Magic Items are exciting again?!

A quote from L&L article today on magic items.
As I mentioned above, we want to make items more interesting to discover. The following items are from a playtest adventure that we are slated to release in a few weeks. They do not use the rules for attunement—these items represent a mid-point step in our development of the rules. In other words, they show you the kinds of items you can expect to see in published adventures. Whenever possible, we'll err on the side of taking the time to design new, unique items for adventures, rather than give out treasure that you could simply pluck from another source.


Items being unique to adventures again! That sounds amazing. Is anyone else totally stoked about how they are taking magic items back to a 1e and 2e feel? 
My two copper.
Yes and no.
What I don't want is the feeling that magic items are needed. I know they are moving away from that, but I remember feeling magic items were needed in 2nd to keep up with monsters. I also do not want to see magic weapons and armors requiring a +1 or better before adding the fun stuff to them, as it was in 3rd. (Which was the basis for one of the worst arguements between my wife and myself, lol) 

What I do want is flavorful and fun magic items. Which is the intended direction. So we can have the flaming sword without the riggamarole of putting a prerequisite +1 enchantment on it first. I really do like the item history creation charts. Gonna play with those tomorrow and see what I roll up.
A quote from L&L article today on magic items.
As I mentioned above, we want to make items more interesting to discover. The following items are from a playtest adventure that we are slated to release in a few weeks. They do not use the rules for attunement—these items represent a mid-point step in our development of the rules. In other words, they show you the kinds of items you can expect to see in published adventures. Whenever possible, we'll err on the side of taking the time to design new, unique items for adventures, rather than give out treasure that you could simply pluck from another source.


Items being unique to adventures again! That sounds amazing. Is anyone else totally stoked about how they are taking magic items back to a 1e and 2e feel? 



Yes which means unnecessary item blot. Imagine if they put out 100 adventure's between stand alone modules and Dungeon issues during the 5E run, now imagine if there were 5 new magic items per adventure. Do the math...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I really like the magic item section in the latest playtest packet. The way the items have descriptions of their appearance, background and secrets gives so much flavour.

My only slight gripe is that the encounter award table suggests even in easy encounters there is a 50% chance of being at least one magic item. This seems to bit too much to me. I would expect 1-2 items per adventure.
I love the magic item "Detail Charts".  I just created an otherwise boring item (+1 longsword) that is now oozing with flavour, and it hardly took any time at all.

The +1 Longsword (called Child-Cleaver in the Elven language) is a feather-light, thin blade with a keen edge.  The hilt has a vine motif, with a coiled grip and crossguards that look like blooming flowers.

This blade has a sinister reputation.  Originally created as a wedding gift, this symbol of everlasting love was severely misused by its elven owner who, in a jealous rage, used it to murder his wife (who he suspected of adultery) and her children.

This sword, disgusted by its previous misuse, now grows uncomfortably hot whenever its owner contemplates or undertakes a malevolent act.  In addition, the bearer of this weapon feels a sense of distaste and discomfort while it is in his possession.
I love the magic item "Detail Charts".  I just created an otherwise boring item (+1 longsword) that is now oozing with flavour, and it hardly took any time at all.

The +1 Longsword (called Child-Cleaver in the Elven language) is a feather-light, thin blade with a keen edge.  The hilt has a vine motif, with a coiled grip and crossguards that look like blooming flowers.

This blade has a sinister reputation.  Originally created as a wedding gift, this symbol of everlasting love was severely misused by its elven owner who, in a jealous rage, used it to murder his wife (who he suspected of adultery) and her children.

This sword, disgusted by its previous misuse, now grows uncomfortably hot whenever its owner contemplates or undertakes a malevolent act.  In addition, the bearer of this weapon feels a sense of distaste and discomfort while it is in his possession.


This was awesome.

