon, but... I have a house rule thread that also offers a few suggestions along these lines. Though I wasn't sure about the cost of the items and suggested more that they were a specific type of new item type. "Bound Items" - you could only have a limited number of them (1 per tier was my suggestion) and the item "grows" with your level. Feats gave some more or less generic options that boiled down to "get the expected magical item bonuses to attack or defense by wearing your bound item." and a few more.

I guess the "boringness" of 4E magic items will be a returning topic. So maybe WotC will indeed address it at some point.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 9, 2009)

samursus said:


> I really don't see the problem.




Ok, I'll point it out to you.



> I mean, *they can't please everyone right*?




Let's keep that in mind.  Let's consider what happens _when you don't try to please everyone_, and what that might mean.



> This way however, as I think most people might agree,* it is always easier to ADD something into a rules set than to take it away*.




No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.  Emphaticly NO!!!!

There is the problem.  The combination of those two ideas is deadly.

The idea that it is 'always easier to ADD something into a rules set than to take it away' is so ludicrous on the face of it that I'm surprised you can say it and keep a straight face.  It is always easier to remove something from a rules set than to add it in if it is missing.   This is due to the very simple and obvious fact that removal is a much easier than to do than creation.  Destruction is easier than creation.  Creation is hard.   It's always easier to ignore a rule than make a new one or alter an existing rule.  It's always easier to ignore a rule than add a rule that doesn't exist.   Rules get ignored all the time without people even trying, but adding a rule IS hard.  If you don't like a spell, you can remove it.  If you don't like a monster, you don't have to use it.  If you don't like a magic item, you don't have to make it available.  If you don't like a class, you can drop it.  If you don't like a feat, it's gone.   But conversely, if you want to make a new spell, a new magic item, a new monster, or a new feat - that requires work.  That is 'hard'.  Now, for someone like me whose been gaming for nearly 30 years, I can imagine new monsters, spells, feats, and even classes but even then actually implementing these ideas is hard.   For a new player, and maybe even some old players, it might not only be hard to imagine and create new content - it might well be impossible.  Rulesmithing is hard.  Setting and flavor creation is hard.

*That's why we pay professionals to do it for us.*

Look, if it really was easier to add new rules in than it was to ignore existing ones, we wouldn't need anyone to make a rules set for us in the first place.  We'd simply do it all ourselves, because making new rules, inventing new content, and imagining new things would be easy.   We'd never pay someone to do that for us if it was easy.  In fact, some of us do in fact largely do that, buying only a few key books and then imagining all the rest according to my ideas.  But WotC's core customer base historically is not like that.  Instead, historically speaking, WotC's and TSR's core customer base bought _EVERYTHING_ (or nearly so) and then picked and choose which of it was most appealing to them.   It's always been easier for the overwhelming majority of DM's and players (especially the paying kind) to drop or ignore content that they didn't like than it was to invent new content.  That's precisely why they were customers in the first place, so that someone would do the hard part of inventing, implmenting, and writing down all these ideas for them.  Then they did the easy part, which was ignoring what they didn't like.   

Sure, some DM's managed a 'bad' mixture (meaning their players didn't enjoy it), but even so its still easier for a novice DM to evaluate someone else's ideas and pick and choose what he likes than it is to give them a blank peice of paper and say 'Make it up yourself'.  Game publishers are in the business of providing tools of the imagination.  If suddenly they've boxed themselves in a corner where they can't actually produce ideas that are imaginative (which I've been saying about 4e ever since the early previews), then they are sunk.  Some daring company that actually does print fun ideas, imaginative ideas, and creative ideas is going to end up with the fans and 4e is going to be left with a few people going, "But we're balanced!  We're oh so balanced!" who have utterly forgotten what 'balance' means.   Some daring company that actually trusts the DMs that are ultimately far more important to thier industry than even the local gaming retailers is going to be producing the game that the game referees want to run and which the players go 'Ooooohh...ewwww.. I want to be in that game.'



> *And with 4e's philosophy of "saying Yes"* and "everything is core", it would be problematic (only on a conceptual level, but potent nonetheless) to have powerful magic items "in the system" as a default.




I think people have utterly forgotten what 'saying, Yes' actually means.  It sure as heck never meant that powerful magic items and treasures weren't ought there waiting to be unearthed and claimed.   More importantly:

_*THIS ISN'T SAYING YES, IT IS SAYING, "NO!".   *_

How ridiculously twisted do you have to make a good idea like 'saying, Yes' so that it becomes, "Well, we have to say 'No' to these ideas because otherwise we'd have to say 'Yes'.  So you see, we're helpless to do anything but say 'No', because of our rule about saying, 'Yes'"

Some people complain that I'm too verbose, and often rightfully so.  But let me tell you one of the reasons I write such lengthy posts.  It's because often there is this complex, and nuanced idea.  And because the idea is complex, and nuanced, it's hard to talk about in an easy manner, so people invent some sort of short hand way of talking about the idea like, "Say, "Yes""   That shorthand is not the whole idea; it's just a marker for the whole idea.  The real idea is naunced and complicated.  The phrase we use to refer to the idea, "Say, "Yes"" is not.  The phrase "Say, 'Yes'" is never meant to be taken literrally; it's just shorthand for the larger idea.   But over time, the larger idea, because it is hard to communicate gets lost.  People here about 'Say, "Yes"' and that's all they remember.   Pretty soon everyone is going around saying the short hand phrase as if that is the whole idea.  And often, by way of taking the short hand phrase literally, it becomes transformed to mean something that it never meant, so that for example, the phrase, "Too big too fail.", ceases to mean, "These corporations are so big they can't fail", and instead gets used to mean, "These corporations are so big that they cannot be allowed to fail."  

That's why I always lay out my full thought in a desparate attempt not to be misunderstood as saying something more simplistic than what I'm thinking.  It doesn't always work, but I try and at least you can never accuse me of using the phrase, 'Say, Yes', to mean, 'Say, No'.



> It feels to me like there is no happy medium... either you have a system where the magic items are powerful and then become required/no-brainer choices to own OR have a pared down system, where the DM can inject such wonders when and where it fits his game.




No happy medium?  No happy medium?  Isn't that what balance actually is?

*cry*  

They blew it up.  First Dragon, and now D&D.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 9, 2009)

hailstop said:


> Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible
> 
> I disagree with him.  I'd certainly buy a 'cool Magic Item' book.  It could be a book on 'Lesser Artifacts'.  The items wouldn't be full on Artifacts, but still could be controlled by the DM.
> 
> At the very least, it's worthy of a DDI article.




I also would quite like such a book, as long as it had guidelines on how such items would affect game balance. In fact, since Adventurer's Vault is the only physical book I still use at the gaming table, I might even buy the book instead of just using the DDI.

Frankly, WotC has a lot more design space than they seem to think they do, even within the existing power scheme. For instance, as some other posters have suggested, they could create "multiclass magic items." You spend a feat to master the item, and that gives you access to a set of special encounter or daily powers. To use one of those powers, however, you have to expend one of your own encounter or daily powers of equal or higher level.

Of course, I also think the magic item model of 4E is deeply and fundamentally flawed. The essence of that flaw - namely, the "+X item" - has existed since the very earliest editions of D&D; but 4E's drive for rigorous mathematical balance required that they either get rid of +X items or build the entire magic item system around them, and unfortunately they went the latter route.


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 9, 2009)

FireLance said:


> I was thinking of the _vest of the archmagi_ (MIC p. 145). I just went back to check it and the book doesn't actually say that it's broken, but ... just read the description.



Ah, right. Thanks for looking that up!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 9, 2009)

Stoat said:


> I'll be the voice of dissent.
> 
> I don't find magic items in 4E any more boring than magic items in 2E or 3.X.  In my experience, most items in previous editions were pretty bland: +1 longsword, +1 chainmail, +1 ring of protection +1 yawn.
> 
> ...



You might have a point. 

The standard 3E magic items where what? The "Christmas Tree" of Ring of Protections, Amulet of Natural Armor, Magic Armor, Magic Weapon, Gloves of Dexterity, Cloak of Resistance, Headband of Intellect, Belt of Giant Strength? Those weren't particularly interesting, but often treated as mandatory - and also decried as boring. 

The "funny" items had prices all over the place.
- "Amulet of the Planes"? 120.000 gp. For a single spell that it needs to make an Int check for.
- "Apparatus of the Crab"? 90.000 gp for an item that allows you to swim or walk underwater...
- "Ring of the Ram"? 8.600 gp for the ability to bullrush someone up to 50 times.
- "Rod of Phyton". 13.000 gp for a Giant Constrictor Snake that also serves as a +1 Quarterstaff. 

The items everyone took had straightforward applications. "Holy for +2d6 damage against most enemies I'll ever encounter?" Is a weapon that deals 5 fire ongoing fire damage once per day so much less exciting?


----------



## Stoat (Dec 9, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Of course, I also think the magic item model of 4E is deeply and fundamentally flawed. The essence of that flaw - namely, the "+X item" - has existed since the very earliest editions of D&D; but 4E's drive for rigorous mathematical balance required that they either get rid of +X items or build the entire magic item system around them, and unfortunately they went the latter route.




I'm not sure I'd agree with "deeply flawed", but the issue is fundamental.  Long ago and far away Gygax created the +X whatever it was.  Maybe the +X whatever it was seemed cool and mystical and arcane at the time, but for most of us, its luster is long gone.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> You might have a point.
> The standard 3E magic items where what? The "Christmas Tree" of Ring of Protections, Amulet of Natural Armor, Magic Armor, Magic Weapon, Gloves of Dexterity, Cloak of Resistance, Headband of Intellect, Belt of Giant Strength? Those weren't particularly interesting, but often treated as mandatory - and also decried as boring.
> 
> The "funny" items had prices all over the place.
> ...




Pricing for wondrous items is all over the map, and suffers because the designers are trying to balance something like "an infinite amount of unbreakable rope" with "+5% to hit with a corresponding increase in average damage."  

Which leads to the fact that you can buy magic items in 3.0 and beyond, which is itself an angry 20-page flamewar waiting to happen.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 9, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> You might have a point.
> 
> The standard 3E magic items where what? The "Christmas Tree" of Ring of Protections, Amulet of Natural Armor, Magic Armor, Magic Weapon, Gloves of Dexterity, Cloak of Resistance, Headband of Intellect, Belt of Giant Strength? Those weren't particularly interesting, but often treated as mandatory




With the introduction of 3.5 they actually became mandatory, because the CR of high challenge monsters was computed with the assumption that all high level players would have an optimal suite of these items.

The problem 3.0 introduced to D&D was the idea that magic items were non-random fungible comodities which could be easily bought and traded at any nearby community and which could therefore be considered part of your character's build.  Players basically were allowed to, and ultimately encouraged to by the rules set, to pick and choose which items were best for them and DM's were encouraged to allow this.

So naturally the result was something like Nethack or Diablo without the need to quest to find your victory package of ultimate weapons.   People naturally and correctly choose items which provided basic enhancement to things that they did all the time.

Under these conditions its impossible for magical items to feel magical or interesting regardless of their powers or abilities.  Magical items, not even strong ones are not scarce.  Not only do you get that +5 Holy Avenger that you long for, but you can buy it in town and are expected to do so as part of your standard level progression.  You might as well make 'Acquire Magical Item' a part of your level progression, the way 1st edition made 'Acquires titles, lands, and followers' part of your expected level progression.  

The most coolness in this is like buying a new Blackberry or IPod.  It's cool, but everyone has one.

In 1st edition, the ultimate combination was belt of giant strength (especially storm giant!) and gauntlets of ogre power.  Every fighter longed to have both, because with them he became an almost unstoppable force (a vorpal sword would just have been frosting).  I never once saw it happen.  You could dream, but no DM worth his pizza was going to allow it to happen easily.  I've seen fighters with one or the other, but never both.  You kept questing to find the pieces of your combo, hoping that the DM randomed up a treasure and allowed it to be because he felt the challenge of obtaining made it worth it.  Whatever you found was cool, because it was one more tool in your arsenal that you couldn't obtain anywhere else.  Even swords +1 were cool: you wrapped them carefully in cloth and threw them in your bag of holding (if you had one!) and distributed them to followers and henchmen for big loyalty bonuses and added combat ummph.  Your castle was defended by followers with magic weapons.  That was cool.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 9, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Ok, No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.  Emphaticly NO!!!!
> 
> There is the problem.  The combination of those two ideas is deadly.
> 
> The idea that it is 'always easier to ADD something into a rules set than to take it away' is so ludicrous on the face of it that I'm surprised you can say it and keep a straight face.  It is always easier to remove something from a rules set than to add it in if it is missing.




Heh heh... you should tell this to all the people who continue to rant and rave about the Expertise feats.  It seems like all of them to a man have said they wished those feats never existed for anybody, rather than just make a personal decision to remove them from their own games.  LOL!

But let's be honest here... if enough people clamor for it, then WotC eventually will add it.  It's simple marketing.  "Give the people what they want".  Anyone who doubts WotC will do it just needs to take a look at the Tempest Fighter.  Folks were clamoring since the beginning of the first PH release that they wanted their fighters to be able to dual-wield, despite most of the Wizards staff saying "Well, that's why we have the Ranger.  It's the martial dual-wield class!  That's how it was designed!"  But because everyone got hung up on the idea that they wanted to play a "Fighter" in name... and not just a warrior in general (which all the martial classes are)... they kept complaining and complaining until finally WotC gave it to them in Martial Power.

So just wait about six months for Dungeon Magazine, or whenever AV3 comes out... you'll probably see exactly what you're looking for.


----------



## nightwyrm (Dec 9, 2009)

Once you introduce a magic item retail market, most PCs would trade in their quirky, funky items that is useful once in a blue moon for things that are Boring But Practical.

In any case, if you don't like magic items being treated as commodities or necessities, blame the creation of a standardized PC power vs Monster power balance system.  If you want to compare the power level of a PC to the power level of a Monster, you need to make assumptions on how much PC power comes from items.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 9, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> The problem 3.0 introduced to D&D was the idea that magic items were non-random fungible comodities which could be easily bought and traded at any nearby community and which could therefore be considered part of your character's build.



