# Can someone explain to me what 'Christmas Tree effect' means?



## ourchair (Jan 1, 2011)

No, really.

I consider myself well schooled in the basic 4e forumite jargon, but I do not understand which rules phenomenon this term is supposed to be alluding to.

That is all, thank you have a nice day.


----------



## Ahrimon (Jan 1, 2011)

I think it originated in 3X.  Where, in the later levels, characters would need, and have, so many different items that the number of items they had was like lights on a christmas tree.

It generally refers to characters having a whole lot of magic items that are required.  Or beleived to be required to maintain 100% effectiveness.  Afterall, if a character isn't 100% effective at all times then he has failed.  Or something like that.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jan 1, 2011)

In 3E you needed:

enhancement to armour AC
enhancement to shield AC (floating shields...)
enhancement to hit/dmg
enhancement to stats
natural armour to AC
deflection to AC
enhancement to saves

Moving beyond that you'd want:

speed boosts
elemental resistances
DR (stoneskins)
access to flight
access to haste
access to buff/scry/teleport
access to deathward
access to mindblank (eventually)
access to tomes of stat boosts

There's other stuff but basically you really wanted to pursue the above.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 1, 2011)

All the above and you would light up like a Christmas tree under a detect magic with all that gear on.


----------



## cpendlet (Jan 1, 2011)

Not to forget the collection of CLW wands and 3 helms of give me some neat utility power (after you use one you take it off and put a new one on - during combat so you can get the same affect multiple times in a single fight). Spme DMS (like me) would not let players do this however (way to cheesey for me).


----------



## Klaus (Jan 1, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> All the above and you would light up like a Christmas tree under a detect magic with all that gear on.



Yeah, pretty much this.

In previous editions, you needed as many "+ x" items you could get. +1 armor, +1 shield, +1 weapon, +1 cloak of protection, +1 ring of protection, +1 ability enhancement items (girdle of strength, periapt of Wisdom), etc, etc, just to keep up with the threat level. When seen through Detect Magic, you light up like a Christmas Tree.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jan 1, 2011)

Characters had a wealth by level guideline that was very high (and indeed unsustainable, based on typical amounts of treasure gained per encounter).

The system _assumed_ you were covered in magic items. If you weren't, certain stats (AC and saves, plus your main ability score - critical for spellcasters) fell so low the inbalance with other stats was very pronounced and obvious, and monsters would have you for lunch. (Contrast with attack bonuses, which would still increase.)

DMs could have trouble just assigning treasure. I used a random treasure generator and not only were the amounts it was giving out mind-boggling, but it turned out to _not be enough_. Too much scrambling to a big city like Sharn in order to sell loot for decent gear. It felt like Diablo, where unless it's a boss fight, you aren't running home due to lack of hit points or mana, but because your treasure box is full. At one point (I was a PC in this Eberron campaign) we had filled all our bags of holding and were reduced to only looting enemy rings (essentially weightless, and usually high value too).

The items were so integrated within the rules that most attempts to create low-magic item systems in 3.x were doomed to failure.

Contrast to 4e, where many items (those that boost stats) don't exist (except in name), where character defenses actually improve with levels rather than items, and the only items you _have_ to boost are weapons or implements, armor (or cloth) and cloaks of resistance. At a mere three, you can create low-magic-item rules that actually make sense. (The inherent bonus system effectively replaces those three items.)

The management system is also easier. In theory magic items have cost, but that has nothing to do with balance. (I think the same thing of rarity; not only do I not know what this concept even is, I don't care and don't intend to learn.) Instead I can just use level.


----------



## Destil (Jan 1, 2011)

The difference between 3E and earlier editions, for what it's worth, is that it let you know it assumed you had this much gear. Earlier editions had no baseline wealth guidelines. 3E added them, so that it could create consistent numbers for things like CR, but did so in a very 3E way (adding lots of little things to everything, especially AC). These assumptions about how much stuff you needed to 'keep up' with the expected level were new in 3E (and still pretty rough around the edges, given how much of an art and how little of a science 3E monster design is).

4E cut the 'lots of little or indirect bonuses to every individual thing' idea and replaced them with built in advancement via ability scores and the 1/2 level bonus + "the big three" : plussed items that add to AC (armor) Attack & da,age & critical (weapon/implement) and non AC defenses (neck).

Thus instead of getting AC from 5+ items that add different types of AC bonuses *and *a Dex enhancing item (and/or buffs from the spellcasters), you get it from Armor and level in 4E (and feats and ability scores potentially).