I guess I'm just tired of the "Build-an-item" lists. In 3e and 4e, where magic items were more common, they were fine but boring. But when trying to make magic items more unique and interesting, the way they are going fits muchbetter.
My two copper.
I like these tables so much, I'm going to start using them right now in my 3.5 game.
I am really happy with the the direction of magic items in D&D Next so far and find them exciting and magic again!
I am really happy with the the direction of magic items in D&D Next so far and find them exciting and magic again!



I have to agree.  I was a bit... wary of the idea that "you will not need magical items to play the game", but it seems they proved me wrong.  Anything beyond +1 will be hard to get, and the rules look like they will prevent item-centric builds from being possible in the vanilla setting.  

Even though I'm an Eberron fan, I like these rules (and feel like I can easily modify them for rare-magic and common magic settings)
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
My two cents worth........

My gaming group is still playing in Edition 4.0 and any discussion of D&D Next (aka D&D 5.0) has been 'house ruled' as a taboo subject until such time as Wizards of the Coast actually has a finished D&D 5.0 product.   (Yes, my group is somewhat odd)

Anyway, if what I am seeing with the proposed new rules for Magic Items is the way that things are going, then I can make do.

If the emerging consensus is that enchanted items such as swords, armor and the like, are considered to be very rare, if not nonexistent, I can handle it just as long Wizards of the Coast does not plop a monster into the mix that can only be harmed by enchanted weapons.   As long as the monsters can be harmed using ordinary wooden or steel weapons, I will be content using ordinary wooden or steel weapons.
I've definitely really enjoyed the flavor of the new magic item creation. These sorts of flavorful tables can fill any system and they will only make D&D Next that much more awesome.
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.
I like how they made them wacky and interesting, and I like that the rarity system is back. 

What I don't like is that, in a system with bounded accuracy, we still have items that give bonuses to attack rolls and defenses. The +x things and stuff like the belt of giant strenght...why do they even exist? They're very boring, but also very powerful, because they drastically alter the math of the game.

Less static numerical bonuses, more flavorful, interesting stuff, please.
I am loving the current direction of magic items.  I like nearly every part, and the parts I don't like are so amazingly easy to just skip over there's basically nothing I don't like.
I like how they made them wacky and interesting, and I like that the rarity system is back. 

What I don't like is that, in a system with bounded accuracy, we still have items that give bonuses to attack rolls and defenses. The +x things and stuff like the belt of giant strenght...why do they even exist? They're very boring, but also very powerful, because they drastically alter the math of the game.

Less static numerical bonuses, more flavorful, interesting stuff, please.



They needn't be boring, they just need to adjust the flavour and mechanics.  I think the default power of the item should be to boost carrying capacity to the strength score listed in the description (or least the equivalent strength of the appropriate giant) plus a bonus (say +1 for ogre power, +2 giant strength) on melee and thrown attack damage and strength based skills - reflecting 4e's stab at balancing the items.  Then give the items a power that refreshes after a short rest - the PC gains all the benefits of the giant's strength score (double carrying capacity like a large creature, full attack and damage bonus, boost range and damage for hurled items) for a number of rounds equal to their original attack bonus after which time they have to make an endurance check at the end of each round or become weakened until the next short rest.  If that makes any sense...

This way the owner of the best gts a low grade at will bonus and a chance to perform wondrous feats of strength for short periods until your legs give out.
Well, I liked 4e magic items, so maybe I'm not the right person to ask.  But, I'm confused about the rarity -  it suggests a minimum level per rarity, but then doesn't have a level for magic items.  So, are all common items the same level?   When you hit level 11, and get a magic item, will it have to be an artifact, or it will be vendor trash?

Now, I'm not convinced the common, uncommon, rare was the right way to go with 4e, but artifacts should be unique, which doesn't really fit into the model of minimum level.  What about the Coat of Arnd, or other artifacts at low level?
I like how they made them wacky and interesting, and I like that the rarity system is back. 

What I don't like is that, in a system with bounded accuracy, we still have items that give bonuses to attack rolls and defenses. The +x things and stuff like the belt of giant strength...why do they even exist? They're very boring, but also very powerful, because they drastically alter the math of the game.

Less static numerical bonuses, more flavorful, interesting stuff, please.