I'd say the 'problem' that 3e exposed was that quite a few players _enjoyed_ commoditized magic items; which is to say they like having more control over designing their characters abilities. 3e is a hybrid class-based and point-buy system.



> Players basically were allowed to, and ultimately encouraged to by the rules set, to pick and choose which items were best for them and DM's were encouraged to allow this.



Yes, just like Champions players are allowed and encouraged to spend their points to buy character powers. The difference is that Champions/HERO is upfront about being a point-buy system, and D&D 3.x kinda clouds the issue by referring to 'supplemental character build points' as 'gold'.



> Under these conditions its impossible for magical items to feel magical or interesting regardless of their powers or abilities.



Impossible? Horse-pucky! (should that be hyphenated?) A creative DM can make a commoditized 3.x item interesting (I did). Conversely, in the hands of a less-than-creative DM, scarce and non-commoditized pre-3.x items were uninteresting. I'm sure you've experienced this yourself, Cel. 



> Magical items, not even strong ones are not scarce.



A lesson I learned from the classic 1e tournament modules. 

Also, while I hate to descent into tautology, but _interesting_ things are interesting. _Scarce_ things are not inherently interesting. And how does scarcity actually operate in fictional spaces anyway? A DM  might decree +1 swords are rare in his/her homebrew, but to most experienced gamers, they're commonplace. In and of themselves, how magical or wondrous can they be? (note you can replace '+1 sword' with any fantasy trope: dragon, elf, lost city, evil god, etc.). 

To an audience familiar w/the genre, virtually nothing is really scarce/rare. If you're going to impress them, it's going to come down to your presentation, your imagination. Accepting that's true --and you should, BTW-- the business of magic items becomes a non-issue. Magic will be as interesting as it's described, and in how creatively it can be used. 

Whether or not it had a price tag on it is irrelevant. 



> Even swords +1 were cool...



In my experience, +1 swords were never cool, unless the DM went to great lengths to glom some non-canonical --ie, outside the rules-- coolness unto them, in which case, it wasn't the +1 sword that was cool, it was the DM's creative output.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 9, 2009)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Heh heh... you should tell this to all the people who continue to rant and rave about the Expertise feats.  It seems like all of them to a man have said they wished those feats never existed for anybody, rather than just make a personal decision to remove them from their own games.  LOL!




I've never seen anyone say this. Speaking as somebody who has in the past complained about the Expertise feats, my complaint is simply that the feat should have been built into the system from the beginning; we shouldn't have needed a feat-fix.

Given that it wasn't built into the system from the beginning, a feat-fix was probably necessary.

Back to the main topic of the thread: I don't think commoditized magic items are the problem with 4E, at least not by themselves. If the rest of the system were built differently, commoditized magic items could be left up to individual DMs to allow or not as they chose. Unfortunately, the problems in the system are greatly exacerbated by commoditization.

The problem is magic items having a direct and substantial impact on the core math of the game. This means the core math has to account for those items. This in turn means:


The "best" magic items, the ones players agitate for, will always be the boring vanilla ones. Anything that boosts your core numbers is going to be strongly favored over quirky situational stuff.
Magic items have to come at a fairly well-defined rate and have a fairly well-defined power level, which imposes an extra burden on the DM to hand out loot in accordance with the system's needs. Furthermore, the items the DM is required to hand out (or provide money to buy/create) are the boring vanilla ones.
To the extent that the system incorporates commoditized magic items, prices in the game economy will be dictated by the need to keep high-level items out of the hands of low-level players. Thus the ludicrous prices for epic-level items, which make it very difficult to set reasonable prices in other sectors of the game economy. (For instance, they had to implement a clunky fix to the component cost of the Raise Dead ritual, to compensate for the fact that what's difficult and costly for a Heroic-tier character is a minor expense at Paragon and chump change at Epic.)


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 9, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I'd say the 'problem' that 3e exposed was that quite a few players _enjoyed_ commoditized magic items; which is to say they like having more control over designing their characters abilities.




That may well be true, but to the extent that is true then they shouldn't complain that the magic items don't feel magical.  Those players and DMs made a choice - player choice over a magic as magic.



> Yes, just like Champions players are allowed and encouraged to spend their points to buy character powers. The difference is that Champions/HERO is upfront about being a point-buy system, and D&D 3.x kinda clouds the issue by referring to 'supplemental character build points' as 'gold'.




Indeed.  The thing that bothered me about this is that one of the things that bothered me about 1st edition was the gold=XP mechanic pretty much required high level characters to find enormous staggering sums of treasure to advance.  When they removed this idea, I was a little upset to find that  they had replaced it in many players minds (and ultimately within the game balance itself) with the idea of gold exactly as you put it, as required 'supplemental character build points'.



> Impossible? Horse-pucky! (should that be hyphenated?) A creative DM can make a commoditized 3.x item interesting (I did). Conversely, in the hands of a less-than-creative DM, scarce and non-commoditized pre-3.x items were uninteresting. I'm sure you've experienced this yourself, Cel.




Ok, impossible was a bit too strong of a word, but in my defense I did qualify the statement with 'under these conditions'.  My guess is that you are making a commoditized item interesting by somehow departing creatively from the default conditions.   



> A lesson I learned from the classic 1e tournament modules.




I agree.  And if you built your campaign on the back of 1e tournament modules and 1e 'adventure paths' (which by necessity force leveled the participants), then yes, you'd have much the same problem.



> Also, while I hate to descent into tautology, but _interesting_ things are interesting. _Scarce_ things are not inherently interesting. And how does scarcity actually operate in fictional spaces anyway?




If you'll permit me to descend with you, the answer is 'balance'.



> Whether or not it had a price tag on it is irrelevant.




It is if it is fungible.  It wouldn't matter how much flavor you attached to something, if you hang a price tag on it and allow it to be traded away, all that creativity is just fuel for the auctioneer and its value is simply what its exchange rate for bonuses is.   It's not the price tag, but the ability to transform the item into something else.  You run the risk of creating complex items that the characters simply want to trade away for things of narrower scope and greater marginal utility.  



> In my experience, +1 swords were never cool, unless the DM went to great lengths to glom some non-canonical --ie, outside the rules-- coolness unto them, in which case, it wasn't the +1 sword that was cool, it was the DM's creative output.




Under the 1st edition rules, in the Henchmen loyalty table, one of the easiest ways to ensure that your retainers and henchmen would fight to the death for you was to bestow on them magical gifts.  You could use this gift to counter the fact that you often treated retainers as expendable, thereby under the rules of the game ensuring their loyalty.  This was one of those things the resident rules laywer made sure I was familiar with.  And if your retainers/followers survived, then you had one of the worlds only forces (per RAW) of magically armed mercenaries which mattered a good deal in battlesystem (if you did that sort of thing).  I'm not sure what part of that counts as 'DM's creative output'.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 9, 2009)

Mallus said:


> To an audience familiar w/the genre, virtually nothing is really scarce/rare. If you're going to impress them, it's going to come down to your presentation, your imagination. Accepting that's true --and you should, BTW-- the business of magic items becomes a non-issue. Magic will be as interesting as it's described, and in how creatively it can be used.




And therein lies the problem... those who have played D&D (or any rpg for that matter) for any real length of time is already familiar with pretty much everything.  There really _isn't_ any mystery that can WotC can publish for mass consumption... it will all come down to your personal DM's _presentation_ of those things.  Even a magic item that has three powers in it rather than just one, is no more mysterious than anotherbasic one when the DM says "you find this in the pile of treasure" and then just hands the player the power card for it.

I mean, let's get real... this is Dungeons & Dragons... a game that's existed for over 30 years.  Just how "mysterious" do you think it can really be made in the books alone?  Especially considering that as D&D players, you're going to _BUY THE BOOK AND READ IT_, thereby knowing beforehand every potentially mysterious thing in it before the DM presents it to you in his game.  The ONLY way to be surprised is by the DM's creativity and how the "known quantities" of the game are given to you in ways that are "unknown quanitities" to you.


----------



## Stoat (Dec 9, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Yes, just like Champions players are allowed and encouraged to spend their points to buy character powers. The difference is that Champions/HERO is upfront about being a point-buy system, and D&D 3.x kinda clouds the issue by referring to 'supplemental character build points' as 'gold'.




Agreed.  D&D's magic item economy is a point-buy system in disguise. 

I know it would raise a lot of hackles, but I'm getting to where I'd almost prefer a straight, meta-game point buy system for magic items.  Gain a level, get some points, pick some items, work with the DM to decide how the items get into the game (maybe you buy them from genies, maybe you take them from monsters, maybe some patron bestows them on you.)


----------



## Rel (Dec 9, 2009)

I should be more thankful that I have the players I have I suppose.

Hell, for the current campaign I'm running, I don't even let them take feats, powers or stuff like that from outside the PHB1.  I don't think it would ever cross their minds for a moment to whine about not having access to every item in such a publication.


----------



## Hjorimir (Dec 9, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.  Emphaticly NO!!!!
> 
> There is the problem.  The combination of those two ideas is deadly.
> 
> The idea that it is 'always easier to ADD something into a rules set than to take it away' is so ludicrous on the face of it that I'm surprised you can say it and keep a straight face.



Yes. etc (ad nausem).

We are not talking about the process of rules creation; we are talking about taking something away from the players. If the magic items never existed, the players can't rightly complain about not having them.

Go to your leaders and reduce the number of heals they can use per encounter by one and see them complain (and I think they'd be right to. this is just an example). On the other hand, if you went and granted each of those leaders an extra use of their base class heal per encounter, they'd be thankful.

This all stems from the baseline of the core rules. When the DM deviates from that baseline by taking away access to powers, feats, whatever, the players are unhappy (and an unhappy player can REALLY moan about stuff).

So, yes, it's easier to add something to the player characters power than it is to take away. 

Yes. etc. (ad naseum).


----------



## avin (Dec 9, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Why create a rift between players and DMs.
> 
> I'm sure lots of DMs suffer because of the dullness of items too, and want a solution just as much as the players.




Not me, thanks.

4E dull items brought the balance I need to have fun DMing D&D.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2009)

Destil said:


> Actually, I'd think they can't publish them because they would end up as 'DM Only'.




Two things:

1) That's not why he said they couldn't publish it. 

2) Every variation of the DMG and Monster Manual, and every adventure is already "DM only".  That is not a barrier.


----------



## Rel (Dec 9, 2009)

Hjorimir said:


> This all stems from the baseline of the core rules. When the DM deviates from that baseline by taking away access to powers, feats, whatever, the players are unhappy (and an unhappy player can REALLY moan about stuff).




Again, this just seems incredibly foreign to me as it relates to magic items.

Your example of taking away a class ability seems miles away from the idea that a PC should get any magic item they want from a book of non-standard magic items.  The idea that a player would "moan" about this is something I find incredibly offputting.  To the point that I would be reluctant to even game with that person.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 9, 2009)

I'll add my voice to the chorus and say that I don't find 4e magic items inherently less interesting than 3e magic items, by and large.  There are a few exceptions - notably in the "wondrous item" category that's declined since 2e - but I generally find them _more_ interesting now.  Simple +X items aren't the norm in 4e; they're pretty unusual.  Weapons, armors, and amulets generally do a lot more than just adding a simple bonus.  All too often, items in 3e would have to fill one of the Big Six, and few characters had much interesting stuff beyond that.  4e is in a better situation, here, at least IME.

Anyway, I think the missing design space is easier to fill than they'd expect.  Let me lay it out...

The real problem isn't that some magic items will be more powerful than others.  _The real problem is the level/pricing/bonus assumptions_.  (For those few who aren't familiar with 4e's magic items, they're tiered in a 5-level cycle.  Level 1, 6, 11, etc. are the simple +X items, and item abilities beyond that +X are effectively worth between 1 and 4 additional "levels", so right now there's no such thing as, say, a +1 item at level 6.)

So, for items like that necklace, you don't need to make a new kind of DM-only item (we have artifacts for that).  Just open up the design space so that a weapon/armor/amulet ability can be worth 5 or more additional levels.  I mean, if I have a +1 amulet that costs as much as a level 10 item, it can have a major effect and still remain balanced enough for players to buy or create it.

I don't think the situation is anywhere near as dire as the blogger presented.  The design space is there; it just needs to be used.

-O


----------



## ferratus (Dec 9, 2009)

I don't think the philosophy of the power level of magic items in 4e is a problem at all.  There have been a lot of cool magic items that didn't do much but were a pleasure to have in the game.  I think magic items suck in 4e for a completely different reason.

That reason is simply that they exist to fill a niche in the character's power suite, rather than existing for themselves.   In other words, they exist to add another daily power, and to increase your % on a die roll.  It should be no wonder then that they are boring.

A magical item can be cool without being very powerful, but it can't just be an extension of the character's abilities.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Well, that's the thing, really.  The statement they _cannot_ publish them is... bogus.  In the extreme.  They darned well could publish them - put a big honkin' warning label on them saying, "These are dangerous to your game's balance, DMs may introduce these into their games at their own discretion".
> 
> This would violate their "all things are core" philosophy.  Big whoop.  Standing on principle here is not a virtue, if it prevents them from publishing things that inspire DMs.




Well sure- I think he means it in the same way someone on a diet says they can't eat a donut. Sure they CAN eat said donut but...  Donuts don't fit in with the whole diet plan.

I think WoTC sure COULD make such a book if they wanted, but it goes against what they seem to have determined was a major problem with the earlier versions of the game. (You can choose if you agree it was a problem or not.) 

Unexpected "gotchas" hidden in the rules the DM just didn't expect have a tendancy to make the game fall apart.  Items like he mentioned fall into this category- too easy to be unexpected gotchas.

That said, I would love it if a 3pp published something like this... But not WoTC. I agree with what they're doing. Keep all the "official" rules to the point, and balanced, and let me (the DM) modify it as I see fit.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 9, 2009)

Stoat said:


> When I wanted different, flavorful items in 2E or 3.X, I made 'em up. When I want different flavorful items in 4E, I'll make 'em up.




