Contributor
|
You might have noticed that in the last year or so Wizards of the Coast's books have been using a newer, fuller stat block format for magic items. You might have also noticed that we have not.
That changes now!
Grab any recent Wizards of the Coast book and look at the magic items. If you're writing BotB articles from now on, you'll want to emulate that style. This means fewer, more detailed items.
So what if you already have an article in with me? Well, I'll handle that on a case-by-case basis, as I get to your article. If you've sent me a Bazaar of the Bizarre article in the past few weeks I haven't looked at it yet, so feel free to redo it in the new format and then re-send it to me. :)
Otherwise, you might get an email from me asking for an update. Or not. It depends on how easy I think it'll be for me to do it.
Bummer. I don't like the new format. :(
George - here's a basic template, based on DMG2. That's the newest book I own.
MAGIC ITEM NAME
Overview of the item, in very general terms.
Lore: This section is optional, and lists information about the item that can be gathered via Knowledge checks, including which skill, what the DC is, and so on. Items that have this section list several different DCs, with more information being provided the better your roll.
Description: This part describes what the item looks like, feels like, sounds like, tastes like, etc.
Activation: Everything you need to know about activating an item is here. What type of action, how long does it remain active, how do you deactivate it, and so on.
Effect: Once it's active, what does it do.
Aura/Caster Level: The same sort of info that appeared previously for these.
Construction: This section has the pre-reqs for the item, the amount of gold pieces you need to spend to create the item, the amount of XP you need to spend, and the number of days you need to make it.
Variants: This section is optional. If there's more powerful versions of the item, mention them here.
Weight: Yeah, exactly what you think it's for. If the item has no significant weight, the entry is --
Price: This is the market price.
And there you have it. What used to take about 10 lines of text now takes about 3/4 of a column, and more than a full column in some cases. :P
What!? Argh! But this stat block format is so long and boring! It just makes things more complex than they need to be. First the character stat block format is changed, and now this. What's next? *sigh*
Thanks for the update Mike.
i'd say that long list of info would be useful in some cases, but in others i think it would be unnecessary.
Director of Games
|
i'd say that long list of info would be useful in some cases, but in others i think it would be unnecessary.
The argument could be made that if the item does not need that much information then it is not a very interesting item and should not probably be a part of BotB. The game has plenty of items that give a +4 to a skill or a bonus here or there to a type of save. Items of this type have been done to death and the calculations for them are so easy that we really are not served by printing further examples.
Although I agree that the format is long, and this will mean fewer items, I also see this as an opportunity to showcase the best ideas an author has, instead of the four best and four more than are only so-so. Show us what you got.
Jason Bulmahn
Managing Editor of Dragon
I think this is a step in the right direction for making magic items more special and more appreciated. I ordered the magic item cards that Paizo is putting out for my next campaign as I'm going to physically hand out all magic treasure in a card format. I think that alone will help breathe life into the humble +1 longsword when the player can handle a cool looking piece of artwork that now belongs to him or her alone.
This new stat block will help make items seem more unique...I like the lore portion.
What!? Argh! But this stat block format is so long and boring! It just makes things more complex than they need to be. First the character stat block format is changed, and now this. What's next? *sigh*
Don't forget the changes to prestige classes, with all the useless stuff they added (like what characters with that class like for breakfast, and their favorite color, and the most common names of their first born child). :D
I have to chime in on the "I don't like the new stat block" side of this one. I find the things almost unreadable. There's something about the way that they separate out the appearance, triggering method, and actual powers and game effects that makes my eyes just glaze over.
I know the decision is made, and I'll try to give it a fair shot when the first few examples are published. But I really hope this turns out to be a temporary change, subsequently revoked based on customer letters/feedback. :)
Don't forget the changes to prestige classes, with all the useless stuff they added (like what characters with that class like for breakfast, and their favorite color, and the most common names of their first born child). :D
Amen!
