This came up in passing on the D&D podcast. There are no magic items that give flat bonuses to base stats. Why? Because if there are, there won't be any other items you can justify putting in that slot, because it simply won't be as useful. And oh man, is that ever true. Imagine, wizards can now wear hats and clerics can now wear amulets!
I'm all for downsizing the emphasis on magic items vs. characters, and maybe limiting body slots and designating types of magic with these slots was their solution, but it seems like it will create a vaccum of power play to me. Wow, I have only "x" amount of slots (in other words magic items I can wear at one time) therefore I need the biggest and baddest things I can get my hands on. Does anyone else see this point of view or am I looking at it the wrong way?But... but that's how it works right now! That's the only reason why the Hand of Glory exists, and that's not even a recent item!
I think you went over my head here....I missed your point (my fault not yours). Could you re-explain?
Look over there, a straw man!
So let me get this straight: WotC, and even TSR, has highly discouraged METAGAMING and, thus, effects that rely on something abstract (class and levels, for example) is not allowed at all.
You mean like a Holy Avenger?
Yet here we have something very abstract being implemented in 4th Edition and the metagame-stench just reeks. Every ring automatically detects when you reach 11th-level? What exactly is 11th-level in a fantasy world? Does a ring say,"Hm, this person is very strong, let me suddenly give him/her/it my powers." or "Nope, this fortunate commoner found me in a stream and is, well, a simple farmer. So, no, my power does not work for him."
Why, this is a perfectly reasonable complaint! There's never been anything with prerequisites based on level or capabilities before. That's why you can take epic feats at 5th level, and why my clerics always be sure to buy a Wand of Magic Missile.
PLAYER: "Hey guys, every NPC we beat up or meet let's have them wear this ring! If it works, we know they're higher than 10th-level!"\Ridiculous
You're right, that is ridiculous. "Pardon me, sir, but would you mind jumping up and down, putting on this ring, and then jumping up and down some more so we can see if you can jump any higher?"
While we're at it, compare this to "Hey, he just fired four magic missiles, he's casting spells at either caster level 7 or 8 and probably has third-level spells."
But... but that's how it works right now! That's the only reason why the Hand of Glory exists, and that's not even a recent item!
Well, the main problem is that WotC highly emphasized that characters should be fitted with approximately a specific amount of magic items that totals a specific "market value" appropriate for their character level, as outlined in the Campaign Chapter of the DUNGEON MASTER'S GUIDE.
Problem is, most DMs either don't know or forget about that. I use it all the time. I make sure my 10th-level players are never equipped with enough magic items for a 13th-level character, for example. I also highly discourage the "merchant" route with magic items, even in high magic campaigns like Forgotten Realms. Some DMs allow PCs to abuse selling, buying, and equipping their magic items. Why, I don't know, is beyond me. Too many DMs out there, obviously, just don't realize how much power they really have and let PCs walk all over them.
Personally, I always discourage that. I make getting the right magic item or selling a magic item a very long, difficult and detailed process that the PC, most of the time, simply gives up and either uses what he has or manages to trade it away elsewhere. It's also metagaming to think, unless you have high ranks in Knowledge (arcana), that "I will trade this magic belt for a hat that increases both my intelligence and boosts my saving throws."
Now, what I highly encourage is PCs to create their own items. Taking Item Creation feats sounds supremely fair to me. You give up a feat slot, XP, game time, and gold pieces to create what you need. Nothing could be more fair...and not 4th Edition is taking THAT away too. Now magic items don't have XP costs, or feat slots, or whatever. Just a ritual and you're done.
SEE HOW EASY 4E IS GONNA BE! EVERYTHING IS MAKING SENSE NOW. PREORDER 4E NOW OR BECOME A FRIENDLESS GROGNARD WHO PLAYS A BROKEN SYSTEM WITH HIS MOMMY IN THE BASEMENT!
Look over there, a straw man!
So let me get this straight: WotC, and even TSR, has highly discouraged METAGAMING and, thus, effects that rely on something abstract (class and levels, for example) is not allowed at all.
You mean like a Holy Avenger?
No, Holy Avengers relied on whether you're Lawful Good, which is an alignment.