Exactly a belt of Hill Giant strength should make your character have a uni-brow and a hunchback and only give a +2 to strength based tasks...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I love the magic item "Detail Charts".  I just created an otherwise boring item (+1 longsword) that is now oozing with flavour, and it hardly took any time at all.

The +1 Longsword (called Child-Cleaver in the Elven language) is a feather-light, thin blade with a keen edge.  The hilt has a vine motif, with a coiled grip and crossguards that look like blooming flowers.

This blade has a sinister reputation.  Originally created as a wedding gift, this symbol of everlasting love was severely misused by its elven owner who, in a jealous rage, used it to murder his wife (who he suspected of adultery) and her children.

This sword, disgusted by its previous misuse, now grows uncomfortably hot whenever its owner contemplates or undertakes a malevolent act.  In addition, the bearer of this weapon feels a sense of distaste and discomfort while it is in his possession.

These charts were one of my favorite parts too.  I've always found that details like this are what make players really interested and attached to magic items.
Yes which means unnecessary item blot. Imagine if they put out 100 adventure's between stand alone modules and Dungeon issues during the 5E run, now imagine if there were 5 new magic items per adventure. Do the math...

Ok, I will.  If they release 100 adventures there will be 500 new magic items.

According to the compendium, 4E currently has 452 magic weapons.  Add in armor and you have 759.  Add in implements and you have 1332. 

Just to put that 500 in perspective.

I think the idea of custom items with adventures is very cool.  It fits with what I said above: I have found players tend to value items that come with a story.  Finding more of the same is boring, finding an item that specifically relates to the quest you are doing is interesting.
My two cents worth........

My gaming group is still playing in Edition 4.0 and any discussion of D&D Next (aka D&D 5.0) has been 'house ruled' as a taboo subject until such time as Wizards of the Coast actually has a finished D&D 5.0 product.   (Yes, my group is somewhat odd)

Anyway, if what I am seeing with the proposed new rules for Magic Items is the way that things are going, then I can make do.

If the emerging consensus is that enchanted items such as swords, armor and the like, are considered to be very rare, if not nonexistent, I can handle it just as long Wizards of the Coast does not plop a monster into the mix that can only be harmed by enchanted weapons.   As long as the monsters can be harmed using ordinary wooden or steel weapons, I will be content using ordinary wooden or steel weapons.



You know I see this philosophy a lot and I just don't get it.  What is wrong with the undefeatable monster until you find the weapon of X.  Now don't get me wrong I think there should be GM guidelines for their use, but if a Stone Golem is protecting the crypt and the spell slingers can't do crap, and fighters are under geared and can't do crap, how is that bad?   What is wrong with oh crap we can't hurt it, run away.  We have to come up with a way to defeat(sneak past, destroy, draw away into a trap etc) that monster.  

For me the problem is not the undefeatable monster but if that monster only shows up when you have the gear to deal with it, or when it is used far too often so instead of a interesting encounter it becomes a cliche, or when they design monsters so there are tons of need X to defeat physically monsters but magic immune/resistant ones are rare.  Otherwise I think they are an awesome addition to a game world whether it is +x weapon or need blessed weapons, silver weapons, wooden stake etc. I prefer the latter ones when used sparingly, the need +x is much simpler though.   
I like how they made them wacky and interesting, and I like that the rarity system is back. 

What I don't like is that, in a system with bounded accuracy, we still have items that give bonuses to attack rolls and defenses. The +x things and stuff like the belt of giant strength...why do they even exist? They're very boring, but also very powerful, because they drastically alter the math of the game.

Less static numerical bonuses, more flavorful, interesting stuff, please.



Exactly a belt of Hill Giant strength should make your character have a uni-brow and a hunchback and only give a +2 to strength based tasks...



That brought a giggle.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I like how they made them wacky and interesting, and I like that the rarity system is back. 

What I don't like is that, in a system with bounded accuracy, we still have items that give bonuses to attack rolls and defenses. The +x things and stuff like the belt of giant strenght...why do they even exist? They're very boring, but also very powerful, because they drastically alter the math of the game.