Yeah I remember thinking this too. Then I looked at the complications of integrating this into the 4E character sheet and decided that expressing my creativity was not worth the hassle of having my players write out character sheets by hand. (A practice which should be outlawed by the Geneva Convention as inhumane) 

Unless there is software support for custom items I will use the vanilla for 4E. The creative stuff can be saved for systems with character sheets less involved than an IRS form.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2009)

samursus said:


> While I understand, and even empathize with those lamenting the loss of "magical" magic items from D&D, I don't think its that big a deal.




Here's the thing - the logic goes beyond magic items.  They are saying that they understand a local GM can use "unbalanced" material to good effect.  They do it themselves.  However, they can't publish such things for our use.  

Apparently, we collectively can't be trusted with such material.

I normally give WotC and it's people a lot of leeway, but in this case, I'm a tad insulted.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 9, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> With the introduction of 3.5 they actually became mandatory, because the CR of high challenge monsters was computed with the assumption that all high level players would have an optimal suite of these items.



Wulf Ratbane will tell you that it's not as bad as people thought. But it wouldn't really matter. In the end, lots of players will always look for the highest positive modifiers they can get. It doesn't really matter if it is factored in the system or not. 

[...]

By the way, I have a feeling of déjà vu. I think "we" (as in posters on EN World) have talked about these things before.

I don't expect anythingn new to happen in these discussions until WotC adds a new class of magic items. For some individuals, house rules will work fine, too, I suppose.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Apparently, we collectively can't be trusted with such material.
> 
> I normally give WotC and it's people a lot of leeway, but in this case, I'm a tad insulted.




I'm not that surprised.

Apparently, if you trust people with unbalanced material, and give suggestions for how to use it well, you are not attempting to make a "balanced" game.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/269031-ad-d1-designed-game-balance.html

Given the amount people grouse on the InterWeb, and given WotC's market niche, this is actually one thing I do _*not*_ blame them for.


----------



## UniversalMonster (Dec 9, 2009)

There is software support for custom items. Right click on the builder, choose "Create custom element" and go to town. 

The difference here is that WOTC has set themselves up as creating official items for character builds (aka GEAR), and the items he is talking about here are items that support the campaign story. Those aren't just DM only- those are unique to each campaign. And no, WOTC shouldn't publish stuff like that, because it will be treated as gear. 

In the last major 3e Campaign I ran there was a chalice that would raise the dead upon command. It's not an item meant for a character build. It's not gear. But it was the key item for the campaign. Another item in my campaign was a snowglobe that contained an entire demi-plane that was christmas-themed. You could trap people in it if you unlocked it's secrets, but that was really only an excuse to run my little side-line christmas adventures. Trapping people is something characters probably want to do, but sorry, that's not what this item was *really* meant for, thus it isn't gear. 

And in 3E terms, magic items have written out the XP cost and the price to make and all of that, and I never bothered with it then, either. 


So in general terms, I think Wizards is doing the right thing.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 9, 2009)

ferratus said:


> That reason is simply that they exist to fill a niche in the character's power suite, rather than existing for themselves.   In other words, they exist to add another daily power, and to increase your % on a die roll.  It should be no wonder then that they are boring.
> 
> A magical item can be cool without being very powerful, but it can't just be an extension of the character's abilities.




That's a very good point, and one I wholeheartedly agree with.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 9, 2009)

Peter said:


> There is software support for custom items. Right click on the builder, choose "Create custom element" and go to town.




Your software kung-fu might be better than mine. I can create things and descriptions but it won't let me give a bonus to all powers with the fire keyword for example.


----------



## renau1g (Dec 9, 2009)

The worst thing I find is that some of the really cool flavour items (Let's say the Flagon of Ale Procurement) are much, much less desirable for a PC than say Deathcut Armour. 

Problem I have with at-will dragon orbs is that they're either *press button* I win or else totally useless. They're like the save vs. die spells in 3e. Either they worked and you win or else you don't.


----------



## Hjorimir (Dec 9, 2009)

Rel said:


> Again, this just seems incredibly foreign to me as it relates to magic items.
> 
> Your example of taking away a class ability seems miles away from the idea that a PC should get any magic item they want from a book of non-standard magic items.  The idea that a player would "moan" about this is something I find incredibly offputting.  To the point that I would be reluctant to even game with that person.



I hear you, Rel. I guess I don't think it is as easy as labling something as "non-standard" when it comes to these kinds of things. I too would be reluctant to game with such people if it was just a matter of meeting new players, however my group of players are life-long friends (some of which I count the years of friendship in decades) and you just don't kick those kind of people to the street when they complain about their characters (if you catch my drift).

Now I personally don't have this problem. Heck, I don't even allow the magic item creation (mostly). I'm a certified RBDM. I'm just talking in principle here and from my own observations of other people's games and the general nature of players.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Apparently, we collectively can't be trusted with such material.
> 
> I normally give WotC and it's people a lot of leeway, but in this case, I'm a tad insulted.




That's because you're not just accepting the fact that WotC is building their D&D brand for more than just you and people like us... (i.e. experienced D&D players).  They are building the game in many ways to the lowest common denominator, because that is what they've determined to be the best way to get the widest range and amount of people to play the game.

So yes, they've decided not to do much (if any) "advanced" rules... not because they don't trust _you_... but because they don't want to confuse and alienate new folks.  They assume (and rightly so in most cases) that you, as an experienced roleplayer and D&D player, have every intention of creating, adding, and houseruling the game to fit your particular style.  So if the 4E magic item design doesn't suit you, they fully expect to make it your own.

Just because you _don't want to_ make it your own, is not their problem currently.  Maybe eventually it will be (if enough people clamor for it)... but until then, they're leaving it to 3PPs to design it for us, or for all of us to create our own.


----------



## UniversalMonster (Dec 9, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Your software kung-fu might be better than mine. I can create things and descriptions but it won't let me give a bonus to all powers with the fire keyword for example.




Use a number 2 pencil on the character sheet, lazy!


----------



## keterys (Dec 9, 2009)

I believe it's actually possible by directly editing the xml - someone was posting about how a power had the wrong range in their character builder and someone pointed them at the range in its xml being set wrong somehow, and I did actually make a custom power at one point early on...

But it's sufficiently 'work' that I don't really consider it viable. It does make me wonder if it's more possible than I'd really given the charbuilder credit... I might have to see if I can make custom items and share the xml for someone to copy in. Hmmhmm.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 9, 2009)

DEFCON 1 said:


> That's because you're not just accepting the fact that WotC is building their D&D brand for more than just you and people like us... (i.e. experienced D&D players). They are building the game in many ways to the lowest common denominator, because that is what they've determined to be the best way to get the widest range and amount of people to play the game.
> 
> So yes, they've decided not to do much (if any) "advanced" rules... not because they don't trust _you_... but because they don't want to confuse and alienate new folks. They assume (and rightly so in most cases) that you, as an experienced roleplayer and D&D player, have every intention of creating, adding, and houseruling the game to fit your particular style. So if the 4E magic item design doesn't suit you, they fully expect to make it your own.
> 
> Just because you _don't want to_ make it your own, is not their problem currently. Maybe eventually it will be (if enough people clamor for it)... but until then, they're leaving it to 3PPs to design it for us, or for all of us to create our own.




They are building a game to promote dependence on thier electronic nipple. 

The push away from books and toward an online subscription model makes that pretty clear. Exclusive DDI content, 3PP material not available for the character builder, the reliance on the CB so much in the first place, etc.

The revenue stream from a large subscriber base looks pretty sweet so I can't blame them from a business standpoint.


----------



## Garnfellow (Dec 9, 2009)

This article finally made me understand the claim that "4e feels more like 1e than any other edition."

It brought me back to the good old days when EGG admitted to using all sorts of variant rules and shortcuts in his house game, while simultaneously admonishing all civilian DMs to use only approved Official AD&D (tm) material strictly as written, because anything else was much too dangerous and unbalancing for use by amateurs.


----------



## Hjorimir (Dec 9, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> They are building a game to promote dependence on thier electronic nipple.




I lub the nipple! MORE NIPPLE!


----------



## UniversalMonster (Dec 9, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> They are building a game to promote dependence on thier electronic nipple.
> .




Insulting and wrong.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 9, 2009)

Peter said:


> Insulting and wrong.




Neither. 

I lub the nipple too, I just want to be able to get different flavors of milk from it. 

It has already been expressed before that if something isn't in the C.builder then it just can't compete with content that is. Why would that be?


----------



## Engilbrand (Dec 9, 2009)

And hot.


----------



## keterys (Dec 9, 2009)

So, seriously - I do items _completely_ different for my home games and I'm quite happy with how that works out. But for LFR I'm actually annoyed at how powerful and game changing the items already are (as a player or DM) - I'd rather they toned the baseline more, and only let DMs who really knew what was going on mess around.


----------



## Rel (Dec 9, 2009)

I just wish to go on the record as being pro-nipple in all its wonderful forms.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 9, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> It has already been expressed before that if something isn't in the C.builder then it just can't compete with content that is. Why would that be?




In my opinion if it's not in the C Builder in order to be "worth it" to me, it needs to be something thats a one off kind of deal, or so outside the normal rules it doesn't matter that the C Builder doesn't have it... (Because I'm probably not using it anyway.)

These items I think would exist as the former idea. They don't need to be in the CB because they're more like one shots.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Dec 9, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The revenue stream from a large subscriber base looks pretty sweet so I can't blame them from a business standpoint.



Can you blame them from some other standpoint?

I think the online tools are the best things to happen to the time it takes for DM preparation and character building. That said, I _really_ want the the character builder to be more customizable and the adventure tools to have an optional toggle patch for MM1 style elites and solos.


----------



## Windjammer (Dec 9, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> For instance, let's consider an epic destiny, Avatar of Death.
> 
> -snip-
> 
> I'm just saying, there is a paucity of compelling magic in this game. Saying that you can't have cool things because it would unbalance the game is a weak excuse.




Well, and here you are, the first person ever I give XP on Enworld. Amazing post. No polemics, all example and argumentation. I tip my hat. 



Umbran said:


> Well, that's the thing, really.  The statement they _cannot_ publish them is... bogus.  In the extreme.  They darned well could publish them - put a big honkin' warning label on them saying, "These are dangerous to your game's balance, DMs may introduce these into their games at their own discretion".




I was going to write a response to this, but then saw that you answered yourself here:



Umbran said:


> This would violate their "all things are core" philosophy.




I'd like to spell that out for everyone: Any item they publish has to be LFR legit. And any item they publish has to go onto DDI. As a consequence, they can't publish a magic item which doesn't make it over to the DDI _and_ is LFR legit. One problem on DDI, and certainly for LFR, is that there is no such thing as putting a header there saying "DM, use at your own discretion". LFR, by its nature, takes that power out of the hands of their DMs, and the DDI interface respects that. We all remember the headache they went through when hybrid classes first showed up on _Dragon_. 

What that means for us DMs who've got no vested interested in LFR - well, Peter spelled it out for us. It means bland items. By the way, there are a TON of cool magic items in Adventurer's Vault 2 in terms of flavour. Just up the mechanics and make them a bit more.... wild, and I think you've still got a good resource. But yes, shame in official 4E the mechanics can't match the item description. That's what RangerWickett NAILED.


----------



## Marshall (Dec 9, 2009)

Obryn said:


> The real problem isn't that some magic items will be more powerful than others.  _The real problem is the level/pricing/bonus assumptions_.  (For those few who aren't familiar with 4e's magic items, they're tiered in a 5-level cycle.  Level 1, 6, 11, etc. are the simple +X items, and item abilities beyond that +X are effectively worth between 1 and 4 additional "levels", so right now there's no such thing as, say, a +1 item at level 6.)




No. 
The *real* problem is that they have so badly screwed up the values of the intervening levels that they have no meaning anymore. When you have several occurrences of items with exactly the same bonus, property and power yet having 'levels' differing by up to 4 you've lost the design space to further expand the system. 

If the ability to add 1/2 of the items enhancement bonus to damage a second time to all powers with an elemental keyword is a +4 level ability, but the ability to add the *entire* bonus a second time to *all* powers regardless of keyword is a +3 ability you have *Zero* design space available to design an ability to add the entire bonus a second time to fire keyword powers. 



> So, for items like that necklace, you don't need to make a new kind of DM-only item (we have artifacts for that).  Just open up the design space so that a weapon/armor/amulet ability can be worth 5 or more additional levels.  I mean, if I have a +1 amulet that costs as much as a level 10 item, it can have a major effect and still remain balanced enough for players to buy or create it.




The only problem I can see with that necklace in the current design mix is that its a _necklace_ doing an implement job. In that case, He's right, there isn't and _shouldn't be_ design space available for it.



> I don't think the situation is anywhere near as dire as the blogger presented.  The design space is there; it just needs to be used.
> 
> -O




Its there all right. But before they put this new book out they have to go back and fix all the ones that came before. That's why they "can't" publish it.

Even tho its the perfect idea for a Dragon article and a CB update.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 9, 2009)

Exception-based design them.

joe b.


----------



## Windjammer (Dec 9, 2009)

Marshall said:


> Before they put this new book out they have to go back and fix all the ones that came before. That's why they "can't" publish it.




Yes, it's one of these moments one fights off the impression 4E is Rabban and 5E will be Feyd-Rautha.



			
				In the immortal words of Frank Herbert's Baron Harkonnen...  said:
			
		

> Rabban, Rabban... I place you in charge of Arrakis. It's yours to squeeze, as I promised. I want you to squeeze and squeeze and squeeze. Give me spice! Drive them into utter submission. You must not show the slightest pity or mercy... as only you can... Never stop! Go.... Show no mercy!
> 
> And when we've crushed these people enough I'll send in you Feyd... they'll cheer you as a rescuer... lovely Feyd... really a lovely boy.


----------



## korjik (Dec 9, 2009)

Very weak excuse not to put the book out.

In the first place 'DM only' is a myth. Players will buy what they find interesting. The fact that is is for a DM only isnt a consideration. In my group (6 people), a cool magic item book would prolly sell 3 maybe 4. That is more than any book other than the PHB1, PHB2 and martial powers. 4 is more than anything other than the PHB1.

Second, stop gimping the DM. They should be making ways to make the DM better not more irrelevant. My 3.5 campaign went to 18th level and was unbalanced from about 2nd. Guess what, I can DM and kept it together. Making books or Dragon articles on what happens when things go out of whack and how to rebalance are far better than 100 pages of weaksauce magic. 