Why, this is a perfectly reasonable complaint! There's never been anything with prerequisites based on level or capabilities before. That's why you can take epic feats at 5th level, and why my clerics always be sure to buy a Wand of Magic Missile.Yet here we have something very abstract being implemented in 4th Edition and the metagame-stench just reeks. Every ring automatically detects when you reach 11th-level? What exactly is 11th-level in a fantasy world? Does a ring say,"Hm, this person is very strong, let me suddenly give him/her/it my powers." or "Nope, this fortunate commoner found me in a stream and is, well, a simple farmer. So, no, my power does not work for him."
No, it makes sense for level prerequisites for feats. You need to be a specific skill level to acquire a highly talented ability, skill, talent, magical expertise to craft wands, whatever. It does not make sense for someone to be "paragon tier" in order to draw power from a ring. How does that work? Did you train with magic rings? But, you're a Fighter, how so? Did you study magic enough to gain the expertise to draw power from rings? Well, then that limits rings to spellcasters only. Point is, limiting magic item use by level is plain retarded.
PLAYER: "Hey guys, every NPC we beat up or meet let's have them wear this ring! If it works, we know they're higher than 10th-level!"\Ridiculous
You're right, that is ridiculous. "Pardon me, sir, but would you mind jumping up and down, putting on this ring, and then jumping up and down some more so we can see if you can jump any higher?"
While we're at it, compare this to "Hey, he just fired four magic missiles, he's casting spells at either caster level 7 or 8 and probably has third-level spells."
Yes, players would do that. That is, the very same "target audience" WotC is trying to attract would do EXACTLY that.
Magic Missile is just a fluke spell that happens to do that. Not many spells do, by the way. And, still, it doesn't "pinpoint" level persay. It does tell players "This guy is tough and highly experienced", but not whether he shot 5 magic missiles because he's 9th, 13th, or 20th level.
I think you went over my head here....I missed your point (my fault not yours). Could you re-explain?
Certainly.
Wow, I have only "x" amount of slots (in other words magic items I can wear at one time)
At the moment, "x" is 12. (Face, head, throat, shoulders, body, torso, hands, arms, waist, rings x2, feet.)
therefore I need the biggest and baddest things I can get my hands on.
This is why I want gloves of dexterity +4 instead of gloves of dexterity +2, or a +1 Shocking Burst Greatsword instead of a masterwork club.
Dungeons & Dragons is, and always has been, in part a game of resource management. The Hand of Glory is an exercise in resource management - you are trading your amulet slot for an extra ring slot. Same for the epic level feats that let you wear two magic items in one slot. This is even present in Vancian and per-encounter spellcasting. "I could prepare a fireball and a lightning bolt... but then I don't have Dispel Magic handy..."
It just doesn't make any sense. And, think of the PCs abuse of this:
PLAYER: "Hey guys, every NPC we beat up or meet let's have them wear this ring! If it works, we know they're higher than 10th-level!"\
Ridiculous
Yeah but why would you "Put a ring on a enemy's finger" thats like putting a gun in a robbers hand you just caught. Sorry that made no sense!
Yeah but why would "Put a ring on a enemy's finger" thats like putting a gun in a robbers hand you just caught. Sorry that made no sense!
Not an enemy, per say, but NPC. You'd be surprised the silly stories many players share about their D&D games. I wouldn't be surprised if this tactic will be used by many in 4th Edition.
Good example is someone asked their DM how much damage does 1 needle do. So the DM says "1 hit point of damage". So the player casts a magnetism spell on the target and makes their armor magnetic. Then, the player throws 1000 needles.
Needless to say, the DM changed his ruling very quickly.
I've had one of my players ask if he could be Chaotic Lawful in alignment, so he can play a Barbarian/Monk.
Well, 4e is for the munchkin and you can clearly see that based on the weapons of a 11th gnome!
In my campaign/game to get or find +3 weapons your 15th+ level.(which is where our campiagns come to a end...)
Save my Game? to late they've kicked the Sh!t out it, set it on fire and spread the ashes to the four winds...D&D= DEAD & DONE.
Yeah but why would "Put a ring on a enemy's finger" thats like putting a gun in a robbers hand you just caught. Sorry that made no sense!Not an enemy, per say, but NPC. You'd be surprised the silly stories many players share about their D&D games. I wouldn't be surprised if this tactic will be used by many in 4th Edition.