Less static numerical bonuses, more flavorful, interesting stuff, please.



They needn't be boring, they just need to adjust the flavour and mechanics.  I think the default power of the item should be to boost carrying capacity to the strength score listed in the description (or least the equivalent strength of the appropriate giant) plus a bonus (say +1 for ogre power, +2 giant strength) on melee and thrown attack damage and strength based skills - reflecting 4e's stab at balancing the items.  Then give the items a power that refreshes after a short rest - the PC gains all the benefits of the giant's strength score (double carrying capacity like a large creature, full attack and damage bonus, boost range and damage for hurled items) for a number of rounds equal to their original attack bonus after which time they have to make an endurance check at the end of each round or become weakened until the next short rest.  If that makes any sense...

This way the owner of the best gts a low grade at will bonus and a chance to perform wondrous feats of strength for short periods until your legs give out.


That would be much better! More interesting , less broken and flavorful to boot 

My two cents worth........

My gaming group is still playing in Edition 4.0 and any discussion of D&D Next (aka D&D 5.0) has been 'house ruled' as a taboo subject until such time as Wizards of the Coast actually has a finished D&D 5.0 product.   (Yes, my group is somewhat odd)

Anyway, if what I am seeing with the proposed new rules for Magic Items is the way that things are going, then I can make do.

If the emerging consensus is that enchanted items such as swords, armor and the like, are considered to be very rare, if not nonexistent, I can handle it just as long Wizards of the Coast does not plop a monster into the mix that can only be harmed by enchanted weapons.   As long as the monsters can be harmed using ordinary wooden or steel weapons, I will be content using ordinary wooden or steel weapons.



You know I see this philosophy a lot and I just don't get it.  What is wrong with the undefeatable monster until you find the weapon of X.  Now don't get me wrong I think there should be GM guidelines for their use, but if a Stone Golem is protecting the crypt and the spell slingers can't do crap, and fighters are under geared and can't do crap, how is that bad?   What is wrong with oh crap we can't hurt it, run away.  We have to come up with a way to defeat(sneak past, destroy, draw away into a trap etc) that monster.  

For me the problem is not the undefeatable monster but if that monster only shows up when you have the gear to deal with it, or when it is used far too often so instead of a interesting encounter it becomes a cliche, or when they design monsters so there are tons of need X to defeat physically monsters but magic immune/resistant ones are rare.  Otherwise I think they are an awesome addition to a game world whether it is +x weapon or need blessed weapons, silver weapons, wooden stake etc. I prefer the latter ones when used sparingly, the need +x is much simpler though.   



In part his arguement was "Don't tell us we won't need magic items to succeed, then turn around and tell us we need magic items to be able to defeat a large swath of monsters" I do beleive most golems, gargoyles, demons, angels, and probably a few others were only able to be damaged by magic items in 3.X This madde it so you needed magic items, which is the opposite of what we are being told right now.

Now as to your side, I agree to a point. The problem  with the "undefeatable" monster is twofold. If it is too common it feels contrived. When all golem-esque creatures are only able to take damage from the "golem slayer 5000" then every evil wizard has created 6 golems, it doesn't feel like they should be special, and then the fighter has to spend a fortune on a sword he otherwise didn't want. Secondly, many players want "realism". Werewolves can only be killed by silver, swords can't hurt golems, normal arrows can't hurt a demon, which puts pressure on the developers to create these creatures so that they are undefeatable without weapon X.

I have no problem with a story-specific "unbeatable" monster. The ancient guardian of the Dragon Temple can only be injured by weapons soaked in Dragon blood. This makes the fight a quest, which can make it more interesting. But I feel you shouldn't just spring this on the players, drop hints and legends, and this should be an extremely rare encounter. Perhaps only 1-3 per long running campaign. This way it still feels unique and memorable. Iron Golems can only be injured by weapons of +1 enchantment or more is not memorable or unique, its annoying and forces you to find magic weapons.
I love the flavor of the new magic item packet. I like how we get descriptions for things like sampling potions, and magic items that glow when in the presence of orcs and similar cool stuff.