Actually, the magic item format is probably the only new format I like (although I don't think it needs to be used in all cases...a ring of protection +1 doesn't need much flavor text, eh?). I really dislike the 10-page-novel format of prestige classes, truly loathe the new stat block format for monsters (I still constantly fail to notice fast healing, for example), and find the italicized descriptions of spells to be a waste of space. I fear the inevitable new feat format!
But, what's done is done, no point crying over spilled milk, yada yada yada. ;)
|
Contributor
|
Don't forget the changes to prestige classes, with all the useless stuff they added (like what characters with that class like for breakfast, and their favorite color, and the most common names of their first born child). :D
And thus the fun of talking D&D, for I like the newest prestige class format (the one that is of a length between the original format and the crazy 4-page format. If your prestige class isn't worth writing 2,500 words about, why does it exist? Oh sure, we still need the occasional prestige class whose sole purpose is to combine two disparate classes (arcane trickster, eldritch knight, mystic theurge), but for the most part a prestige class should have more to it than a table of abilities and definitions for those abilities.
I think the new formats for everything is an answer to the incessant cry for "more flavor" that gamers call for.
*shrug*
There's a new new format? I don't think I've seen that one. I was ranting about the killer 4 page (sometimes more!) one. More flavor is good; including a paragraph on the class's favorite flavor of ice cream is a but much. :P
And while I haven't actually seen the new spell format (I don't own Spell Compendium, and don't plan on getting it), I like it based on what I've heard about it. Providing flavor text of how the spell looks, sounds, feels, and so on sounds like a good thing.
And rethinking the magic item format... I most definitely see Jason's point. As an example, while I think all the items I had in the article in 342 were solid, there were certainly some that were generated to reach the word count. So, yeah, maybe the article would be a little stronger if I were to replace one or two items with a bit more flavor. I'll give it a chance, I guess. ;)
I like the new Magic Item Format actually (thus why I asked if dragon would be changing to it when DMG2 came out), but have to agree that the 4 page prestige class format was a bit much, and I still loathe the new monster format.
The argument could be made that if the item does not need that much information then it is not a very interesting item and should not probably be a part of BotB. The game has plenty of items that give a +4 to a skill or a bonus here or there to a type of save. Items of this type have been done to death and the calculations for them are so easy that we really are not served by printing further examples.
Although I agree that the format is long, and this will mean fewer items, I also see this as an opportunity to showcase the best ideas an author has, instead of the four best and four more than are only so-so. Show us what you got.
in that regard, you do have a good point. i was thinking of the more mundane magic items - for example, wands all share certain similar properties, and listing that same property over and over in a section full of wands seems impractial and wasteful.
but, if you have 5 or 6 really interesting items, then that statblock makes much more sense.
You might have noticed that in the last year or so Wizards of the Coast's books have been using a newer, fuller stat block format for magic items. You might have also noticed that we have not.
That changes now!
Has anyone done an average word count on items using the new format?
I have this nightmare vision that I'm going to end up doing an article that only has one item in it :)
Not to play devil's advocate ... oh, what the hey!
While I'm all for improvements in the game (and I personally think the npc stat block is one of those improvements), when did the notion disappear that the core rule books were still the defacto baseline for the game?
All these innovations are appearing in supplemental materials. Generally speaking, most submissions are supposed to assume that players have the core rules. So when we submit material for any article, we work on that assumption. Even when constructing BotB items, we are supposed to utilize spells from the core rules, not from the supplments.
But in the case of both the stat block, the prestige class format and now this magic item format, the default form is from supplmental material.
This might belong in a post in a wider discussion, but does anyone else see a wider, and wider gap developing between the game's current form and its core rules? And if that gap is widening, is it a good thing?
Thoughts?
This might belong in a post in a wider discussion, but does anyone else see a wider, and wider gap developing between the game's current form and its core rules? And if that gap is widening, is it a good thing?
Thoughts?