Third, there is no functional reason that their cannot be a third tier of items between normal items and artifacts. The arguement that then the items will become general use and overshadow the normal items is the concern of the DM, not WOTC. If they were to put the possible effects on game balance in the book, a decent DM should be able to handle it. The DM saying 'NO' is not always a bad thing.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Dec 9, 2009)

renau1g said:


> The worst thing I find is that some of the really cool flavour items (Let's say the Flagon of Ale Procurement) are much, much less desirable for a PC than say Deathcut Armour.



Well, in the real world, would anyone really pay all that much for a never ending flagon of ale (lets assume that it can't be used for industrial purposes)? Moreover, would you expect a prospective purchaser to be, say, a SWAT team member with no intention of giving up his job?

So given that... why should a flagon of ale procurement not be incredibly cheap? It was created for a specific client, most likely for a lot of money, but since then it'll just float around as a curio with it's value dropping with each cheap sale to a pawn shop. It's not going to be anywhere near the price of deathcut armor.


> Problem I have with at-will dragon orbs is that they're either *press button* I win or else totally useless. They're like the save vs. die spells in 3e. Either they worked and you win or else you don't.




So the solution is to make it never fail. Then it's a dependable plot device. You can guarantee (almost) that PCs will control every dragon they meet. Now you just need to take that into account for your campaign. Assume that the PCs will have access to one or more controlled dragons and set things up appropriately.

That said, the 3 items listed as examples are
dragon orb: If it never fails, this is a plot device and needs to be written into the campaign. If it's random, then it's going to make it very difficult to run a game (unless your dragons are weak or uninterested in fighting, or otherwise not a direct challenge to the PCs anyway).

necklace: sounds like a run-of-the-mill magic item. maybe a high level one, but still.

sword of the 4 elements: again, run-of-the-mill magic item. again high level.

The only way the sword is problematic is if whomever is using it is repeatedly using up all 4 of its charges in every combat, and doing so because it's more effective than anything else he could do.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 9, 2009)

fuzzlewump said:


> Can you blame them from some other standpoint?
> 
> I think the online tools are the best things to happen to the time it takes for DM preparation and character building. That said, I _really_ want the the character builder to be more customizable and the adventure tools to have an optional toggle patch for MM1 style elites and solos.




Even with the little bugs I love my monster builder ( it is beta after all) . I want the CB to be as customizeable.


----------



## Skallgrim (Dec 10, 2009)

I'm really, really surprised at how many people are taking what, to me, seems to be a reasonable point by a game designer, and spinning it into 'This is why 4 sucks and is stupid'.

As I see it, the game designers are creating rules material for the broadest possible use.  This is NOT the 'lowest common denominator', but simply material that is, by and large, setting neutral.  

You can use Forgotten Realms feats in your game.  You can use Eberron magic items in your game. You can use the same races in any game.

Similarly, they are _trying_ (even the game designer in question admits not always successfully) to produce rules material that will not be unbalancing in your local game, providing you follow the guidelines for magic items in parcels and the general treasure guidelines.

Having deliberately tried to do both of those things, they are of course restricted to not being able to include items which have an elaborate backstory tied to a particular game world, or having an elaborate history, or having an extensive settings-grounded series of powers.  It doesn't make sense to include magic items with powers that activate when worn by people of a particular dynastic bloodline, or curses that activate when a prophetic enemy appears, since those items will be of little use to people who don't use that setting.

How many people playing Trollhaunt were thrilled when Sunwrath can always tell you the direction to the Barony of Therund?

The game does have magic items with powerful and multifaceted effects, and those items require a level of story-line enabled play, and a lot of DM intervention, and they are artifacts.

I think the game designer was simply admitting that the added level of complexity and DM discretion is worth it for _artifacts_, but does not justify this level of complexity for lesser magic items.

I'm not sure how so many people read this as:

"Look, even I admit that 4e is boring and lame, and I wrote it!"

when I read it as an interesting way to point out:

"The most interesting and fun magic items, like the most interesting and fun adventures, and the most interesting and fun characters, are those that your group creates, or modifies, or customizes, for your players and your game.

We could just print the magic items that we all use around our local games here at WOTC, but those magic items were developed for our particular game worlds, our particular campaigns, our particular storylines, and our particular players.  They probably wouldn't be nearly as interesting to YOU, as they are to US, and that's fine.

In addition, they might be crazy-broken in your game, or stupid-weak.  The awesome magical curse tattoo that I gave this guy wouldn't be much of a disadvantage if you slapped it on a high hit point barbarian who multiclassed into Warlock, but it is balanced for that character, since he DOESN'T have a raft of HP, and I knew that when I gave it to him."


----------



## Zaran (Dec 10, 2009)

renau1g said:


> The worst thing I find is that some of the really cool flavour items (Let's say the Flagon of Ale Procurement) are much, much less desirable for a PC than say Deathcut Armour.





The reason why PCs don't want items like the Flagon is it cuts into RAW alotted items.  It either costs them money which is meant for them to buy enhancement type magic items or it costs them magic item drops.   If these items were given out in addition to keeping the PCs at the right level of power then they would be all for it.


----------



## Stoat (Dec 10, 2009)

Saeviomagy said:


> Well, in the real world, would anyone really pay all that much for a never ending flagon of ale (lets assume that it can't be used for industrial purposes)?




When I was in college, I lived upstairs from a frat.  Trust me.  The Kappa Sigs would've sold every suit of Deathcut Armor in the Trollhaunt for a never ending flagon of ale.



Zaran said:


> The reason why PCs don't want items like the Flagon is it cuts into RAW alotted items.  It either costs them money which is meant for them to buy enhancement type magic items or it costs them magic item drops.   If these items were given out in addition to keeping the PCs at the right level of power then they would be all for it.




A 4Eish solution, which I'm a little surprised WotC did'nt try, would be siloing off combat and utility items.

My solution would be to just add random utility items in on top of the combat stuff.  Treasure parcels be damned.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 10, 2009)

Zaran said:


> The reason why PCs don't want items like the Flagon is it cuts into RAW alotted items.  It either costs them money which is meant for them to buy enhancement type magic items or it costs them magic item drops.   If these items were given out in addition to keeping the PCs at the right level of power then they would be all for it.




No they wouldn't.

They would hawk it as soon as possible and get better stuff.

re: Character Builder and LFR

Given that the character builder has artifacts and those you certainly can't purchase (as well, are Eberron dragonmarks legal in LFR?), the idea that it is because of the character builder doesn't seem valid IMO.

Seriously, I can NOT see why if you want powerful, campaign changing magical effects, one doesn't use the artifact system. It's the best artifact system ever for any version of D&D so I'm quite confused as to the reluctance to use it.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 10, 2009)

Stoat said:


> My solution would be to just add random utility items in on top of the combat stuff.  Treasure parcels be damned.





And there you go... I am kind of glad WOTC magic items are on the functionally bland side  I can squash multiple together and mingle with story and boom I have magic items that make the players wish lists envious.

 I can up there potency but I am hesitant .. for instance I need a burden of the one ring mechanic that rocks.... so that at-will invisibility to everything but un-dead ... becomes a real choice instead of an every battle always on. anyone got ideas for cool detrimental effects and after effects for items.


----------



## korjik (Dec 10, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> And there you go... I am kind of glad WOTC magic items are on the functionally bland side I can squash multiple together and mingle with story and boom I have magic items that make the players wish lists envious.
> 
> I can up there potency but I am hesitant .. for instance I need a burden of the one ring mechanic that rocks.... so that at-will invisibility to everything but un-dead ... becomes a real choice instead of an every battle always on. anyone got ideas for cool detrimental effects and after effects for items.




Use surges to use/activate as a very basic one. After that, get evil. After everytime you use the ring, three hours later you get attacked by wraiths.

Things like that


----------



## billd91 (Dec 10, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> The problem 3.0 introduced to D&D was the idea that magic items were non-random fungible comodities which could be easily bought and traded at any nearby community and which could therefore be considered part of your character's build.  Players basically were allowed to, and ultimately encouraged to by the rules set, to pick and choose which items were best for them and DM's were encouraged to allow this.




That's my general take on it too. I can empathize with WotC wanting to design a game in which players can build their characters exactly how they want to. I can also empathize with them wanting to add in an easier magic item building subsystem. But it really does have unpleasant downstream effects. Quirky items that PCs used to get through horde placement get turned into cash to get stuff more regularly useful (the Big 6).

Back in 1e, you could sell your magic gear, sure. The DMG had prices for that. But it wasn't so easy to turn that back around into new magic gear by the rules. Getting the big 6 (or big 3-4 considering there were no amulets of natural armor and the rings of protection/cloaks of resistance did double-duty, and magic users didn't want a girdle of giant strength) was still desirable, but not such an easy strategy to pursue. Most PCs came away with 3 (weapon, armor, ring/cloak of protection) eventually and ended up having to be satisfied with the level of the magic they got - or went on quest to get better ones.
Most often, you sold magical gear to get the money you needed to train up a level or save up for a castle.

Simple magic item creation in 3.0 commoditized magic too much. And 4e hasn't exactly improved on that because it hasn't fundamentally changed that idea. The numbers have been fiddled with. That's all. But what's the solution? I can think of a few ideas.

1) Don't build assumptions about what magic PCs have into your challenge ratings or appropriate-level monster defenses. No need to keep up - no need to go with upgrade after upgrade. People will still want the upgrades to a certain extent, but won't feel they're so "mandatory". 4e may have relatively weak magic, but they're still built into the expectations of the system.

2) Make consumable magic fairly easy to make but permanent magic harder. Wondrous Items at 3rd level? I think NOT! In 1e/2e, 11th level was the norm when magic users started getting Enchant an Item.


----------



## coyote6 (Dec 10, 2009)

billd91 said:


> 1) Don't build assumptions about what magic PCs have into your challenge ratings or appropriate-level monster defenses. No need to keep up - no need to go with upgrade after upgrade. People will still want the upgrades to a certain extent, but won't feel they're so "mandatory". 4e may have relatively weak magic, but they're still built into the expectations of the system.




The problem there is that characters with magic items will be more powerful than characters without, and will likely make "challenging" encounters too easy. For adventure-writing purposes (where the adventure isn't for your personal gaming group -- i.e., you know nothing about the PCs that will undertake it), you can't know how hard to make encounters.

That makes pre-written adventures less valuable to GMs, meaning they'll sell fewer of them, meaning they'll need to sell more sourcebooks, leading to more power creep and a faster edition turnover; then the sky falls, the Mayan calendar ends, Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich team up to make a movie together, and the CGI/explosion singularity occurs, and we all become slaves to our new computer overlords. 

More seriously, maybe they should silo "combat" off from "utility" more. The primary balance concerns revolve around combat; if something has little-to-no effect on combat, then they get as weird and wahoo as they want, without worrying about breaking something.

Clever players will be able to turn utility powers into something useful in combat, but that's not a bad thing -- they're likely to be things not clearly delineated by game mechanics, so page 42 and GM judgment can handle it.



Celebrim said:


> In 1st edition, the ultimate combination was belt of giant strength (especially storm giant!) and gauntlets of ogre power.  Every fighter longed to have both, because with them he became an almost unstoppable force (a vorpal sword would just have been frosting).




Nah, you needed the _hammer of thunderbolts_ to make the girdle & gauntlets combo effective; only that one weapon (in the DMG; there may have been other items in adventures, there certainly were in home games) allowed the girdle & gauntlets to stack. Otherwise, 19-25 Str from the girdle took precedence over the gauntlets' 18/00.

I never saw the combo in action, either, though there was a character or two that got close. (Some of the groups I were part of were very fond of high powered AD&D characters. Mmm, 1e psionics...)


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 10, 2009)

I have always hated use and toss magic items.... reminds me of modern mass production (here take your medicine... or use the plastic fork then throw it away) NOT the right mind set for magic - magic should be more personal.  A shaman didn't sell his fellows magic pigments ... he taught them how to create the markings to overcome their personal limits and the pigments were  like cheap spell components which had to be created by the one using them as that was part of the ritual for there use.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 10, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Even with the little bugs I love my monster builder ( it is beta after all) . I want the CB to be as customizeable.



Yes, that would be cool. Why can't I design powers in the Character Builder? 
Probably because the development resources are now focused elsewhere. 

Time for a new DDI survey, I think.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Dec 10, 2009)

Quick question, how many of you brought the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Artifacts-Dungeons-Dragons-Fantasy-Roleplaying/dp/1588469352"]Tome of Artifacts[/ame] when it came out?


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 10, 2009)

I used a healing surge mechanic for a 4e bag of tricks i recreated from scratch.  Twenty animals, from minion rats to a lion and bear.  It didn't get used very much, unlike its 2e and 3e counterparts.  Why?  For one, PCs didn't want to spend their surges on animals that would fight for them, and two, it wasn't listed as a power card, they never saw it in their "draw", and thus it was forgotten.

They still have it, and i need to find a way to bump up its significance and take the middle slot again between "mundane" magic items and artifacts.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 10, 2009)

MichaelSomething said:


> Quick question, how many of you brought the Tome of Artifacts when it came out?




I didn't, but that's largely because I don't consider artifacts to be magic items. To me, artifacts are MacGuffins. They exist to serve the specific needs of my campaign; therefore they are always homebrewed (and may not follow the artifact rules given in the DMG).


----------



## Umbran (Dec 10, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Apparently, if you trust people with unbalanced material, and give suggestions for how to use it well, you are not attempting to make a "balanced" game.




There's a major difference between producing optional unbalanced elements for a game with a solid foundation, and a game that doesn't have a balanced foundation to begin with.



DEFCON 1 said:


> That's because you're not just accepting the fact that WotC is building their D&D brand for more than just you and people like us... (i.e. experienced D&D players).




Please do not attempt to tell me what I do and don't accept.

I understand that they aim to have the game appeal to as wide an audience as possible.  However, a game that requires an initial investment of hundreds of pages of rules, and has many hundreds of more pages already published beyond that, has lost the "don't want to confuse an alienate folks" battle already.  A book or two of more highly advanced stuff isn't going to have a notable impact on that score.

  They are building the game in many ways to the lowest common denominator, because that is what they've determined to be the best way to get the widest range and amount of people to play the game.