----------



## UnknownAtThisTime (Jan 1, 2011)

Ahrimon said:


> I think it originated in 3X. Where, in the later levels, characters would need, and have, so many different items that the number of items they had was like lights on a christmas tree.
> 
> It generally refers to characters having a whole lot of magic items that are required. *Or beleived to be required to maintain 100% effectiveness. Afterall, if a character isn't 100% effective at all times then he has failed. Or something like that*.




Must spread XP for the *bolded* ....


----------



## fba827 (Jan 1, 2011)

UnknownAtThisTime said:


> Must spread XP for the *bolded* ....




Covered it for you.


----------



## Mapache (Jan 1, 2011)

In 4E, at my local LFR group, we use the term Christmas Tree to refer to miniatures that are so festooned with colored pipe cleaner or plastic rings from various conditions that you can barely see the underlying mini any more.  It's visually decorated like a Christmas Tree, which is a distinct evolution from any prior 3.X usage referring to character equipment loadout.


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 1, 2011)

My Fourth Edition warlord is a Christmas tree:

Magical circlet on head,
Boots of the Fencing Master,
Shield of Storms,
Farbond Spellblade,
Fleshseeking Bastard Sword,
Distance Javelin,
Belt of Vim,
Amulet of Health,
Inner Warmth hide armour,
Handy Haversack full of potions, whetstones, ritual components and a ritual book,
A magical monkey (refluffed familiar Disembodied Hand) to fetch and swap my various items,
Three wizard wands,
2 pairs of magical gloves (one for fighting, one for cantrips)
Bracers of Respite...

...and when he attains a higher level and more gold, he will have rings, a mount and more stuff in his haversack.

He often buys cheaper, lower level items to gain interesting abilities.

I played in the massively multiple-player on-line roleplaying game Dark Age of Camelot, so I sort of expect a Christmas tree and a vault full of alternate stuff. Which is ironic, since I began roleplaying in Basic Dunegons and Dragons, and my fighter treasured his +1 sword which the dungeon master named Naveen.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jan 2, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> My Fourth Edition warlord is a Christmas tree:
> 
> Magical circlet on head,
> Boots of the Fencing Master,
> ...




A _fencing_ warlord? But I'm pretty sure you only need the magic bastard sword, armor and amulet. The other stuff is just kind of nice to have.

(And given this is 4e, you probably don't even need those, if the GM cut the monster levels.)


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jan 2, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> My Fourth Edition warlord is a Christmas tree:




Eek.  I've had characters up to level 13 a couple of times, and none of them had a quarter that much loot.  Please tell me you are level 30 or so...


----------



## Ahrimon (Jan 2, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Eek.  I've had characters up to level 13 a couple of times, and none of them had a quarter that much loot.  Please tell me you are level 30 or so...



Well, this:


Tallifer said:


> ...and when he attains a higher level and more gold, he will have rings, a mount and more stuff in his haversack.



tells me that he's probably late heroic/early paragon.

I have to agree with you Prestidigitalis.  I've never been in a game where I've gotten that much loot.  But my DM's so far have been increadibly light on treasure.  And we've never gotten out of heroic.  So, my experience on this is a bit limited.


----------



## ourchair (Jan 2, 2011)

Thanks for the explanation, guys.

So in effect, the "Christmas Tree" is the a rules-induced play assumption that to keep up with the "needs" of adventuring, one needed to be completely tricked out in gear that makes heroes glow with magic.

As a DM, I tend to view some 'magic items' as not entirely magical in nature. Some people get fear effects from a helm simply because they are much more frightening or imposing to look at. Some weapons draw more blood because they are designed to more brutal specs.

That said, having experienced previous editions of D&D SOLELY through videogames like_ Planescape: Torment_, I've often thought that 2E magical items were designed to allow adventurers to 'break the norm' rather than keep up with some kind of career grind. Which is what enabled them to take on great challenges in the first place.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jan 2, 2011)

There's a lot of really useful stuff at fairly low level, such that for the cost of an item of around your level, you can get several utility items or slot-fillers for a relative pittance.

Certainly, it's often worth having the party ritualist crank out an item or two before bed or after breakfast when on an adventure.  It's not like that gold's going to earn interest or anything.

Brad


----------



## Klaus (Jan 2, 2011)

ourchair said:


> Thanks for the explanation, guys.
> 
> So in effect, the "Christmas Tree" is the a rules-induced play assumption that to keep up with the "needs" of adventuring, one needed to be completely tricked out in gear that makes heroes glow with magic.
> 
> ...



That's a pretty good assumption.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jan 2, 2011)

Ahrimon said:


> tells me that he's probably late heroic/early paragon.




That's what I figured, but sometimes people aren't terribly accurate in their descriptions -- figured I would let them explain.