Welcome to D&D 3.75, the stealth version. :P :P :P
So, yeah, in all the cases you cited (plus the "new" spell format), the presentation differs from the core books. So what? Does the new presentation of a magic item make it so John Doe Gamer with only the core books can't use it? More likely, JDG is gonna look at it and think Paizo invented it, rather than taking it from WotC. Whether he likes it or not is going to really depend on how he feels about fluff vs crunch. The same is pretty much true for the other altered formats, too - nothing makes them unusable by folks who use only the core game.
I think you would have a really good point, Troy, if one of these new formats presented something new. But, really, they're not new - they're just different ways to present the same information.
Wow - talk about Devil's Advocate! I'm defending something I generally don't like!
That's funny Zherog, considering as a consumer (not a writer) I generally prefer the new formats. Although as a writer I should like them, because it takes more words to say something.
I guess I'm perplexed by what seems to be a view (generally expressed on the Paizo boards and more and more in my game store) that supplemental books such as the Completes should be viewed as Core, when in fact they are options.
I don't know if this is "splat book" creep, or is just a natural progression for avid players. On the other hand, I would hate to think that occasional players are made to feel "incomplete" because they rely only on the core rules.
Maybe I just fear the game is going down the same track as 2nd edition, when players from different areas/neighborhoods/gaming groups couldn't sit down at the table and play the "same" game.
|
I'm not too excited about the new item format. As far as I can tell, the only think it actually adds is the construction information, which is covinent (especially for new games) but not neccisary.
Everything else was contained in the old fromat, just without the label. Okay, the magic items in the DMG didn't have much "lore" to them, but BotB has always had fluff with each item. It just did not put a bold lable on it.
I also think there's a differnce between way items are used and the way NPCs are used that justify the format more in the latter case. For the most part NPCs are used on the fly. The DM runs them from the magazine without knowing every last detail by heart.
Magic items on the other hand, are used primarily by PCs, who have usually taken the time to study the item before using it in combat.
That's funny Zherog, considering as a consumer (not a writer) I generally prefer the new formats. Although as a writer I should like them, because it takes more words to say something.
I like what I've heard about the new spell format (though I reserve the right to change my mind once I finally see it :D ). I like the new NPC stat block as a consumer; as a writer, they get easier to produce the more you do, but they take up a lot of space.
For magic items, I prefer somewhere between the old and new; the word count of the article isn't going to change (as far as I know, anyway), so as a writer of BotB articles, I don't need as many items. Sometimes that's good, as Jason pointed out earlier. Just as an example, there are certainly two types of magic items in my article in 342; the first type is the items that I created in the "first wave" of inspiration; the second type is the items I created to meet my word count. And while I think even the second type had good items, maybe the article would be a bit stronger without them. I have other BotB articles, though, where I didn't have any "second wave" items; in those cases, I'm likely going to have to whack a good item or two (though I'll certainly save them and try to work them in elsewhere :D ).
I guess I'm perplexed by what seems to be a view (generally expressed on the Paizo boards and more and more in my game store) that supplemental books such as the Completes should be viewed as Core, when in fact they are options.
I'm generally surprised when I talk to somebody who only uses the core books; however, I still design most of my stuff with the idea that anybody using it should only need to reference the core rules. I think it would be a vital mistake on WotC's part to assume otherwise, too. It's one thing to reference another book with something like, "If you have book X, you can enhance this new element by doing A, B, and C." That, in my opinion, is a good thing as it helps gamers smoothly integrate multiple books into their game; it's not OK, though, (in my opinion) to design a new magic item in Book X that relies heavily on a spell or other concept from Book Y.
Now, with that said, I don't see this being the latter of my examples. As a gamer, you don't need any book other than core to utilize the new magic item stat block. You don't need any book other than core to utilize the new NPC stat block. And so on.
Maybe I just fear the game is going down the same track as 2nd edition, when players from different areas/neighborhoods/gaming groups couldn't sit down at the table and play the "same" game.
*shudders*
|
Director of Games
|
I like the discussion I am seeing here and just wanted to chime in with another point I remembered as to why I like the new format.