There was actually effort for magic items to feel magical and not like technology, which was an area that 3E and 4E utterly failed on. So glad to see the improvement.

The magic item section is easily my favorite addition to D&DN.
My two cents worth........

My gaming group is still playing in Edition 4.0 and any discussion of D&D Next (aka D&D 5.0) has been 'house ruled' as a taboo subject until such time as Wizards of the Coast actually has a finished D&D 5.0 product.   (Yes, my group is somewhat odd)

Anyway, if what I am seeing with the proposed new rules for Magic Items is the way that things are going, then I can make do.

If the emerging consensus is that enchanted items such as swords, armor and the like, are considered to be very rare, if not nonexistent, I can handle it just as long Wizards of the Coast does not plop a monster into the mix that can only be harmed by enchanted weapons.   As long as the monsters can be harmed using ordinary wooden or steel weapons, I will be content using ordinary wooden or steel weapons.



You know I see this philosophy a lot and I just don't get it.  What is wrong with the undefeatable monster until you find the weapon of X.  Now don't get me wrong I think there should be GM guidelines for their use, but if a Stone Golem is protecting the crypt and the spell slingers can't do crap, and fighters are under geared and can't do crap, how is that bad?   What is wrong with oh crap we can't hurt it, run away.  We have to come up with a way to defeat(sneak past, destroy, draw away into a trap etc) that monster.  

For me the problem is not the undefeatable monster but if that monster only shows up when you have the gear to deal with it, or when it is used far too often so instead of a interesting encounter it becomes a cliche, or when they design monsters so there are tons of need X to defeat physically monsters but magic immune/resistant ones are rare.  Otherwise I think they are an awesome addition to a game world whether it is +x weapon or need blessed weapons, silver weapons, wooden stake etc. I prefer the latter ones when used sparingly, the need +x is much simpler though.   



In part his arguement was "Don't tell us we won't need magic items to succeed, then turn around and tell us we need magic items to be able to defeat a large swath of monsters" I do beleive most golems, gargoyles, demons, angels, and probably a few others were only able to be damaged by magic items in 3.X This madde it so you needed magic items, which is the opposite of what we are being told right now.

Now as to your side, I agree to a point. The problem  with the "undefeatable" monster is twofold. If it is too common it feels contrived. When all golem-esque creatures are only able to take damage from the "golem slayer 5000" then every evil wizard has created 6 golems, it doesn't feel like they should be special, and then the fighter has to spend a fortune on a sword he otherwise didn't want. Secondly, many players want "realism". Werewolves can only be killed by silver, swords can't hurt golems, normal arrows can't hurt a demon, which puts pressure on the developers to create these creatures so that they are undefeatable without weapon X.

I have no problem with a story-specific "unbeatable" monster. The ancient guardian of the Dragon Temple can only be injured by weapons soaked in Dragon blood. This makes the fight a quest, which can make it more interesting. But I feel you shouldn't just spring this on the players, drop hints and legends, and this should be an extremely rare encounter. Perhaps only 1-3 per long running campaign. This way it still feels unique and memorable. Iron Golems can only be injured by weapons of +1 enchantment or more is not memorable or unique, its annoying and forces you to find magic weapons.


I very much get what you are saying chaosmancer. What I would suggest for stuff like this would be the same view on Save or Die mechanics. Let them be rare, and let these requirements play a big part of the story rather than just being "something it does". Like a werewolf needing to be killed by silver. That should be mentioned before werewolves attack. Like villagers saying that they've heard only silver can slay the beast, so the players commision the blacksmith to smith a silver dagger. Stuff like that. 

I understand this is mainly narritive, and therefore you can't really, or shouldn't really, apply it to all DMs. So what I suggest is making it an option for the creature listed in the MM. Like normal werewolves can be killed by whatever, but the option to increase XP by 50, and they can only be killed by silver. Stuff like that sounds really cool to me. It's like peppering in modular flavor to monsters like they do player classes. Cool stuff.
My two copper.
My two cents worth........