Ahrimon said:


> I have to agree with you Prestidigitalis.  I've never been in a game where I've gotten that much loot.  But my DM's so far have been increadibly light on treasure.  And we've never gotten out of heroic.  So, my experience on this is a bit limited.




I'm just starting a level 13 Knight today -- joining an existing campaign after my old character decided to ascend to "heaven" when given the chance -- and she will have the following:

+3 Farslayer Craghammer (great for MBA-based Knight)
+3 Dwarven Gith Plate with campaign-based unique add-ons; think of it as a very minor Artifact -- designed by me
+3 Seashimmer Cloak
Boots of Adept Charging
2 potions of Vitality
1800 gp

That's it.  Seems like a pretty short list by comparison.


----------



## SabreCat (Jan 2, 2011)

I've been running a game with by-the-book treasure and XP, and we recently hit 13th level. With a couple of shakeups in the party roster due to player/character changes, people have between 8 and 12 magic items apiece, with the more freshly-created characters having fewer than the ones who've been around since level 1.

I do use one of the options from DMG2, I think it was, and sometimes have a big-3 item power up to its next enhancement in place of some monetary treasure. And some items have been voluntarily sold off or replaced. But it's still enough that people forget they have certain items...


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jan 2, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> I'm just starting a level 13 Knight today -- joining an existing campaign after my old character decided to ascend to "heaven" when given the chance -- and she will have the following:
> 
> +3 Farslayer Craghammer (great for MBA-based Knight)
> +3 Dwarven Gith Plate with campaign-based unique add-ons; think of it as a very minor Artifact -- designed by me
> ...




There are guidelines for how many items/worth of items you're supposed to have even in 4e. However, you can ignore much of that, especially the details of gp math.

The previous character with oodles of items is probably not broken (in terms of being overpowered) and so the DM isn't hurting their campaign by allowing this, but I doubt the DM was following the guidelines.


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 2, 2011)

I want to clarify concerning my Christmassy warlord:

A few of his items are of his level, found in the dungeon (using the wish list and treasure parcel system); most of his items are cheaply crafted using a ritual and gold, because the items are lower than his level.

My point was that 4th edition can sustain the Christmas tree effect even using rules as written.

This of course is a problem in many men's eyes, and that is why the Wizards of the Coast have introduced a new magic item system, although it is still in its initial stages (not fully implemented in the Character Builder).


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jan 2, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> I want to clarify concerning my Christmassy warlord:
> 
> A few of his items are of his level, found in the dungeon (using the wish list and treasure parcel system); most of his items are cheaply crafted using a ritual and gold, because the items are lower than his level.
> 
> My point was that 4th edition can sustain the Christmas tree effect even using rules as written.




There's little incentive IME for going that route. It also doesn't seem like you felt you _needed_ all those items for your character.

I think part of the Christmas tree effect is tension between players, who want to ensure their characters are geared up, and DMs who have to put a lot of effort into ensuring this is the case (or not, which is its own problems).


----------



## Ahrimon (Jan 2, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> I want to clarify concerning my Christmassy warlord:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> My point was that 4th edition can sustain the Christmas tree effect even using rules as written.




See, I don't see your character as christmassy at all.  Sure, your a walking magical swiss army knife.   But other than the big three, those items aren't needed to function at the mythical 100% effectiveness.  I think what you have is more how I've always wanted my characters, but haven't been able to due to a lower treasure game.  Started at 5th, about to hit 7th and while the party has some gold and items to spread around, I'm still sitting with the exact same stuff.

This is why more and more I'm thinking the next time I DM I'm going to use the inherent bonuses system.  Or talk the DM into that system for the next game I'm in.  That way my players (or me) can focus on the wonderous items rather than the big 3.

I love wonderous items.  Heck every character I create just for fun tries to get a restful bedrol, magic campsite, everlasting chalk, etc.  To me these are some of the coolest items.


----------



## blargney the second (Jan 2, 2011)

An alternate viewpoint: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/298688-mini-christmas-tree-2010e.html


-blarg


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Jan 2, 2011)

The Christmas Tree Effect is neither necessarily bad nor necessarily good. It is just a symptom of having a large number of (predominantly worn) magical items. The reason of _why_ the effect exists is what really matters.

In OD&D to 2nd AD&D high level characters could have the effect and it would just mean they had a lot of magic items. For example, a high level fighter could have one or more magic weapons, a suit of magic armor, a magic shield, a belt of giant strength, a gauntlets of ogre power, a pair of winged boots, a magic helm and a smattering of wondrous items. If you took all of that away the fighter could still fight (though they would have trouble with enemies that needed magic weapons to hit)

On the other hand, to have a viable/effective character in 3.X you pretty much had to wear a specific set of items depending on your class and that most of these would be stat boosters.