> Just because you _don't want to_ make it your own




Again with the telling me what I think and want.  Stop that.  It is rude, and also incorrect.

I make my games my own so much so that the online tools they provide are often worthless to me.  That doesn't mean I don't want to see a professional take on it, that has had multiple brains applied to the ideas, and maybe some more playtesting than I can provide before putting it into my own games, and so on.





Windjammer said:


> I'd like to spell that out for everyone: Any item they publish has to be LFR legit.




I don't think that's true.  Does LFR really bring in so much money that this needs to be a consideration?



> And any item they publish has to go onto DDI.




This is a stronger point.  I still don't think it is strictly true, but even if it is, if GMs don't review what they are handed by their players, I don't think they're doing their jobs as well as they should.


----------



## Hjorimir (Dec 10, 2009)

MichaelSomething said:


> Quick question, how many of you brought the Tome of Artifacts when it came out?



I didn't, but one of the main reasons is that I found most 3PP material lacking in quality and game balance than having an aversion to artifacts.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 10, 2009)

Umbran said:


> There's a major difference between producing optional unbalanced elements for a game with a solid foundation, and a game that doesn't have a balanced foundation to begin with.




For the design goals of 1e, 1e is balanced. It is woefully unbalanced for the design goals of 3e or 4e.

For the design goals of 3e or 4e, those games are balanced. They are woefully unbalanced for the design goals of 1e.


RC


----------



## Windjammer (Dec 10, 2009)

Umbran said:


> me said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Can't say about the money, but WotC announcted  from the beginning that 4E would be "one ruleset to rule them all" sc. home play _and_ Living format.* By contrast, during 3.5 and Living Greyhawk WotC released pages upon pages telling the LG playerbase which items, feats, and prestige classes they _couldn't_ use.

I've been watching the RPGA influence on 4E closely, and except for the sidebars on hybrid classes in Dragon (which I mentioned above) and another sidebar on immurements in Adventurer's Vault 2 which directly address the issue, my claim as to "any item they make has to be LFR legit" rests on personal observation. The day WotC publishes an item which breaks that (perceived) requirement I'm happy to recant. Alas, 18 months into 4E this has not yet happened.

* See Chris Perkins' announcement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw0DMw96UH0


----------



## Derren (Dec 10, 2009)

This pretty much shows why I have a problem with 4E.
WotC choose balance over fun. Its better to have boring but balanced things instead of interesting but hard/impossible to balance things.

Thats good for a tabletop wargame, but not for an RPG.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Dec 11, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> I didn't, but that's largely because I don't consider artifacts to be magic items. To me, artifacts are MacGuffins. They exist to serve the specific needs of my campaign; therefore they are always homebrewed (and may not follow the artifact rules given in the DMG).




Well then you're at odds with people who want WOTC(or 3PP) to put out unique artifact-ish "magical" items, like the OP.



Hjorimir said:


> I didn't, but one of the main reasons is that I found most 3PP material lacking in quality and game balance than having an aversion to artifacts.




This product was printed during the late life cycle of 3.5 by Necromancer Games, so it's generally considered one of the really good books out there.  Also, since it all about artifacts, balance is somewhat of a lesser concern.


Wait a minute, doesn't 4E have artifact rules of it own?  Doesn't that fill the desire for "magical" magic items?


----------



## M.L. Martin (Dec 11, 2009)

This strikes me as the latest round of a debate on philosophies of balance that go beyond D&D and back at least 20 years, since it reminds me of some stuff from Allen Varney's review of 4th Edition--that is, the 4th Edition of CHAMPIONS.  From DRAGON #162 (October 1990):



> I hear that [the HERO System's] open-ended approach brought a sneer from an editor at a rival game company that publishes another universal system. "Look at this!" he said of the CHAMPIONS game's powers list. "The put pictures of magnifying glasses and stop-signs next to some of the powers to warn you that the powers are unbalanced! If they can't balance them, they should leave them out."
> 
> A reasonable point. But like the issue of reality vs. genre, it admits of two approaches. In the Balance-or-Die version, the game's designers try to imagine every combination of powers and situations, rule on them at length, and automatically veto any they've overlooked. They treat rules like the Food and Drug Administration treats medicines, requiring exhaustive testing to prevent consumer toxicity. Once balanced, the rules become Holy Writ, from which thou shalt not depart.
> 
> I know players who prefer this approach, perhaps for the sense of control and stability it produces. again, the CHAMPIONS rules take a different tack by shifting the responsibility for game balance from the publisher to the GM. The rationale is that in a system that allows desolidification, time travel, clairsentience, and a dozen other story-altered devices, it's up to each individual GM to choose not only the story but the ways in which the players can alter it.




  Though framed in a HERO context here, I think the question of how to approach balance can be applied to D&D as well.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 11, 2009)

MichaelSomething said:


> Wait a minute, doesn't 4E have artifact rules of it own?  Doesn't that fill the desire for "magical" magic items?




Very well done rules in fact. Best rules ever IMO.

I STILL am waiting for an explanation as to why those rules cant be used since "interesting magic items that break the game" should be ARTIFACTS.


re: LFR and DDI

Again, why do people keep saying this when it isn't true.

LFR does not allow for Eberron Dragonmarks OR backgrounds (and interestingly enough, neither does it allow for FR spellscars and FR backgrounds)

Of course, there's a line in the RPGA character creation document which says

*content that specifies DM adjucation is not selectable by players*

AND

*artifacts*


----------



## Saeviomagy (Dec 11, 2009)

Stoat said:


> When I was in college, I lived upstairs from a frat.  Trust me.  The Kappa Sigs would've sold every suit of Deathcut Armor in the Trollhaunt for a never ending flagon of ale.




Like I said: we assume that it's not suitable for industrial production of ale (ie - you have to hold it and swig for it to work or something).

One suit of deathcut armor buys 5000 mugs of ale. In the scenario where your party can only have a single mug between the attendees, you're not really going to get a party with more than about 10 people before things get ugly.

So, 10 person party, lets go crazy and say they each drink a case (24 ales) every night. You've got 20 nights of that level of partying before a single deathcut armor is spent.

And that's at tavern prices.

It's not a very good proposition, even for a bunch of people who have no concern in the world except the consumption of cheap alcohol (and those sorts of people are not common in most fantasy mileu).

Now, if the mug is suitable for mass production, all the problems go away. It doesn't matter how much the mug costs, because it's extremely powerful. You can recoup its price (over and over) by just selling ale. In that case it's probably worth vast sums of money.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 11, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Though framed in a HERO context here, I think the question of how to approach balance can be applied to D&D as well.




I agree.

I've played/GMed Champions/HERO since it came out, and never had a problem with any of the "problematic" powers.  In our groups, we _as a group_ always had a kind of unwritten gentlemens' agreement not to abuse them.

And oddly enough, my current group is the same way with D&D.  We're smart enough to be aware of game-breaking combos & builds- especially me, who surfs gaming sites pretty regularly- but nobody uses them.  For us, its about a cooperative game, not about "winning" relative to the other players.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 11, 2009)

korjik said:


> Use surges to use/activate as a very basic one. After that, get evil. After everytime you use the ring, three hours later you get attacked by wraiths.
> 
> Things like that




That could be solidly flavorful.. could combine it too...  what if periodically in stressful situations you have to spend a healing surge because it senses shadow/undead around to attract if you do spend it the encounter doesn't get harder because of wraiths or whatever undead showing up. Of course the total concealment (see shadow band as the starting point) doesnt work against the creatures it attracts.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 11, 2009)

FireLance said:


> I think what Peter is saying is that WotC can't publish them as regular magic items because they would be head and shoulders above any other regular magic items.
> 
> At the same time, they don't quite fit the mold of artifacts because they aren't as complex (possibly no concordance) or because of the built-in assumption that artifacts will only be with the PCs for a few levels before moving on.




My impression of the referenced article is that the author is basically daring fans to ask for a book of "minor artifacts," slated to appear near the end of the 4e development cycle. Thereafter, it will become obvious that certain shifts in design herald 5e's imminent arrival. 5e will turn back the dial, reject 4e's ruthless balance and assumptions.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 11, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> My impression of the referenced article is that the author is basically daring fans to ask for a book of "minor artifacts," slated to appear near the end of the 4e development cycle. Thereafter, it will become obvious that certain shifts in design herald 5e's imminent arrival. 5e will turn back the dial, reject 4e's ruthless balance and assumptions.



Why do they need a 5E for that? 

Breaking balance is easy. You don't need a new edition for that. If they want "minor artifacts" and create items, feats, powers or rituals with a "stop sign" on it, they can do it _now_.


----------



## Tallifer (Dec 11, 2009)

MichaelSomething said:


> Wait a minute, doesn't 4E have artifact rules of it own? Doesn't that fill the desire for "magical" magic items?




Quoted for truth. And yes it does.


----------



## avin (Dec 11, 2009)

Derren said:


> This pretty much shows why I have a problem with 4E.
> WotC choose balance over fun. Its better to have boring but balanced things instead of interesting but hard/impossible to balance things.
> 
> Thats good for a tabletop wargame, but not for an RPG.




You play a Wizard, don't you? 

I disagree. Balance is good for RPG. Balance is bad for my munchkin friends that need to exploit rules in order to have fun.

I don't wanna go back to the time the Fighter started reading a comic book everytime a combat started, because the caster single handed won it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 11, 2009)

It is always difficult to figure out what 4E is about. "It's all about fun, it is a tyranny of fun!" say some. "It's all about balance, sacrifcing all the fun" say others.

I suspect the error of the 4E designers was to give the impression they know what everyone likes. But they just know what _many _people like. And also what _many _people disliked. 

It is the error of others to think that fun is ever not the goal of playing D&D. 
There is no badwrongfun. But people are different and they have fun in different ways. 

Balance is not detrimental to fun. It can be, sure. But it can also enable fun!


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 11, 2009)

There is badwrongfun, which is mostly taking away the fun of others at the table.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 11, 2009)

Saeviomagy said:


> It's not a very good proposition, even for a bunch of people who have no concern in the world except the consumption of cheap alcohol (and those sorts of people are not common in most fantasy mileu).




Actually, in medieval times ale and beer were important food sources, making up a substantial part of a peasant's diet.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 11, 2009)

And how would these "mini-artifacts" factor into the mechanical treasure parcel scheme? Personally i'm not a fan of parcels and only give them a fleeting glance. But i suspect a lot of DMs abide by them strictly, so throwing new items in would throw it askew. I imagine combining parcel slots into a single slot would solve that. Towards the end of 4e i do expect to see them testdriving 5e rules just like they did at the end of 3.5/4e.  Unless, of course, the game gets shlupped off to another company!


----------



## Stoat (Dec 11, 2009)

Nebulous said:


> And how would these "mini-artifacts" factor into the mechanical treasure parcel scheme? Personally i'm not a fan of parcels and only give them a fleeting glance. But i suspect a lot of DMs abide by them strictly, so throwing new items in would throw it askew. I imagine combining parcel slots into a single slot would solve that. Towards the end of 4e i do expect to see them testdriving 5e rules just like they did at the end of 3.5/4e.  Unless, of course, the game gets shlupped off to another company!




If WotC wanted to fit them into the treasure parcel scheme, all it would need to do would be to assign a level/gp value to them.  

Or, it could go the same way it did with full-blown artifacts and just put them outside the system.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 11, 2009)

Stoat said:


> If WotC wanted to fit them into the treasure parcel scheme, all it would need to do would be to assign a level/gp value to them.
> 
> Or, it could go the same way it did with full-blown artifacts and just put them outside the system.




I would prefer to go with the latter option. If they're given level/gp values, that opens up a can of worms. Put them outside the regular system and just assign them power levels, so that DMs can balance what they hand out.

Here's a possibility: Give each item a "level adjustment." The idea would be that a PC with such an item is effectively X levels higher than a PC without. Then the DM can plan encounters accordingly.


----------



## Stoat (Dec 11, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> I would prefer to go with the latter option. If they're given level/gp values, that opens up a can of worms. Put them outside the regular system and just assign them power levels, so that DMs can balance what they hand out.
> 
> Here's a possibility: Give each item a "level adjustment." The idea would be that a PC with such an item is effectively X levels higher than a PC without. Then the DM can plan encounters accordingly.




I agree with your preference.  Break the "sub-artifacts" up by tier, give some words of warning to the DM, and go to town.

I think the level adjustment idea would fail.  Level encompasses too many things:  Attack bonus, AC, NADs, Hit Points, Skills, etc., etc.  Unless the level adjustment is very small (1-2 levels max) or the item in question gives bonuses to almost everything, the character will get out of whack very quickly.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 11, 2009)

Stoat said:


> I agree with your preference.  Break the "sub-artifacts" up by tier, give some words of warning to the DM, and go to town.
> 
> I think the level adjustment idea would fail.  Level encompasses too many things:  Attack bonus, AC, NADs, Hit Points, Skills, etc., etc.  Unless the level adjustment is very small (1-2 levels max) or the item in question gives bonuses to almost everything, the character will get out of whack very quickly.




I was envisioning level adjustments of 1 to 3, certainly no more than that. I just want a way to estimate the impact of such items when planning encounters.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 11, 2009)

Ok, maybe I'm missing something here...

What exactly is it about the artifact rules/system that has so many people NOT wanting to use them but trying t come up with mini-artifacts?


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 11, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Ok, maybe I'm missing something here...
> 
> What exactly is it about the artifact rules/system that has so many people NOT wanting to use them but trying t come up with mini-artifacts?




Note that i do like the artifact rules quite a bit. but for one thing, having 5 members of a party with 5 sentient artifacts all talking in the heads about their own agendas can get really complex really fast. Artifacts striving for concordance or failing to meet that concordance, and having the DM track that for the players can also be hard.

I think the lesser artifacts are just introducing non-intelligent items that break the 4e mould that any PC can own.  That's my take on it anyway.  Maybe they use charges.  Maybe they are ritual-based.  Maybe they just queue-up several at-will powers from other classes and give them to you for free.  