Frequently, we get magic items, in BotB and other articles, that do not include all of the necessary components. They do not say how they are used, to not spell out all their effects, or do not include proper construction information. While it is generally the responsibility of the author to remember all of these details, they sometimes are forgotten, leaving us to rework the item in editing. This format, while a little bit longer, reminds authors of all the things they need to include and helps us to make sure it all gets in there.
Just a point I wanted to bring up.
Jason Bulmahn
Managing Editor of Dragon
All the relevant information on a magic item and its history can already appear in an item's description in the old-style format if the creator is doing his or her job. There's no real reason to break it into a bunch of separate paragraphs and headings and spam it down the length of the page. This is especially true with the mechanical details of an item's price, caster level, creation prerequisites, cost of creation, etc; all of those were easily contained in the one small paragraph we already had and no one I know has ever had a problem reading it.
My opinion on the new item and stat blocks? They were created with no intention of making things more flavorful. The new blocks were created as a naked attempt to waste page space so they could fill up pages with less content and still slap the same price on the cover. The only other possibility is that someone was seriously misguided. You can see this philosophy in the large margins (larger in some books than others), and in the "font size creep" that we see in the Dungeon Master's Guide II in particular. It's like the old juvenile trick for padding a school paper you are having trouble with - just make small adjustments to the font, line spacing, margins, etc. Except that the item blocks are far less subtle than that kind of trickery.
At least an argument can be made for the new npc / monster statblocks that they could make things more readable, because creatures in this game have a LOT of information. But for this to happen the format would have to be done right, which hasn't happened. The new npc / monster statblock is, paradoxically, almost unreadable, even though with all that space it should be otherwise. The main problem is that with equipment and special qualities and special attacks no longer grouped together with like kind but instead scattered all over the place, I miss them ALL THE FREAKING TIME. A thousand curses on whoever decided this, may they be miserably unlucky and unhappy for all time - or until they fix things by grouping again, at which point I would be appeased and would actually like the new format better than the old one. So I'll retract some of my venom towards the statblock - just fix it, please.
But then we come to the item block. Here the motives were clearly less pure.
* You start with a "concept description" under the item name, like feats already have. I could potentially go for this if it was kept to one line, but as actually handled it's frequently redundant with the effect section and often runs too long - take a look at the robe of the inferno on page 270 of the DMGII for one of the worst offenders.
* The lore section should be fine but still makes me somehow uncomfortable. I don't want an extensive history of when and where an item was made and who first made it, unless it's an artifact or some other important, unique or near-unique item. Do I care about the frankly silly history of Killaith Marcaun and why she made the first robe of the inferno? No, and I'm one of those players who was always upset that Wizards for so long snubbed and beat into the ground the awesome flavor we had in 2E products like Planescape. Is it relevant that she's an elf, even? Also, the DCs are too low. Putting too much information here actually makes the section less useful in a number of cases, because it ties the item more strongly to the default setting of Greyhawk (or whatever setting the book the item appears in is talking about), and then the DM has to go to the trouble of changing it.
* The description section is inherently good; items should have descriptions and not just be "a pair of boots" or "a ring." However, as with the concept description, I notice quite a bit of unnecessary repetition between this section and the actual effect section. Looking at the robe of the inferno again, the item everyone loves to hate, we even see that it's so blatant as to actually reuse a phrase between both sections - "the four [fiery orbs] that give the robe its name."
* The prerequisite section, yawn, put any such requirements in the final statistics paragraph and cut this section.
* The activation section can be safely cut. People assume that worn items, like boots, are always active unless stated otherwise; players aren't getting dumber and don't need that to be repeatedly stated in every item's description. If a command word is required, or boots have to have their heels clicked together, that is easily stated with a few words of text in the actual effect section; you don't need a whole paragraph talking about it. Specific command words are only relevant if an item is unique or an artifact, because otherwise there's nothing stopping a character from making more of the item, and I can guarantee you that someone duplicating a robe of the inferno isn't going to use the same command words as the first creator - especially if they don't speak Ignan! Moreover, this section again sees an insulting amount of redundancy; look at how the much-hated robe states in both the activation section and the effect section that actually using an orb is a standard action.