Good example is someone asked their DM how much damage does 1 needle do. So the DM says "1 hit point of damage". So the player casts a magnetism spell on the target and makes their armor magnetic. Then, the player throws 1000 needles.
Needless to say, the DM changed his ruling very quickly.
I've had one of my players ask if he could be Chaotic Lawful in alignment, so he can play a Barbarian/Monk.
Something wrong with that DM. How can a needle pierce armor! most needles of a medieval times were bone or wood!
I take it these guys are going to 4eCuz even for a fanasty setting acquiring 1,000 needles would be a task! take a lot of time! and travel! unless you've got Walgreen's the gnome stores.
This is why I want gloves of dexterity +4 instead of gloves of dexterity +2, or a +1 Shocking Burst Greatsword instead of a masterwork club.I prefer to think of magic items in the sense of character attachment and roleplaying. "Wow, this magic item saved my life or has been with me since the early days of my first dungeon" as opposed to getting the biggest bonuses to make the most powerful character I can. That may be a part of D&D but not one that I prefer. I'm more character driven, not plusses and minuses driven. Each to his own though.
No, Holy Avengers relied on whether you're Lawful Good, which is an alignment.
Yes, players would do that. That is, the very same "target audience" WotC is trying to attract would do EXACTLY that.
You'd be surprised the silly stories many players share about their D&D games.
So the target audience for 4e is... D&D players? You're absolutely correct on this point, because players (old or new) will do all kinds of crazy shit if their DM will let them get away with it. 4e, 3e, or 1e, any DM should call shenanigans on any player trying to do something as cheesy as this.
Well, 4e is for the munchkin and you can clearly see that based on the weapons of a 11th gnome!
In my campaign/game to get or find +3 weapons your 15th+ level.(which is where our campiagns come to a end...)
Save my Game? to late they've kicked the Sh!t out it, set it on fire and spread the ashes to the four winds...D&D= DEAD & DONE.
Please tell me you're being sarcastic.
Yeah but why would "Put a ring on a enemy's finger" thats like putting a gun in a robbers hand you just caught. Sorry that made no sense!Not an enemy, per say, but NPC. You'd be surprised the silly stories many players share about their D&D games. I wouldn't be surprised if this tactic will be used by many in 4th Edition.
Good example is someone asked their DM how much damage does 1 needle do. So the DM says "1 hit point of damage". So the player casts a magnetism spell on the target and makes their armor magnetic. Then, the player throws 1000 needles.
Needless to say, the DM changed his ruling very quickly.
I've had one of my players ask if he could be Chaotic Lawful in alignment, so he can play a Barbarian/Monk.
I see your point Razz. I too have had similar experiences where players throw common sense and logic out of the game. Some people play this way, others don't. I think that when designing a game and in this case the discussion of magic items, the designers need to take into account these kinds of players. Some people think this is a great way to play and don't see anything other than a character sheet full of numbers. Others see a real person and try and put their focus there. In my opinion, WOTC doesn't understand that some individuals will be in the first group of players. Were looking at a huge range of age in players...perhaps 8-10 on up to 70+ years old. Some like to screw with DM's and ruin the game, others like to think as they were the character and see the world through their eyes. WOTC needs to take these things into consideration before just changing rules. To many age ranges and playing styles exist and I think they need to consider it more than they have.
I prefer to think of magic items in the sense of character attachment and roleplaying. "Wow, this magic item saved my life or has been with me since the early days of my first dungeon" as opposed to getting the biggest bonuses to make the most powerful character I can. That may be a part of D&D but not one that I prefer. I'm more character driven, not plusses and minuses driven. Each to his own though.
Cuz even for a fanasty setting acquiring 1,000 needles would take a lot of time! and travel! unless you've got Wal green the gnome stores.
Or access to Major Creation and Fabricate.
Tobus Neth wrote:
Well, 4e is for the munchkin and you can clearly see that based on the weapons of a 11th gnome!
In my campaign/game to get or find +3 weapons your 15th+ level.(which is where our campiagns come to a end...)
Save my Game? to late they've kicked the Sh!t out it, set it on fire and spread the ashes to the four winds...D&D= DEAD & DONE.