Of course you can also bend the existing artifact rules to do the same thing.  I do like the artifacts and i already have several of them planted in my campaign, but they are more "story" oriented.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 11, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Ok, maybe I'm missing something here...
> 
> What exactly is it about the artifact rules/system that has so many people NOT wanting to use them but trying t come up with mini-artifacts?




Same reason I don't want to use a chainsaw to mow the lawn. It's overkill and not the best tool for the job.

Artifacts are designed to make an appearance for a couple levels, then disappear again. Furthermore, they require a lot of DM involvement to track how happy the artifact is with its PC wielder. They're as much NPCs as magic items.

I'd like a book of items that can become PCs' signature items. Think Raistlin with the Staff of Magius, or Aragorn with Anduril. (I was going to say Elric with Stormbringer, but with its sentient and semi-independent nature, Stormbringer might be better modeled as a full-scale artifact.) Such things would need to be more powerful and versatile than the standard run of magic items. At the same time, I don't want something that I as DM must constantly monitor - I want to be able to hand the item to the player, then let the player worry about the mechanics.

In AD&D, such things were simply regular items at the top end of the power scale, like the _staff of the magi_ and the _+5 holy avenger_. AD&D could take that approach because it was assumed that players couldn't simply go out and buy any item they had the cash for, and the item creation rules were 90% DM fiat.

3E set out to codify item creation and wealth by level, as well as providing support for magic items as fungible commodities. However, that model left no room for the unique big-ticket "signature item." If you gave a mid-level 3E fighter a _+5 vorpal sword_, the response was seldom, "Wow, this sword is awesome! I'm going to use it forever!" Much more likely, you'd see, "Wow, this sword is worth a freakin' fortune! I sell it for 100,000 gold, then buy myself a _+4 sword,_ _+4 full plate_, a _+4 periapt of health_, and a _+6 belt of giant strength_!"

So 3E introduced minor artifacts, in between normal magic items and full-bore artifacts like the Hand of Vecna. Minor artifacts existed outside the regular continuum of magic items - you couldn't craft them and they had no listed gold piece value - but they didn't carry the plot baggage that major artifacts did. It wasn't a perfect solution, mostly because it didn't address how such items would affect PC power level and it punted on the question of what happens when the PC wants to sell one. But it did provide a way to keep such specialty items in the game.

4E currently lacks such a category, which I think is unfortunate. I remember when they released Raistlin's stats for the Character Builder, I looked at 4E's version of the Staff of Magius and thought, "What the heck? That's the most pathetic Staff of Magius I've ever seen." But they didn't have much choice; either they gave Raistlin an outright artifact, which would disappear a few levels later instead of staying with him throughout his career, or they gave him a crappy regular low-level magic staff.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 11, 2009)

Pk, I'm really not getting it.

Staff of Magius and Anduril _WERE_ artifacts though.

Staff of Magius has been an artifact in Dragonlance since at least 2e.

Similarly, Anduril (Narsil) is most assuredly an artifact and been treated as such by every game I've seen. Hell, I don't even think the MMO, LOTRO even allows for players to gain Narsil.

It's like people WANT powerful magic items but not the responsibility.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 11, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Pk, I'm really not getting it.
> 
> Staff of Magius and Anduril _WERE_ artifacts though.
> 
> ...




Anduril doesn't exist in D&D, of course, but the Staff of Magius does, and it's been downgraded. Look at Raistlin's stats in the Character Builder. It's just a crappy regular magic staff now.

The 4E artifact rules don't work to model either the Staff of Magius or Anduril, because 4E artifacts are designed to stick around for a few levels, then move on. That's the point of the Concordance system; you aren't supposed to be able to hang onto an artifact for your entire career.

Raistlin got the Staff of Magius as a 3rd-level wizard fresh from the Test. He then kept it for the length of an entire campaign. When he challenged Takhisis, he was a 25th-level wizard (according to the AD&D Dragonlance sourcebook, anyway), but he was _still _wielding the Staff of Magius. It never tried to move on. After Raistlin's death, Dalamar shut it in a locked room for 25 years, and it stayed there till Raistlin himself came back to give it to his nephew.

Contrast the dragon orb, which was a notably squirrelly item. At one point it made an active attempt to escape from Raistlin; at another, it tried to trap him and send his soul to Takhisis. The other dragon orbs also had a habit of making trouble for their owners. _That's_ what the 4E artifact system was designed to model.

Similarly, Narsil/Anduril never tried to get away from Aragorn, at least not that I know of. It stayed with him from the time when Elrond gave him the shards as a young man, all the way until his death. The One Ring, with its treacherous jumps from one master to the next, is what artifacts look like.

Like I said - mowing the lawn with a chainsaw. You _can_ do it, but it's a poor fit. I don't want to be constantly monitoring Raistlin's player to see if he's keeping his damn staff happy*, but I do want his staff to be an item of special significance. Neither 4E-style artifacts nor 4E-style magic items are well-suited to this.

[SIZE=-2]*That's for Crysania's player to worry about.[/SIZE]


----------



## Turtlejay (Dec 11, 2009)

Trying to model a quasi-european medival economy to determine whether the price of a bottomless keg of ale is worth the cost of magic armor to determine whether a game designer knows what he is talking about? Nerds!

Really, I think his point might be getting lost in the arguments and the edition warring that is going on. What I got out of the article makes sense to me. He would not feel comfortable publishing a book of magic items that he knows don't fit the mold. He likely knows how charop and LFR work. If the players have access to clearly overpowered options (windrise ports, salves of power, etc) they are used and overused in great disproportion to other items or choices. I also get the impression that publishing a book that is entirely DM fiat is not in the cards. How would such a book sell relative to AV3? or 4?

I don't really want to sound like I'm in 100% agreement though, because I'm not. While an entire book of these items may not make business sense, Dragon or Dungeon articles do, as would a chapter in a future DMG. A category between Artifacts and Magic Items makes sense, and whomever brought up Narsul and the Staff of Magus is inspired, because I think they hold the key.

The problem is, all the speculation about these types of items has illuminated the hole in the design space. To make them, Wotc would have to design them to fit into the current game in an elegant way. And what motivation do they have to do so? PC's are already swimming in options as far as magic items go, and DM's may not be interested in accomodating the potential game-breaking effects of said items.

In the end, I think that such a class of items will not be published because there is *no good reason to*. Nothing sinister or broken about it. I'd rather them bend their creativity towards more exiticing content for me, and if this kind of item is not it, I'm content.

Jay


----------



## Scribble (Dec 11, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Like I said - mowing the lawn with a chainsaw. You _can_ do it, but it's a poor fit. I don't want to be constantly monitoring Raistlin's player to see if he's keeping his damn staff happy*, but I do want his staff to be an item of special significance. Neither 4E-style artifacts nor 4E-style magic items are well-suited to this.




I think that's part of what the original blog is saying. If they came out with a book like this, they'd become items that people saw as "must have items" not based on story (as they were intended) but based on pure number bonuses. 

People (especially in organized play) would want them to become a regular part of the game. They then loose that "special" nature they have as being something out of the ordinary.

Stuff like this- "amendments" to the rules for story reasons- should best be left to the players and DMs of individual campaigns. 

WoTC gives us the baseline "balanced" rules, and we bend and break them to fit what we want.

Want to do Raistlin's staff? Just have the player continue with the same staff, only revealing it's full "artifact" nature when the player reaches epic levels.  The "Moving on" happens when Raistlin fails to defeat the Dark Queen.  

How about using multiple "versions" of the same artifact? As each tier is obtained the artifact "moves on" into the next version.

Or model a sword that is an artifact, but the moving on part only concerns the rules nature. The physical item never leaves, only the "magical artifact powers." Theostories and tails remain the same, but the magic part might not return, or might only return when it's needed again. 

Narsil was broken when last it was an artifact at that point it "moved on" until it was again needed, in the hands of Aragorn. When the sword was reforged as Anduril the artifact nature returns. After the defeat of Sauron, it again moves on, yet the physical sword remains.


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 11, 2009)

turtlejay said:


> trying to model a quasi-european medival economy to determine whether the price of a bottomless keg of ale is worth the cost of magic armor to determine whether a game designer knows what he is talking about? Nerds!



So true!


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 11, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Want to do Raistlin's staff? Just have the player continue with the same staff, only revealing it's full "artifact" nature when the player reaches epic levels.  The "Moving on" happens when Raistlin fails to defeat the Dark Queen.
> 
> How about using multiple "versions" of the same artifact? As each tier is obtained the artifact "moves on" into the next version.
> 
> ...




I suppose one could do those things, but I can see a number of problems with each of those implementations, and... what for? Just so I can say, "The Staff of Magius now fits into an artifact template, sort of, if you squint?"

That was my point above; yeah, you can cram square magic items into round artifacts if you really want to, but it's a bad fit and a lot of trouble and it's never going to work quite right. The artifact system in 4E is designed to model a very specific type of magic item - the dangerous, powerful, self-aware magic item with a will of its own. For that type of item, it's absolutely brilliant. For more passive tool-type items, however, it's useless, not because there's anything wrong with it but because that's just not what it was built for.

As an individual DM, if I want the Staff of Magius in my game, I'll stat it up as a high-powered homebrew magic item, like the ones Peter S. describes in his article. But it would be nice to have a framework for such items, and some guidelines on power levels, and some examples, so I have an idea of what the impact will be. If 6th-level Raistlin is using the Staff of Magius, does it make him equivalent to a 7th-level threat? 8th? More? Is the Staff of Magius better or worse than the Sword of Kith-Kanan that I gave to Tanis, and if so, by how much?


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 11, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> If 6th-level Raistlin is using the Staff of Magius, does it make him equivalent to a 7th-level threat? 8th? More? Is the Staff of Magius better or worse than the Sword of Kith-Kanan that I gave to Tanis, and if so, by how much?



Threat levels? Are you talking about npcs, here? If so, npc's typically can use their equipment in ways that pcs cannot. Ergo, there's no need for guidelines.

If you're somehow talking about pcs that for some unfathomable reason are named after protagonists from DL novels, I'd like to note that 4e doesn't figure artifacts into the pcs power level. E.g. in the 'Ashen Crown' adventure, at some point every pc will have an artifact. Apparently, the author didn't think any adjustments were necessary. Neither do I.

Now, if every pc had ten artifact level magic items, some adjustments might be in order. But I _really_ don't think that would be a good idea.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 11, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> I suppose one could do those things, but I can see a number of problems with each of those implementations, and... what for? Just so I can say, "The Staff of Magius now fits into an artifact template?" That was my point above - yeah, you can cram square magic items into round artifacts if you really want to, but it's a bad fit and a lot of trouble and it's never going to work quite right.




What sorts of problems? I didn't really change anything in the artifact rules, just in how the end up presenting themselves in the game.

No, not to cram anything into anything else. It's you have the basics for something that's built with the idea of balance, but you want to modify to fit your vision. 

Doing it this way allows you to put the coolness on as you see fit without screwing up the numbers in unforeseen ways.




> As an individual DM, if I want the Staff of Magius in my game, I'll stat it up as a high-powered homebrew magic item, like the ones Peter S. describes in his article. But it would be nice to have a framework for such items, and some guidelines on power levels, and some examples, so I have an idea of what the impact will be. If 6th-level Raistlin is using the Staff of Magius, does it make him equivalent to a 7th-level threat? 8th? More? Is the Staff of Magius better or worse than the Sword of Kith-Kanan that I gave to Tanis, and if so, by how much?




But the point is once they DO stat up that stuff like that as a new class of item, it falls into the category of "Items people now expect WoTC to find the magical balance for" and "items players expect to see at some point because they're in a published book," instead of just being a cool new unique thing the DM threw into his campaign.

I just don't personally see the need for a new rule when I already have what WoTC considers to be the optimally balanced idea for magic items. I can adjust from there as I see fit. I don't need a new rebalanced rule for every variation someone can think of. 

The unique ones are the memorable ones..


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 11, 2009)

Scribble said:


> What sorts of problems? I didn't really change anything in the artifact rules, just in how the end up presenting themselves in the game.




Well, your first solution - the regular magic staff that blossoms into an artifact near the end of the game - is balanced but pointless. The whole idea is to have the Staff of Magius be Raistlin's signature item. If it spends the first 5/6 of the game being just another boring magic staff, Raistlin has no motivation to stick with it. Even if he knows it's going to turn into an artifact, he'll just shove it in his _bag of holding_ till late epic tier rolls around (if it ever does), and use the latest magic staff he found on an adventure in the meantime.

Your second solution - the artifact that "rolls over" and is replaced immediately by another artifact when it moves on - is CRAZY broken. The single balancing factor on artifacts is that they _do_ move on. You don't get to have them for more than a couple levels, so they don't have a long-term impact. If the artifact is instantly replaced by another artifact every time, then that one balancing factor is removed and the Staff of Magius becomes ludicrously powerful.



Scribble said:


> No, not to cram anything into anything else. It's you have the basics for something that's built with the idea of balance, but you want to modify to fit your vision.




But the thing that's built with the idea of balance (artifacts) is wildly different from my vision. Modifying it to fit my vision requires so many changes that by the time I'm done, I can't count on that built-in balance working any more, so why bother?



Scribble said:


> But the point is once they DO stat up that stuff like that as a new class of item, it falls into the category of "Items people now expect WoTC to find the magical balance for" and "items players expect to see at some point because they're in a published book," instead of just being a cool new unique thing the DM threw into his campaign.




Pfft. When WotC released the Tome of Magic in 3.5E, did everyone suddenly expect to see incarnum users in everything? This would be a non-core supplement (the horror!), and traditionally stuff from non-core supplements _doesn't_ show up in other published material, because you don't want to limit the audience for your latest adventure to folks who have the Minor Artifacts Handbook.

I suppose such a book would conflict with WotC's "everything is core" approach, but frankly I think that approach is silly and potentially destructive to the diversity of the game. There's room out there for more than one playstyle.

(Of course, those playstyles could be supported by 3PPs, but WotC more or less killed 3PP support for 4E with the GSL fiasco, so... yeah.)



Scribble said:


> I just don't personally see the need for a new rule when I already have what WoTC considers to be the optimally balanced idea for magic items. I can adjust from there as I see fit. I don't need a new rebalanced rule for every variation someone can think of.