* The effect section is obviously the single most relevant aspect of the item and is inherently worthwhile. Anything that would overlap or be redundant between the effect section and any other section should be limited to only appear in the effect section.
* The aura/caster level, construction, weight, and price paragraphs just spam the page and can be easily combined into a single paragraph, like 3.0 and 3.5 already do.
Even sections I noted as being worthwhile, such as the description, can be seen as wasting space when they just keep going on and on or when they are redundant. The ideal item listing, if it's going to use subheadings, should be as follows: a one-line concept, a short Description section, an Effect section, and then a Statistics section with all the information that the bottom line in the old description already has.
To Mr. Bulmahn and his statement about authors forgetting some of this information that should be there... well, I feel your pain, but if it's a regular issue maybe you should go into more detail about what you expect in the Dragon Writer's Guidelines. If a submission comes in without the information you need, but it's still a cool submission and you still want to print it, the appropriate response would be to contact the author, tell him or her about the problem, and get them to submit a fixed version. I don't see why the magazine's overworked staff should have to be the ones to come up with that information.
The nit about the repeated sentence between the description and activation sections of the robe of the inferno should say "the four (fiery orbs) that give the robe its name"; my initial post ate my brackets.
The concept can be more than one line if you want to put some lore or history there, but I don't see the need for a full-fledged lore section complete with DCs unless the item is either an artifact, and/or is a unique item appearing in an adventure and is critical to that adventure or provides valuable background to the adventure or major characters within it.
My opinion on the new item and stat blocks? They were created with no intention of making things more flavorful. The new blocks were created as a naked attempt to waste page space so they could fill up pages with less content and still slap the same price on the cover.
I disagree with this, and quite strongly. Neither WotC nor Paizo pays writers by the number of items (or spells or prestige classes). In both cases, writers are paid for a specific word count. It's really immaterial if your assigned word count contins six items or ten - as long as their high quality.
As for the rest... I agree the activation paragraph is a large waste of word count and space. This section is really only needed when an item deviates from the norm (boots of speed for example).
I actually like having creation costs (gold and XP) listed, but only because it saves me the trouble of having to find my calculator or - even worse! - doing the math by hand. I do agree, however, that the old format that placed all that information on one line was easily read. One thing the new format does, though, is it makes it exceedingly clear that Caster Level is not a pre-req for item creation. So that might be a good thing. :)
I'd be more willing to accept that the motives behind the new blocks were good if it wasn't for the other stuff I mentioned that also happened in DMG II, like the larger font size. If it was something that Paizo came up with I wouldn't be thinking of this ulterior motive, because I concede that in Paizo's case at least, authors aren't salaried but rather are paid per-word, so they don't save any money by moving to the new format.
I still think that the lore section can be shortened and consolidated into the opening concept statement under the item name, and that the activation section can be done away with any relevant details noted in the Effect section, and most of the stuff at the bottom consolidated back into one paragraph.
If they return to consolidating all equipment together, and all special attacks together, and all special qualities together, then I'll think the new NPC / monster statblock is actually wonderful and awesome. Until then, I hate and loathe it for how everything is scattered all over the place.
|
|
I disagree with this, and quite strongly. Neither WotC nor Paizo pays writers by the number of items (or spells or prestige classes). In both cases, writers are paid for a specific word count. It's really immaterial if your assigned word count contins six items or ten - as long as their high quality.
I don't know about other writers, but I've found that I can write flavor text much more quickly than I can write rules information. Thus the more flavor, the less work I have to do to get paid the same amount of money.
That being said, I think the the intentions of the of the new format were genuine, even if I'm not happy with all of the results.
I don't know about other writers, but I've found that I can write flavor text much more quickly than I can write rules information. Thus the more flavor, the less work I have to do to get paid the same amount of money.
For me, it really depends. Sometimes, I can crank out "crunch" quickly, then bang my head against my desk trying to find the right flavor text to go with the mechanic. Other times, I'll sit and start typing and suddenly I have a gazillion words of flavor, but still very little crunch.