Please tell me you're being sarcastic. Which part!
Which part!
...Any of it. Please?
No, no, I take that back. I have no qualms whatsoever with ending campaigns at level 15.
In my campaign/game to get or find +3 weapons your 15th+ level.(which is where our campiagns come to a end...)This seems reasonable to me. At 15th level, I would be just starting to introduce +4 items, which means characters would tend to have one +4 item, one +2 item, the rest +3 items (approx). I don't make it a science or a magic item count, even gold piece count. Its a feel for what is right for me as the DM and for the players. If everyone was continuing to enjoy the characters, levels could continue, if not, time to start over. In actually playing 20 levels, I would actively expect characters to have advanced from +3 to +4 around 16th level. I would start introducing +5 around 17-18th level and expect the 20th level character to have a mixture of +4 and +5, with an occaisional +3 item.
We had one campaign go to 18-19th level once- the players became bored with the power and the thrill was gone daddy gone...
My campaign's never really centered on end of the world events or the slaying of gods...
I prefer to think of magic items in the sense of character attachment and roleplaying. "Wow, this magic item saved my life or has been with me since the early days of my first dungeon" as opposed to getting the biggest bonuses to make the most powerful character I can. That may be a part of D&D but not one that I prefer. I'm more character driven, not plusses and minuses driven. Each to his own though.Hmmm...not sure how you intended that. I like to roll play yes. It is the fun I get out of the game. I never stated that you can't have a powerful character and not roll play at the same time (if this is the message you are sending me). Does this make me a bad player of some sorts to you?
We had one campaign go to 18-19th level once- the players became bored with the power and the thrill was gone daddy gone...
My campaign's never really centered on end of the world events or the slaying of gods...
My experience was the same. The last thing I can recall from high school was running the Isle of the Ape module. The whole god slaying thing was never my cup of tea for play style either. I like epic quests and saving the world and all, but not to god slaying extreme.
|
Well, 4e is for the munchkin and you can clearly see that based on the weapons of a 11th gnome!
In my campaign/game to get or find +3 weapons your 15th+ level.(which is where our campiagns come to a end...)
Assuming you're not being sarcastic, I'll point out that you're playing something very far from 3.5 anyway, so the switch to 4.0 shouldn't necessarily bother you.
The base guidelines have a 15th level character's wealth at about 200,000 gp (DMG, table 5-1, p. 135) A +3 weapon is valued at about 18,000gp + weapon cost - or less than 1/10th the player's wealth. If you're serious that this is when players start to find such weapons, then you are already far under the standard power levels.
As always, what matters is that you and your players enjoy the game. But please keep in mind that you're not playing 3.5 as designed. So it's hardly a surprise to find you wouldn't necessarily like the design of 4.0 either. On the other hand, I suspect you'll have just as little trouble modifying that.
Drew Garrett
|
Holy Avenger
This +2 cold iron longsword becomes a +5 holy cold iron longsword in the hands of a paladin.
It provides spell resistance of 5 + the paladin’s level to the wielder and anyone adjacent to her. It also enables the wielder to use greater dispel magic (once per round as a standard action) at the class level of the paladin. (Only the area dispel is possible, not the targeted dispel or counterspell versions of greater dispel magic.)
creator must be good.
Hmmm.. must be a certain class to weild......provides spell resistance based on the paladin's level.....casts a spell at the paladin's class level.....
Nope, nothing there that only works at a certain level.
BZZZT Wrong yourself.
The poster was wrong also in his thoughts of Lawful/good weilder, possibly confused the "creator must be good" part, but his original statement still stands of "no item that is activated only at a certain level."
Assuming you're not being sarcastic, I'll point out that you're playing something very far from 3.5 anyway, so the switch to 4.0 shouldn't necessarily bother you.As always, what matters is that you and your players enjoy the game. But please keep in mind that you're not playing 3.5 as designed.
Drew Garrett
I am a sarcastic Ass-
In your opinion I'm not playing 3.5 as designed-because it was not meant to be played as designed except by rules lawyers and munchkins.
The DMG & PHB are mere Guidelines-
What is driving me insane is this:
Rings don't work until 11th level
WHAT!?