WotC has rules for low-powered items and rules for artifacts. Neither does what I need done. That being the case, I homebrew, but I'd certainly like rules support from the pros and I'd be willing to shell out some money for it. Other people here seem to feel the same way. If enough people feel that way, we've got ourselves an untapped market.

If WotC doesn't feel that market is big enough to make a Minor Artifacts Handbook profitable, so be it; but their stated reasons for "why we can't publish this type of item" are silly. If you don't want the MAH, nobody's going to make you buy it.


----------



## Tallifer (Dec 11, 2009)

You want something like a Staff of the Magius for one of your players. You want it to be more powerful than regular magic items. You want it to be his signature item from heroic tier through epic tier.

But if it was called an artifact which rolled over, that would be crazily broken?


----------



## nightwyrm (Dec 12, 2009)

For signature items, you can always upgrade the item as the char levels.  Instead of getting a new item of a higher level, the char's old item "evolves" or "gets reforged due to plot coupon".  For a 3ed flavour, the new item can gain new properties/powers but doesn't lose the old one.  Yes, the item would be a bit more powerful this way, but since what new properties the item gets is under the DM's control, you probably won't get anything game breaking.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 12, 2009)

Tallifer said:


> You want something like a Staff of the Magius for one of your players. You want it to be more powerful than regular magic items. You want it to be his signature item from heroic tier through epic tier.
> 
> But if it was called an artifact which rolled over, that would be crazily broken?




See, here's the thing. Someone proposes working this item as a "rolling-over" artifact. I ask why. They say it's balanced that way. I reply that in order to make the concept work, they have stripped out the single balancing factor of artifacts.

So, I come back to asking... why? Why jump through all these hoops to pretend this is an artifact, when it's clearly not?

This is its own category of item. You can't just slot it into the "artifact" section of the D&D rules. It doesn't fit. It has to be balanced in a different way. That could mean giving the wielder a "level adjustment," or requiring the wielder to give up feats and powers, or simply making sure everyone in the party has one... there are a lot of possible solutions. But "call it an artifact" isn't one of them.

"I want a sailboat to go sailing."
"Here's a car."
"Why would I want a car?"
"It's less work to make it go."
"But a car would sink and wouldn't sail."
"Not if you waterproofed it, and attached a mast to the roof, and welded a keel to the underside."
"But making _that_ go would require a huge amount of work."
"If you don't want to work to make it go, why do you want a sailboat?"


----------



## keterys (Dec 12, 2009)

Out of curiosity... what did the staff of magius actually do in the books other than light and feather fall? I mean, if you make the assumption that the book characters use the inherent bonuses rules and suddenly Raistlin and the Staff of the Magius are all set, and furthermore Tanis can use Kith Kanan's sword forever, ditto Sturm the brightblade, anyone a dragonlance, etc cause the important part is that it's dragonbane or whatever, not that it's +1 and has to get to +5. Staff of the Magius can do light and feather fall, for the entire campaign, etc.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 12, 2009)

keterys said:


> Out of curiosity... what did the staff of magius actually do in the books other than light and feather fall? I mean, if you make the assumption that the book characters use the inherent bonuses rules and suddenly Raistlin and the Staff of the Magius are all set, and furthermore Tanis can use Kith Kanan's sword forever, ditto Sturm the brightblade, anyone a dragonlance, etc cause the important part is that it's dragonbane or whatever, not that it's +1 and has to get to +5. Staff of the Magius can do light and feather fall, for the entire campaign, etc.




The scene at the end of "War of the Twins" implies that the Staff of Magius is what enables Raistlin to make it through the Portal, where Fistandantilus lost control of the magic and got blown to smithereens. Later, Caramon - who isn't even a wizard - uses the Staff, with Raistlin's help, to close the Portal.

So, if nothing else, it provides major bonuses to plane-traveling ritual magic. 

It also has the indestructibility-except-by-dragonfire thing going on, which Raistlin uses to good effect a couple of times... though that's more a flavor element than anything else.


----------



## keterys (Dec 12, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> The scene at the end of "War of the Twins" implies that the Staff of Magius is what enables Raistlin to make it through the Portal, where Fistandantilus lost control of the magic and got blown to smithereens. Later, Caramon - who isn't even a wizard - uses the Staff, with Raistlin's help, to close the Portal.



Some of that could even just be cause it's Raistlin's implement, but sure.



> It also has the indestructibility-except-by-dragonfire thing going on, which Raistlin uses to good effect a couple of times... though that's more a flavor element than anything else.



Fwiw, the DLC1 has it as a +3 ring of protection, +2 staff, 1/day feather fall, 1/day continual light, in a 6th+ mage it doubled durations of spells involving light, air, or mind, maintained concentration on spells for 1 round, and added +2 points of damage per die of spell damage. 

Which is not that atypical for some of the older treasure, oddly, that tended to do lots of stuff. Like Wyrmslayer was a +1 weapon... that did double damage to dragons and draconians, was immune to baaz, gave +3 to breath weapon saves vs dragons, and made a buzzing noise. and Tika's ring was a +2 ring of prot and fire resistance.

So in terms of what it _actually_ did, I think the list might be pretty low.


----------



## samursus (Dec 12, 2009)

Here's an idea that just popped in my head:

What if we use the Monster Builder to create these "in-between" Magic Items???

For example: Staff of Magius has been bandied about--- create a monster named as such, and choose powers (or create them, which is fairly easy) that the Staff has, and use the Recharge mechanic or at-wills or dailies etc.  This hopefully would also give us an idea of how much of a difference the item will make re: Encounter Level... depending of the level of the "monster" created.

As an alternative how about using the Companion rules in DMG2 to create these items.  The Dm would know roughly how much assistance the item will provide... and possibly may even warrant a cut of the XP, so players would have to choose between power/abilities on the item vs. their own level advancement...

PEACH


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 12, 2009)

"Unpublishable Magic Items: the Love that Dare Not Speak its Name!"


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 12, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Why do they need a 5E for that?




Why 4e?



> Breaking balance is easy. You don't need a new edition for that. If they want "minor artifacts" and create items, feats, powers or rituals with a "stop sign" on it, they can do it _now_.




Yes, and I just said they will.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Dec 12, 2009)

@Samursus

That's an interesting idea. I think artifacts would only affect the experience players get if it acted on its own, not if it just being used. Unless, one character with the artifact is approximately equal to or better than two characters, then maybe it should take a share of the experience. Most artifacts published do not have that much power.

As far as inputting magic item information into the monster builder until we have some kind of magic item creator as part of the adventure tools, that seems like a good idea to get a clean power card as well as possible narrative description to be printed.


----------



## Alex319 (Dec 12, 2009)

Here's my take on this whole issue.

First of all, it's possible that what's being asked for here has a fundamental flaw. If the goal is to have "cool" or "unique" magic items, and the definition of "cool or unique" includes both (a) being more powerful than regular magic items and (b) being rare or unusual, then any attempt to codify rules for such items will just lead to players choosing them all the time (because they are more powerful) and then they wouldn't be cool, unique, or unusual - they would just be yet more items that everyone has to have to keep up. (And of course everyone on the boards would be screaming about "power creep".)

Of course one solution would just be to make it harder for the PCs to get those items, like making it harder to produce them, making them cost more, or preventing you from buying them. But that means you have to have the DM say "No, you can't have that item." And I think that's what the author means by going against the "say yes" philosophy.

Second, let me clarify what I think the original author's point was about the magic items. Let's make up an example of a magic item with a "cool power" - let's say it's a rod that you point it at an undead monster, and you automatically control it, and this power is usable as often as you want and doesn't wear off. In some campaigns, this could be completely useless (like if there are no undead monsters). In other campaigns, it could make the entire adventure trivial (say, if the goal was to enter an ancient tomb and all the monsters you were fighting were undead, you could just control them all.) And it's possible to come up with a campaign where that item could make it much more interesting (say, you have a cemetery where you can spawn undead and control them, so you can have an army of undead and if they're dead you can spawn more, but you have to protect the cemetery etc. etc.)

The point is that the design goal is to have the magic items be as broadly useful as possible, and not have lots of hidden "traps" for either the players or the DM. You don't want the player to spend lots of money on an item that proves to be useless, and you don't want a DM to spend hours coming up with an adventure (or $20-$30 to buy a module) and then the player walks in with an item from New Splatbook #37 and trivializes the entire adventure.

The goal, rather, is to have a "baseline" of items that create a baseline power level, and then DMs who don't want to bother modifying the rules can still have a reasonably balanced baseline, while DMs who do can modify it to suit their tastes.

I think that one thing that might help make this discussion more productive is some clearer examples of what we are talking about. What kinds of items with "cool powers" were in previous editions that were removed from 4e (or people want to add but can't), and what barriers does the system provide to bringing them back in?


----------



## Alex319 (Dec 12, 2009)

Or, just to give another example:

There are examples of magical items in 4e that did have "cool effects" that are flavorful and weren't "arbitrarily limited" in how often you could use them. For example, pre-errata Bloodclaw (trade hit points for damage - certainly the idea of sacrificing something of yoursle fot gain more power is a popular theme in fantasy fiction) and pre-errata Veteran's Armor (spend an AP to regain a daily so you can use the same daily over and over again and make it your signature move.) And what was the result? People complained that they were too powerful, so they nerfed them. If they did make a book of "cool new items that are more powerful than regular magic items," how would they avoid that fate? Should they go the route of the HERO System, and put a warning symbol that says "Warning: this item may break your campaign; use at your own risk?"


----------



## Tallifer (Dec 12, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> See, here's the thing. Someone proposes working this item as a "rolling-over" artifact. I ask why. They say it's balanced that way. I reply that in order to make the concept work, they have stripped out the single balancing factor of artifacts.
> 
> So, I come back to asking... why? Why jump through all these hoops to pretend this is an artifact, when it's clearly not?
> 
> ...




Except it seems that some people here did not ask for a new kind of thing. They simply want "magic items" to be more powerful and have a story.
The Adventurer's Vault 2 has many items with names, stories, new abilities, item sets, group sets. The Dragon Magazine details intelligent items. The Dungeon Master's Guide, Open Grave and Draconomicon detail very powerful and storied artifacts.

"I want a car to go sailing."
"Um... there are many good cars here, but not that go sailing. How about a yacht?"
"No, a yacht is too different and strange. I just want a car. But it has to be better than any of these normal, boring cars."
"Well... we could sell you this yacht and call it a car."
"Also I want to get it as cheaply as a car."


----------



## Windjammer (Dec 12, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I'll add my voice to the chorus and say that I don't find 4e magic items inherently less interesting than 3e magic items, by and large.  There are a few exceptions - notably in the "wondrous item" category that's declined since 2e - but I generally find them _more_ interesting now.  Simple +X items aren't the norm in 4e; they're pretty unusual.  Weapons, armors, and amulets generally do a lot more than just adding a simple bonus.*  All too often, items in 3e would have to fill one of the Big Six*, and few characters had much interesting stuff beyond that.  4e is in a better situation, here, at least IME.




I'm not sure you're aware of how these items in 3E actually work. The remainder of my post (cross-posted from this discussion) will address this, and compare it to how this works in 4E. The gist of it is this:



			
				D&D 3.5 Magic Item Compendium said:
			
		

> One of the most frustrating roadblocks to using interesting, unusual magic items [in your campaign] is that they take up body slots that you[r player characters] need for an ability-boosting item (such as _gauntlets of ogre power_), a _ring of protection_, or another must-have item. To address this issue, _Magic Item Compendium_ presents official rules for adding comon item effects to existing magic items.




The book then presents a table with ca. 30 entries of the stock enhancements that the system presupposes the PCs to acquire from level 1 to 20, complete with appropriate body slot entries for items receiving that enhancement and the price boost of the item receiving the enhancement. 

What that means is the following. From this point on, the DM can pretty much use, and come up with, any item he finds or can think of, and plaster the system-requirements onto them _as an added bonus_ to whatever crazy other stuff the items do. The list works such that any combo of "stock effect + crazy stuff" he can dream of is possible. Heck, that's the reason why I can inject all the retro stupid that is Jeff Rients' "minor magic items" in his _Miscellanium of Cinder_ into my 3.5 game _without wrecking the system's hardwired assumptions as to what magic items (minimally) do_. 

By contrast, try to throw a sword of rat-farting into a 4E treasure parcel, and the system simply _won't compute_ ("##error - hand slot entry: useless"). For 4E does it the other way round than 3.5. The authors of 4E don't ever give you a list of stock effects - just as they don't ever give you a template for building a new class or a new power - and instead feed you all the possible combos _they _can think of in their books. As a result, 4E books are (a) filled with endless repetitions of the same item over and over and over (20 tomes for the wizard instead of: 1 with a list of customization options) and (b) never _once _explain to the GM how he can handle the magic item system creatively once he has filled its base expectations.

In short, 3.5. respects the GM to tinker with the magic item system as he feels like, whereas 4E books are as opaque on the matter as possible. At least, as far as the gist of their printed output goes, for there's some good advice by Mearls on the issue online.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 12, 2009)

That's not actually true Windhammer.

Simply use the DMG2 inherent bonus feature and then you can pretty much slap ANY feature on a magic item and the system won't care.

Hell, as long as the sword doesn't "break" the + for its level, you pretty much can add ANY effect to a sword such as rat farting.

Really, 4e's system is very explicit as to what bonuses are supposed to come from "gear".

The problem with the sword of rat farting is that most players (99%) will sell said sword and pick up one that does something cooler such as turn on fire etc.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 12, 2009)

Windjammer said:


> I'm not sure you're aware of how these items in 3E actually work. The remainder of my post (cross-posted from this discussion) will address this, and compare it to how this works in 4E. The gist of it is this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And the system will probably present you an way overpriced magic item.
Of course, it is by "RAW". Maybe the price is accurate for the fantastic reality "simulated" by the system. But that doesn't mean it is balanced from a gaming point of view.

An at-will dragon-dominating item can be fine in your or in my campaign. Or it can totally wreck it. There are many dragons with XP values and levels published that do not take this type of power into account. 

In a way, all the magic items in 4E are designed that you, as the DM, don't really have to know them or know that the PCs have them. They will give benefits within predictable margins. But an item of dragon control - that's something the DM needs to know about because if he ever wants to use a dragon, that item will change how things run. 