For example, in the campaign I currently DM I designed custom Prestige Classes for three players. The crunchy bits were quite easy - the players knew what they wanted their characters to be able to do, and I had the ideas in mind how to handle it machanically. I struggled on flavor text, though. I wanted to make the classes interesting but I also didn't want to write myself into a proverbial corner for the future of the campaign. So I really struggled with the flavor text of those classes.
However, my two bardic school articles ("Where Did You Go To School?" and "Back To School") were almost entirely flavor text. Both of those were rather simple to write - the various ideas popped into my head quickly, and then it was just a matter of writing enough information to fulfill the needs of a player or DM.
That being said, I think the the intentions of the of the new format were genuine, even if I'm not happy with all of the results.
I agree - I don't think there were sinister motives involved; I think, as Mike mentioned, WotC is just responding to the loud outcry for more flavor and less crunch.
...because I concede that in Paizo's case at least, authors aren't salaried but rather are paid per-word, so they don't save any money by moving to the new format.
It's also true for WotC - at least when it comes to freelancers (which is the majority of their writing staff).
I still think that the lore section can be shortened and consolidated into the opening concept statement under the item name, and that the activation section can be done away with any relevant details noted in the Effect section, and most of the stuff at the bottom consolidated back into one paragraph.
I like the lore section, only because it assigns DCs to the various checks. I'd like to see it consolidated a bit, but I don't know if that's possible. I agree that the activation section is generally a waste of space, and that the stuff in the bottom could be melded back into a single paragraph and save some space. I don't mind the inclusion of creation costs, even when they're obvious, because it saves me from doing the math.
If they return to consolidating all equipment together...
I used to be right there with you. Then I got used to the format, and I find it incredibly easier to deal with. I don't need to dig through the stat block to find what potions the guy has, for example; when I'm looking for what he can do in combat, I don't care that he has an amulet of natural armor +3, belt of giant strength +4, and so on. Those don't impact the combat in 99% of the cases. The fact that he has a potion of enlarge person, though, can certainly have an impact. Putting those things on a separate line right near the other combat stats you care about makes them stand out; making them stand out means a DM is less likely to forget about them.
*shrug* My opinions, anyway...
I picked up the Spell Compendium (great compilation BTW!) and although I am happy with having everything condensed and re-edited (Removing Snilloc, Elminster and Agannazor from the spell names being a double bonus) I find most of the flavor text to be rather uninspired.
I realize that the writers were probably wracking their brains coming up with something for every single spell, but lets face it, if it doesn't look cool and flashy then describing how my character swallows a spider and runs up a wall isn't going to add much to my wizard's game experience.
All the relevant information on a magic item and its history can already appear in an item's description in the old-style format if the creator is doing his or her job. There's no real reason to break it into a bunch of separate paragraphs and headings and spam it down the length of the page. This is especially true with the mechanical details of an item's price, caster level, creation prerequisites, cost of creation, etc; all of those were easily contained in the one small paragraph we already had and no one I know has ever had a problem reading it.
... SNIP! Well spoken, but too long to quote.
I agree wholeheartedly. I'd rather have "filler" items that are still perfectly useful additions to a game than a lot of redundancy and extraneous flavour text that's rarely applicable to Eberron (where elves aren't tree-huggers, gnomes aren't fools or tinkerers, the cosmology is entirely different, and so on). Don't get me wrong; I have nothing against passing references to Pelor or Mordenkainen. But what am I going to do with a long story about Angsty the half-elf's quest to slay a non-existent demon on a plane with no equivalent to avenge another character that doesn't fit in order to prove to his loving, well-adjusted parents that he's as worthy as they already think he is?
So here's a crazy question for the editors. Is there any chance of beefing up BotB by one page? That's what - another 500-700 words, give or take? By adding one more page to the format, it'll allow writers to get more than 3 or 4 items in with the current format.
Anyway - just a crazy thought late on April Fool's Day. ;)