So let me get this straight: WotC, and even TSR, has highly discouraged METAGAMING and, thus, effects that rely on something abstract (class and levels, for example) is not allowed at all.
Yet here we have something very abstract being implemented in 4th Edition and the metagame-stench just reeks. Every ring automatically detects when you reach 11th-level? What exactly is 11th-level in a fantasy world? Does a ring say,"Hm, this person is very strong, let me suddenly give him/her/it my powers." or "Nope, this fortunate commoner found me in a stream and is, well, a simple farmer. So, no, my power does not work for him."
It just doesn't make any sense. And, think of the PCs abuse of this:
PLAYER: "Hey guys, every NPC we beat up or meet let's have them wear this ring! If it works, we know they're higher than 10th-level!"\
Ridiculous
That's not actually the thing that gets me. I find a +4 Sword of ButtKicking, +5 vs. Game Designers (Sorry, Logan Bonner, but they should fire your candy a**. Say, weren't you the one who screwed up the 3.5 tumble rules in Races and Classes?), and I can use it right away. But if I find a ring, it sits on my finger until level 11, and then suddenly I can use it? What? That doesn't make any sense.
Plus, if rings are that powerful, I husband my resources and keep the ring just to make sure that when I hit 11th, I get a massive power boost. It promotes metagaming AND stupidity. And, I can't use a second ring until 21st level? That's the real PC abuse. Especially if you run a game with training rules. Now at levels 11 and 21 you have to train double hard to "unlock your ring potential?"
They can take their ring, wrap it around their shvantz, and use it to cure the erectile dysfunction that is so obviously prevalent in their social lives.
|
I am only a lowly DM and gamer but I think I see the fatal design flaw in the "new" magic item system:
First off my assumption:
The game is all about advancement and gaining personal power. Most of this power is used in encounter situation where the PCs put their skills against the skills of adversaries (encouters do not have to be combat encounters, they can also be social encounters where the PCs for example try to convince the local baron to aid them against the bandits). To win these encounters, the players usually try to optimise their individual skills. That means the fighter tries to be good at combat and the wizard good at casting spells. Magic items help with this optimising.
My deduction:
As long as there are items that especially help PCs with their tasks, these items are far more important than other items.
As long as we have items that give plusses to saves, attacks, damage, stats, abilities etc. and these items give a continual bonus. These items are far more worth to a PC than say an amulett that gives immunity vs. magic missile. The latter is only useful sometimes, the former are ALWAYS useful!
There is scant difference between a Cloak of Resistance and an Amulett that grants Will Defense bonus. The latter is less useful but still more useful that the amulet vs. magic missiles.
I honestly think that in 4th edition the PCs might have less "slots" for their magic items but in the end we will have the MUST HAVE item combination like in 3rd.
|
|
I don't really get the relation between the slot affinity system and the reduction of the christmas tree effect, neither I like the simplification on what's allowed and what's not for effects on magic items.
So I dismiss this piece of information as another element I do not approve of the new rules.
What follows is a bit of a rant that I felt the urge to write, if only to vent off some steam.
I can't have something as simple as a cloack of flight just because the so much needed streamlining of the game (sarcasm) says that wondrous items can't be wearable stuff, and the neck slot has to provide some buff to saving throws... sorry defenses, they're static values now.
And all of this is related to reducing the christmas tree effect... somehow.
Because it does not depend whether the setting is a low-magic or high-magic one, nor on the whining of power-playing gamers or the condescence of the DM towards them, nor on the rules that shift the focus on character/race/class features that are independent of the equipment. Sarcasm again.
I really don't care if they're trying to develop and market this kind of iteration of the game: they have the rights to do so.
I'm offended that they're selling it as a cunning solution; not even in the old basic rules (red box and all the rest) there was so much simplification and railroading built-in into the framework of the game.
Oh please, just go away.
|
|
Well, I think they are expecting that you'll have all the "Musts" in the three slots. You'll get your armor of protection, your cloak/amulet of resistance, and your weapon of smiting. That's all must have and factored into the game.
Its the rest of the stuff that's supposed to not be must have. I bet the amulet of missile absorption is probably not an amulet in 4e. Its probably a shield or a ring. But since they didn't tell us what the items on his list do, its kind of hard to really analyze the impact of the article's assertions.