That alone doesn't mean these type of items can't exist. It just means if they exist, they are not items that are "random loot" (or in treasure parcels), or that the players can create themselves with a common ritual. It is something the DM places for story purposes, just as with an artifact.


----------



## Windjammer (Dec 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> That's not actually true Windhammer.
> 
> Simply use the DMG2 inherent bonus feature and then you can pretty much slap ANY feature on a magic item and the system won't care.




Thanks, I had indeed not known that! See, in the link I posted Mearls proposed loading all offense and defense +1's when you reach levels 3, 8, 18, 23, 28. In DMG 2 he divides them up so that you get the offense +1's a level earlier than proposed (at level 2, 7, ...), and the defense +1's a level later (at level 4, 9, ...).

Whether you get as much mileage out of these two lines of text as the section on customizing and re-pricing the entire magic item system in 3.5 MIC, I'm not sure. But you're right, it's certainly a good start.

PS. I take it your misquoting my nickname happened by oversight and wasn't done out of spite.


----------



## Stoat (Dec 12, 2009)

The Magic Item Compendium was pretty cool.  The tables were helpful for adding flavor to the "big six" .

It would have been a lot cooler to have in March 2000 instead of March 2007.


----------



## Alex319 (Dec 12, 2009)

> By contrast, try to throw a sword of rat-farting into a 4E treasure parcel, and the system simply _won't compute_ ("##error - hand slot entry: useless")




How? Presumably, like every other magic weapon in the system, it will have an enhancement bonus of ceil(level/5).  And presumably the power you put on it will be useful.

Let's compare the systems (it's been a while since I've looked at my 3e books so I might be getting something wrong there - correct me if I'm wrong about anything)

In 3e, you put whatever powers you want on a magic weapon. You calculate the cost as (2000 * (n+k)^2) + c, where n = enhancement bonus of item, and k = sum of "bonus equivalents" of all the powers you put on, and c = "extra cost" for those enchantments that just have extra costs, not bonus equivalents.

In 4e, you put a power on an item, and calculate the level of the item as (5n-4)+k, where n = enhancement bonus of item, and k = "extra levels" the power is worth, which goes from 0 (basic magic weapon) to 4. If you want to extend this system to combine multiple powers on an item, it's pretty simple, just add the values of k together. For example, if you want a weapon that is +2 has the powers of both a duelist's weapon and a frost weapon, you could make that, and it would be level 10 (k=2 for duelist's weapon, k=2 for flaming weapon, just add them together). Or if you want to make your own weapon power you can just decide how much "k" should be by comparing it to existing powers.

Like I said, I think that if we understood exactly what kind of item you want to make, we could explain how to make it in the existing system. I don't know what a "sword of rat-farting" is supposed to do, so I can't help you there - but if you told me what power you wanted it to have I could explain how you could make it.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 12, 2009)

You know, the Weapons of Legacy/Unearthed Arcana approach could be adapted to 4e, with certain items being "unlockable" and having a paragon and epic path associated with them. The base item would not have to be super powerful, but obviously would need to be durable.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 13, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> You know, the Weapons of Legacy/Unearthed Arcana approach could be adapted to 4e, with certain items being "unlockable" and having a paragon and epic path associated with them. The base item would not have to be super powerful, but obviously would need to be durable.



Yes, that's a possible route. A mix of multiclass or multiclass like feats, paragon paths or epic destinies.

The items could also work as items that combine multiple slots, either directly (maybe an armor occupying feet, arm, armor, hand, and head slots) or indirectly (suppressing other items property). They can also be set items which were introduced with Adventurer's Vault 2.


----------



## nightwyrm (Dec 13, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Yes, that's a possible route. A mix of multiclass or multiclass like feats, paragon paths or epic destinies.
> 
> The items could also work as items that combine multiple slots, either directly (maybe an armor occupying feet, arm, armor, hand, and head slots) or indirectly (suppressing other items property). They can also be set items which were introduced with Adventurer's Vault 2.




That's pretty cool, but I would think that such items would be rather campaign specific.  I keep thinking that the "special" magic items that kept being brought up in this thread would be rather like a 4e version of stuff from Weapons of Legacy.  But speaking of that, were Legacy Weapons really weak?  I've never seen them mentioned in any CharOps board.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 13, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> That's pretty cool, but I would think that such items would be rather campaign specific.  I keep thinking that the "special" magic items that kept being brought up in this thread would be rather like a 4e version of stuff from Weapons of Legacy.  But speaking of that, were Legacy Weapons really weak?  I've never seen them mentioned in any CharOps board.




Weapons of Legacy was actually a pretty subpar book. The weapons are usually underwhelming, the "costs" were okay but sometimes could really mess you up (like if you used the paired weapons that were supposed to be used together), and the way the designers used Knowledge checks is completely different than in the PHB ("no retries") but it was never spelled out how they should be used.

Conceptually, it was a nice idea, but honestly, I prefer Unearthed Arcane's version with its specialized PrCs.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 13, 2009)

I was similarly underwhelmed by the actual Weapons of Legacy in the book, but I actually thought the idea had merit.

After all, its not an uncommon trope in fantasy that a weapon is far more than it seems to be, and that a magic item's abilities may only reveal themselves over time.  Sometimes, its only effective for persons of a certain race, faith, bloodline, age, skill level, or those who have completed a certain ritual.

In D&D, though, that's pretty rare.  Usually, its in the form of "for most characters, this weapon is just a +1 Sword, but in the hands of (race, alignment, class), it confers the following abilities (LIST)."


----------



## nightwyrm (Dec 13, 2009)

I've been thinking about how an item might grow along with a character. What if instead of handing out a magic item treasure parcel, you use that treasure parcel to upgrade an item, say a weapon, that a character already holds. 

So, after a "plot event" a character's old weapon is upgraded to have the enhancement bonus, crit bonus, powers and properties of a weapon of a new level while retaining still its old properties and powers. It would be a bit more powerful than a brand new item, but maybe you could include a cost such as the character permanently losing a healing surge or something. If the new weapon have multiple daily powers, you'd still only be able to use one daily per extended rest as per the rule regarding items and dailies. 

I don't think it would be too unbalancing. You might want to watch out for certain property combos, but since the item is constructed by the DM by using plot coupons and not directly controlled by the player, it should lessen the risk for abuse. Essentially, I'm thinking of Legend of Zelda where you get to upgrade your mastersword several times over the course of the game.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 13, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> That's pretty cool, but I would think that such items would be rather campaign specific.  I keep thinking that the "special" magic items that kept being brought up in this thread would be rather like a 4e version of stuff from Weapons of Legacy.  But speaking of that, were Legacy Weapons really weak?  I've never seen them mentioned in any CharOps board.



The question might be what we are actually looking for?

Do we want unusual, funny, subtle stuff, like a Flaming Sword that can also start (small) fires at range by shooting small flames (with no combat application aside from the usual "creativity with stunts and DMG p 42").

Do we want _The Sword of Elemental Fire_ that does all things fiery? Shoot Flames, grant fire resistances, surrounds you with fire, causes your enemies burn marks, commands elemental fires? (But that is still not a real artifact with its own goals. It's just good with fire)

What are we really looking for when we talk about "cool" magic items instead of boring
ones? Do we look for powerful effects? For more versatility? (Why can my Armor only be either Summed or Agile and not both?) For purely "narrative" effects (like lightening up candles and camp fires?)? 

A mix of all of that?


----------



## ferratus (Dec 13, 2009)

I stated upthread that the power level of the magical items wasn't important.

Instead, magical items have to exist on their own merits, and do things that are cinematic for magical items to do.

When the magic item simply does a single discrete power, in the confines of being a daily/encounter power, and is disposable based on your character's level, there is little wonder left in the magical item.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 13, 2009)

ferratus said:


> I stated upthread that the power level of the magical items wasn't important.
> 
> Instead, magical items have to exist on their own merits, and do things that are cinematic for magical items to do.
> 
> When the magic item simply does a single discrete power, in the confines of being a daily/encounter power, and is disposable based on your character's level, there is little wonder left in the magical item.



When I read about this, I think of Eternal Chalk or Immovable Rods. They have a simple, well defined property that is not particularly strong. But it opens up new possibilities. 

I think a weapon like Flaming Weapon might be another one, except that the rules don*t talk about the "side effects" of having a weapon that can turn into flames at will.


----------



## Marshall (Dec 13, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The question might be what we are actually looking for?
> 
> Do we want unusual, funny, subtle stuff, like a Flaming Sword that can also start (small) fires at range by shooting small flames (with no combat application aside from the usual "creativity with stunts and DMG p 42").




This would be a start, but its just a quirk in the "glows" category of quirks.



> Do we want _The Sword of Elemental Fire_ that does all things fiery? Shoot Flames, grant fire resistances, surrounds you with fire, causes your enemies burn marks, commands elemental fires? (But that is still not a real artifact with its own goals. It's just good with fire)




This is probably too much for the 4e system to handle as it has powers that are in the turf of other slots. 
OTOH, if the current crop of powers were correctly and consistently leveled I could see a melee weapon with a weak at-will ranged attack(Shoot Flames), an encounter EONT fire aura power and a daily 'command' power, something as simple as Daze for 1 round. It could even have a property that grants Cold or Fire resist 2 when drawn and you're still only in the +3 or +4 power range.

What makes that look unbalanced is that WotC has drastically overvalued the ability to shift damage type and then been inconsistent in applying that value.



> What are we really looking for when we talk about "cool" magic items instead of boring
> ones? Do we look for powerful effects? For more versatility? (Why can my Armor only be either Summed or Agile and not both?) For purely "narrative" effects (like lightening up candles and camp fires?)?
> 
> A mix of all of that?




The short answer is "yes". The long answer is that they need to have a usefully powerful and versatile effect beyond the +value and still have some narrative value or effect.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 13, 2009)

If I'm reading things correctly... it sounds as though there are actually two camps within the "need more magical magic items" group.  The first group feels that the current magic items are boring and flavorless from a _story and fluff_ point-of-view... the second from a _single-power-per-item_ point of view.  Some want advances on the first, some on the second, and some want both.

In this regard, I think it is safe to guess that we players will probably see rules for the latter in either an upcoming AV or DMG... because as been pointed out, balancing items with multiple functions is mainly all about calculating item levels.  We received the Magic Item Compendium late in the 3.5 cycle which showed us how to do it... so it's not a stretch to assume we'll receive the same in 4E, once they've presented any other rules they want to give us first.

However, as far as the former... we probably won't see that except in corner cases in like Manual of the Planes or Open Grave (where an item or two has an elaborate fluffy background to go along with its abilities).  Because as we all know... one of 4Es mantras is to remove a lot of fluff from the mechanics, because they are putting the onus onto the DM to fluff to suit his/her campaign.

And this is where I think much of the disappointment lies... whereas in the old editions even something as mundane as a potion of invisibility could have several paragraphs written about it to describe what it is, how it looks, and what happens when it's used... 4E basically assumes you know all that aready, and relies the DM to describe/invent all the special things about it when the players find it... rather than have them just read off the text by rote.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 13, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The question might be what we are actually looking for?
> 
> Do we want unusual, funny, subtle stuff, like a Flaming Sword that can also start (small) fires at range by shooting small flames (with no combat application aside from the usual "creativity with stunts and DMG p 42").
> 
> Do we want _The Sword of Elemental Fire_ that does all things fiery? Shoot Flames, grant fire resistances, surrounds you with fire, causes your enemies burn marks, commands elemental fires? (But that is still not a real artifact with its own goals. It's just good with fire)




I like both of those ideas. I would like to see both those types of items in 4E.

The first one is really just a matter of tweaking existing items, adding a couple of small utility powers and flavor text to each. WotC could do this easily, and indeed should - it would work wonders to change the "bland statblock" nature of 4E magic items as they stand, without affecting game balance.

The second one is more in the line of items discussed in this thread - artifact-level power, but without the artifact's self-awareness or tendency to get up and walk away. Balancing it would require some type of Weapons of Legacy-style effect, where you give up a portion of your own abilities in exchange for being able to unlock the full power of the _Sword of Elemental Fire_.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 13, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> So, after a "plot event" a character's old weapon is upgraded to have the enhancement bonus, crit bonus, powers and properties of a weapon of a new level while retaining still its old properties and powers.




There is an article from WOTC about doing exactly that...  It was about alternate rewards and was presented along side Religious boons and legendary boons in a side bar... they are not talking about upgrading it to anything different than already in the magic item lists... but the premise is there with 
"official support" for what its worth.


----------



## Alex319 (Dec 13, 2009)

I wrote up my idea for creating magic items with multiple properties here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...creating-magic-items-multiple-properties.html

in case anyone is interested. That might take us in the direction of solving at least the second problem DEFCON 1 mentioned (magic items only having one power).


----------



## Saeviomagy (Dec 13, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Actually, in medieval times ale and beer were important food sources, making up a substantial part of a peasant's diet.



Ah, well if we're going for historical ale, then you're talking about something that definately isn't a party drink and almost certainly doesn't cost 2sp per mug.


----------



## Runestar (Dec 14, 2009)

> WotC could do this easily, and indeed should - it would work wonders to change the "bland statblock" nature of 4E magic items as they stand, without affecting game balance.




I think their primary aim now is to scrap any properties which do not have a direct impact on combat.

Wotc could do that, but it may just end up cluttering the item's stat block with filler abilities which most players would never use (or find some way of abusing).


----------



## vagabundo (Dec 23, 2009)

From an article on houserules:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (House Rules for the Holidays)

I believe this may be one of those Items that Cannot Be Mentioned...







It doesn't have a level - it is an almost-artefact. And I really wish they would have a section in the next AV with a bunch of these items - just sort them by tier.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 23, 2009)

Hey, i like that sword pretty much.  What i would ideally like to see is Goodman Games do something similar, an open call, like they did for the Ritual book and apply it to unique magic items.


----------



## Stoat (Dec 23, 2009)

Its a neat sword.  Is it the one mentioned in the blog that started this thread?

If so, Idon't believe its so out whack that WotC couldn't publish it.


----------



## keterys (Dec 23, 2009)

Yeah, seems like a reasonable level 10 item... if only more magic item dailies were like that.


----------