----------



## Nork (Jan 2, 2011)

Yea, the 'all players light up like a Christmas tree when detect magic is cast' is the origin of the term.

That being said, you could have 4E characters that satisfy that requirement, so obviously there is a bit more to it.

I think the real, if somewhat less dramatic definition is: Even if players do have a lot of magical items, will players even attempt to function if they have their mountain of magical gear taken away.

In an inherent bonus campaign, if the PCs get captured, stripped of their gear, and then manage to overpower their guards and suit up in the guards non-magical armor and weapons, they are primed and ready to charge in and take on the big bad evil guy.

In a Christmas Tree Lite system, if the PCs get captured, stripped of their gear, and then manage to overpower their guards and suit up in the guards non-magical armor and weapons, they are going to have some tough fights against normal mobs to escape and regroup, but its only like a 15% or 20% disadvantage, so they will go ahead and try to escape.  They are not going to go anywhere near a big bad evil guy until they get a proper magic weapon/armor/amulet though.

In a Christmas Tree system, the players will sit very patiently and wait until the DM decides to let them have all their gear back, and they will NOT fight their way out without suiting in their personal sets, because they need a jigsaw puzzle of magical items to get all their bonuses to escape.


Obviously the DM can play it by ear and make super easy encounters to adjust things for the under-geared PCs, but frankly there are not any guidelines in 3E or 4E on how to do that, so I don't consider that a valid basis to talk about somethings Christmas tree status.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 2, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> I want to clarify concerning my Christmassy warlord:




"Christmas Tree" doesn't refer to high-loot games.  "CT" specifically refers to the need for lots of items to be effective.

In 3E, you _would_ have needed all that stuff to be effective.  In 4E, if your Warlord lost most of it, he would still be an effective character.  _That_ was the design change WotC tried and IMO successfully implemented for 4E.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jan 2, 2011)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> There are guidelines for how many items/worth of items you're supposed to have even in 4e. However, you can ignore much of that, especially the details of gp math.




Yes, I know.  Our DM feels that the amounts specified in the guidelines  are excessive, so we get less.  It's our choice to play in the campaign  anyway.



(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> The previous character with oodles of items is probably not broken (in terms of being overpowered) and so the DM isn't hurting their campaign by allowing this, but I doubt the DM was following the guidelines.




Personally, I'd love to have more of those oodles, especially if I have some control over what they are -- it's an additional source of customization.


----------



## GreyLord (Jan 3, 2011)

Actually, the Christmas tree effect didn't originate in 3e.  Most probable it was orginated by an older player (the edition wars were MUCH more fierce when 3e came out between the old schoolers and the 3.X gens) who was stating it in a derogatory term towards 3e players and the game itself.

The term Christmas Tree can actually be traced at least as far back as page 92 of the original 1e AD&D DMG, in which they refer to such as accidents and referring to players with little skill and adorned with trinkets much like a Christmas tree.  It goes further into derogatory statements in reference to this type of playing, but if you really are that curious, you can refer to it yourself (as I've given the reference).

This is a written reference to it that I can find, though there are probably earlier references to Christmas tree type players or campaigns prior to that.

In some ways this shows a vast difference of mindsets between the Gygaxian school of thought and the more modern D20 school of thought that came 20 years after.

Also, as I stated, I would imagine the original origin in reference to 3.X play was actually from an older player who was not quite as pleased with 3.X during one of the edition wars in relation to AD&D vs. 3.X and the ensuing rages over that.


----------



## Ahrimon (Jan 3, 2011)

I never heard it before 3e.  Everything before was called a Monte Haul campaign.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 3, 2011)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> In OD&D to 2nd AD&D high level characters could have the effect and it would just mean they had a lot of magic items. For example, a high level fighter could have one or more magic weapons, a suit of magic armor, a magic shield, a belt of giant strength, a gauntlets of ogre power, a pair of winged boots, a magic helm and a smattering of wondrous items. If you took all of that away the fighter could still fight (though they would have trouble with enemies that needed magic weapons to hit)
> 
> On the other hand, to have a viable/effective character in 3.X you pretty much had to wear a specific set of items depending on your class and that most of these would be stat boosters.



It's actually a more subtle point than that. Even in 3.XE and 4E, strictly speaking, you don't need magic items to be "effective" - after all, you could just take on lower CR or lower level challenges. 

This is effectively the same situation as it was in 2E and earlier editions. The only difference is that there are now CR/level guidelines which let you know what challenges your character _ought_ to be able to handle _if_ he was equipped with level-appropriate gear, and which he will have a harder time managing if he _does_ happen to be under-equipped.