Ok, let me try to clarify me concerns.
If I was a Figher who specialises in archery I HAVE to have all the items that help me with my shooting.It does not matter if these items are weak compared to 3.5 items (but we do not know the relation yet).
It does not matter if the bonus is temporaily (which IMO is another bookeeping chore "did I use my bracers of sure arrows this day 2 or 3 times already?).
A Fighter who wants to have an "edge" has to have these items.
These are the functions of the secondary slot items:
Arms: Instead, shields have special defensive effects and items you wear instead of shields, like bracers, are more offensive.
Feet: Focused on mobility and special movement modes,
Hands:They usually help out your attacks or help your manual dexterity.
All enhance the "edge" of a fighter. Defense, offense and mobility.
So IMO it is misleading to say that these secondary items are NOT must haves.
They are must haves!
Here's what I don't get. You want a setting where most of the hu-wah comes from class special abilities right? Why not just dump the stat boosting gear entirely! No more +# weapons or armor. Just make everything a novelty. Yeah you've got a ring that makes you jump really high, or a bag full of dust that can make you look different. It's all flavor and tactics that way.
Certainly that would seem to go a lot further down the road toward un-christmasing D&D, while preserving it's magical feel and flexibility. Making magic weapons a necessity to break the max damage crit ceiling? That isn't helping. That's making magic items necessary--but more so.
I'd like to just wave off a lot of that game mechanicky junk and say, "look, wear whatever magic items you've got. You can't wear two sets of gloves at the same time, or three different hats at once, or any of that counterintuitive stuff, but no more chart breakdowns of what magic items can be worn on what body part!"
You want magic rings at lower levels? Make them do less omnipotent stuff.
Honestly I would love magic items that were higher on flavor and lower on power anyway. I just don't see this road leading there.
|
|
Weird stuff.
Less reduction in overall magic items than I would prefer, and more setting/assumption-specific 'body slot affinity' stuff that I don't think anyone ever used anyway when statting up new items for their game.
What was the motivation for these changes? 'Cause I *thought* it was less 'Christmas tree.' Instead it looks more MMORPG-esque (although lacking the earring slot items, currently).
The only thing I like is the lack of attribute-boosting items. I never liked the notion that to cast his 9th level spells, my spellcaster *had* to have a stat-boosting items (Headband of Intellect, Periapt of Wisdom, etc.) *to use his class abilities* (or use some sort of 'roll twenty times and drop anything that isn't an 18' system of dice-mongering at chargen). So there's a change I support.
Thanks for your assistance in keeping me away from spewing vile reality into this delusional piece of gorgon offal.Don't call gorgons awful; you'll make me cry.
Sorry Snorter. Didn't mean to make fun of you or denigrate you or insult you. You're far superior to what we've been talking about here.
Why are there no magic earrings? Seriously, I've always wondered...
|
I was really hoping that 4e's claim to ditch the christmas tree would mean that a player at level10 (which woudl be 4e level15) would be really excited if he had 4 magic items. I want players ot keep their magic items they had at level 4, not be waiting to trade-up.
There's nothing magical about making magic items mundane, which I was led to believe would be addressed; I was misled.
Y'know, I see something completely different in that article than most of the subsequent posters have seen.
I see the elimination of problematic stacking of magic effects. In 3.5, I have to get items of attribute enhancement (STR+6, etc.) to be effective. If I am a melee person with one weapon, I get a magic shield in addition to my magic armor, and they stack.
In 4E, there are primary slots that are dedicated to the specific items that are supposed to stack with your abilities. Implements for attacks and damage, armor for AC (but NOT shields, also, because then you'd be stacking), neck slot for your saves.
And other slots that CAN'T do those sorts of effects, both to eliminate stacking and to let you have some slots that you are able to devote to additional cool things you want to do, rather than continuing a narrow focus.
It sounds pretty wonderful to me...
|
|
Just found this gem;
I honestly think that, short of changing nothing in the game, we would've been accused of copying MMOs. We never heard that with Book of Nine Swords, Tome of Magic, Magic Item Compendium, or even the monster revision articles I did, all of which drew on core 4e stuff. We heard criticisms, but the MMO thing was never loud enough (if it was even there) for me to see it.