----------



## Jared Rascher (Jan 3, 2011)

I blame Perseus.

That guy had a magic helm, a sack, sword, shield, and sandals.

I mean, Theseus had to go all old school when he was forging his myth.


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 3, 2011)

LightPhoenix said:


> "Christmas Tree" doesn't refer to high-loot games. "CT" specifically refers to the need for lots of items to be effective.
> 
> In 3E, you _would_ have needed all that stuff to be effective. In 4E, if your Warlord lost most of it, he would still be an effective character. _That_ was the design change WotC tried and IMO successfully implemented for 4E.




I always assumed that "Christmas tree" simply referred to the amount of shiny stuff decorating a character. It sounds like you might be saying that 3rd edition was more like a MMORPG, in which every slot must be filled in order to get the maximum bonuses possible in order to survive a player-vs-player fight. (Having only played OD&D, AD&D and 4e, I do not know.)

It is true that most of my warlord's items are to make him more versatile and fun to play. He is content with a +2 sword and armour at level 12, if it means he can have many other interesting toys.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 3, 2011)

Ahrimon said:


> I never heard it before 3e.  Everything before was called a Monte Haul campaign.




"Monty Haul", as I understand it, refers more to a campaign with a higher-than-normal level of monetary and item treasure rewards, rather than the need to actually keep and equip a large number of those items in order to be effective. The two terms are related, but distinct.


----------



## Ahrimon (Jan 4, 2011)

MarkB said:


> "Monty Haul", as I understand it, refers more to a campaign with a higher-than-normal level of monetary and item treasure rewards, rather than the need to actually keep and equip a large number of those items in order to be effective. The two terms are related, but distinct.




True, but pre 3e I never saw anyone with a need to keep and equip a large number of items.  Having a lot was nice, but I've seen numerous characters get by just fine with four or five into the late teens.  3e characters seemed to need arround 10 or so items to be effective at higher levels by my understanding.  I never made it past 14th, so my knowledge is all acedotal at this point.

So, while monty haul characters cirtainly glowed like christmas trees under a detect magic, they weren't christmas tree characters because those items weren't required.

That's how I see it anyway.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 4, 2011)

Yeah, but 1e and 2e had to include limits of the Paladin's magic items to enforce their "monastic" nature. So a Paladin had to make do with only... 10 magic items!


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jan 4, 2011)

Part of the reason the Christmas Tree effect exists is that it is grossly inefficient to leave an item slot unfilled, if you can fill it.

Filling all your item slots makes your character stronger with no downside.

Not filling all your item slots makes your character weaker with no upside.

Thus, even if you're not an optimizer or min/max'er, you're going to intuit that you want to fill all your slots, and do so when you can.

I personally don't have a problem with the Christmas Tree effect -- it's part of the game to me -- but if you wanted to reduce it, you would need to break the two statements above.

Let there be a downside to filling all your slots.
Let there be an upside to leaving slots open.

Then you will see trees with some bare branches, to mangle the metaphor.


----------



## Stoat (Jan 4, 2011)

MarkB said:


> "Monty Haul", as I understand it, refers more to a campaign with a higher-than-normal level of monetary and item treasure rewards, rather than the need to actually keep and equip a large number of those items in order to be effective. The two terms are related, but distinct.






Ahrimon said:


> True, but pre 3e I never saw anyone with a need to keep and equip a large number of items.  Having a lot was nice, but I've seen numerous characters get by just fine with four or five into the late teens.  3e characters seemed to need arround 10 or so items to be effective at higher levels by my understanding.  I never made it past 14th, so my knowledge is all acedotal at this point.
> 
> So, while monty haul characters cirtainly glowed like christmas trees under a detect magic, they weren't christmas tree characters because those items weren't required.
> 
> That's how I see it anyway.




Part of the challenge when talking about this issue pre-3E is that TSR didn't really provide a guideline for expected wealth-by-level or gear-by-level.  There was a general admonition not to be Monty Haul, but no clear explanation of how much magic was too much.  It's clear to me that different groups had very different experiences and expectations.

In my campaigns (all 2nd Edition, starting in 1989 and going to 2000), most players wound up with one or more magic weapons, magic armor, possibly a magic shield, a ring of protection/cloak of protection and a handful of miscellaneous stuff.  Fewer items than 3E's Big Six, but more than two or three.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Jan 4, 2011)

Ahrimon said:


> I never heard it before 3e.  Everything before was called a Monte Haul campaign.




Monte Haul was more lots of loot with very little risk.
So the GM wasn't challenging characters but was giving out lots of loot.


----------