They *didn't notice* the endless amounts of postage comparing Book of Nine Swords to anime and video games? Seriously? I didn't buy the book because of all the stuff people were saying about it (not just negative, many posters loved this sort of thing, it just wasn't for me)! It seemed like every reviewer I respected had that same riff, with words like 'wuxia' and 'Exalted' and 'Dragonball Z' being flung around in addition to the Warcraft references.
Same with Magic Item Compendium. Every third comment had some reference to the augment crystals being 'slotted items' like in Diablo II or Warcraft.
I find it hard to believe that the design team failed to notice this comparison until just now. Either he's prevaricating, or just plain blind.
Tome of Magic, on the other hand, I don't think has any relevance to the discussion. Where exactly he pulled that one from, I don't get. Is 4E going to have a skill-based magic user like the Truenamer (or Green Ronin's Psychic class)? Vestige Binders who swap out what small pallete of at will powers they have on a daily basis? Casters who have an assortment of spells, spell-likes and supernatural abilities? I dunno. Weird for that one to get mentioned at all...
|
Contributor
|
Playing 3.5, I have the following list (and several others like it) in my head:
+1 armour
+1 shield
ring of protectection +1
amulet of natural armour +1
Increase armour to +2
Increase shield to +2
Gloves of Dexterity +2
Increase armour to +3
Increase shield to +3
Increase ring to +2
Increase amulet to +2
etc.
This is the list I use for deciding what to buy next to get my next AC boost. Obviously it varies depending on the character, but that's the base list.
If I play 4E, I won't have that list.
There are good and bad things in the announcements they've given about 4E. I think this is a good one.
|
|
If I play 4E, I won't have that list.
You are absolutely right that you won't have that list. But won't you have some list?
Since there are slots to be filled there is going to be a natural desire to fill them and I would almost guarantee that some magic items are going to cost more and work better than other items.
The names may change but there will still be a power progression. So long as you can buy and sell items you will sell things you have more than one of and buy what you don't yet have.
Unless you do as some and just nerf the ability to buy whatever you want.
|
Slots don't bother me. They have existed in the game since the begining and have only recently been called out in 3.5. The way they were handled in the Magic Item Compendium was much more efficient and elegant than what had come before.
Slots keyed to certain magical effects don't bother me either. It is reminiscent of Magic of Incarnum where "slots" were similar to real-world chakra. I don't know what the flavor will be like in 4e but if that is the justification for the keyed slots, I will be okay. If there is no flavor then you can guarantee my games will have some fluff reason for the relationship and it will most likely be some kind of chakra-like philosophy.
The whole ring debate has tripped me up slightly. It doesn't seem anymore arbitrary than class restrictions on magic items I guess. But I have my doubts. I assume (though that might be a mistake) that rings will be quite powerful. Actually, level based restrictions don't generally bother me that much but I can admit a certain amount of MMO influence there. Perhaps certain items simply require a level of knowledge and experience to have their powers coaxed out of them.
In other words, you can look at the argument two ways. The item simply "turns on" when you reach a certain level or as you grow in power you find an affinity with the item and you feel better prepared to coax out its true nature. Either way is valid based on play styles and I am not going to judge that. But I think the "fluff" behind that decision is really going depend on how the DM decides to spin that in his games.
|
|
Tome of Magic, on the other hand, I don't think has any relevance to the discussion. Where exactly he pulled that one from, I don't get. Is 4E going to have a skill-based magic user like the Truenamer (or Green Ronin's Psychic class)? Vestige Binders who swap out what small pallete of at will powers they have on a daily basis? Casters who have an assortment of spells, spell-likes and supernatural abilities? I dunno. Weird for that one to get mentioned at all...
I got the feeling after reading Races and Classes that the Warlock will gain some Binder abilities. There is a Vestige Pact for Warlocks so I am thinking something similar in flavor might be at work there. I imagine the other concepts will eventually find their way back into the game.
If I had to guess ToM was a test run on concepts that might be considered for 4e. But I will fully admit I have not seen that stated anywhere nor do I have any inside knowledge. That is a pure guess and nothing more.
How many items would have been "a reduction of the christmas tree effect"?
I personally would say about 1 item per 3-5 levels would have been nice.