My gaming group is still playing in Edition 4.0 and any discussion of D&D Next (aka D&D 5.0) has been 'house ruled' as a taboo subject until such time as Wizards of the Coast actually has a finished D&D 5.0 product.   (Yes, my group is somewhat odd)

Anyway, if what I am seeing with the proposed new rules for Magic Items is the way that things are going, then I can make do.

If the emerging consensus is that enchanted items such as swords, armor and the like, are considered to be very rare, if not nonexistent, I can handle it just as long Wizards of the Coast does not plop a monster into the mix that can only be harmed by enchanted weapons.   As long as the monsters can be harmed using ordinary wooden or steel weapons, I will be content using ordinary wooden or steel weapons.



You know I see this philosophy a lot and I just don't get it.  What is wrong with the undefeatable monster until you find the weapon of X.  Now don't get me wrong I think there should be GM guidelines for their use, but if a Stone Golem is protecting the crypt and the spell slingers can't do crap, and fighters are under geared and can't do crap, how is that bad?   What is wrong with oh crap we can't hurt it, run away.  We have to come up with a way to defeat(sneak past, destroy, draw away into a trap etc) that monster.  

For me the problem is not the undefeatable monster but if that monster only shows up when you have the gear to deal with it, or when it is used far too often so instead of a interesting encounter it becomes a cliche, or when they design monsters so there are tons of need X to defeat physically monsters but magic immune/resistant ones are rare.  Otherwise I think they are an awesome addition to a game world whether it is +x weapon or need blessed weapons, silver weapons, wooden stake etc. I prefer the latter ones when used sparingly, the need +x is much simpler though.   



In part his arguement was "Don't tell us we won't need magic items to succeed, then turn around and tell us we need magic items to be able to defeat a large swath of monsters" I do beleive most golems, gargoyles, demons, angels, and probably a few others were only able to be damaged by magic items in 3.X This madde it so you needed magic items, which is the opposite of what we are being told right now.

Now as to your side, I agree to a point. The problem  with the "undefeatable" monster is twofold. If it is too common it feels contrived. When all golem-esque creatures are only able to take damage from the "golem slayer 5000" then every evil wizard has created 6 golems, it doesn't feel like they should be special, and then the fighter has to spend a fortune on a sword he otherwise didn't want. Secondly, many players want "realism". Werewolves can only be killed by silver, swords can't hurt golems, normal arrows can't hurt a demon, which puts pressure on the developers to create these creatures so that they are undefeatable without weapon X.

I have no problem with a story-specific "unbeatable" monster. The ancient guardian of the Dragon Temple can only be injured by weapons soaked in Dragon blood. This makes the fight a quest, which can make it more interesting. But I feel you shouldn't just spring this on the players, drop hints and legends, and this should be an extremely rare encounter. Perhaps only 1-3 per long running campaign. This way it still feels unique and memorable. Iron Golems can only be injured by weapons of +1 enchantment or more is not memorable or unique, its annoying and forces you to find magic weapons.


I very much get what you are saying chaosmancer. What I would suggest for stuff like this would be the same view on Save or Die mechanics. Let them be rare, and let these requirements play a big part of the story rather than just being "something it does". Like a werewolf needing to be killed by silver. That should be mentioned before werewolves attack. Like villagers saying that they've heard only silver can slay the beast, so the players commision the blacksmith to smith a silver dagger. Stuff like that. 

I understand this is mainly narritive, and therefore you can't really, or shouldn't really, apply it to all DMs. So what I suggest is making it an option for the creature listed in the MM. Like normal werewolves can be killed by whatever, but the option to increase XP by 50, and they can only be killed by silver. Stuff like that sounds really cool to me. It's like peppering in modular flavor to monsters like they do player classes. Cool stuff.



The way its done now is immunity and resistance (1/2 damage). Personally I think they should drop immunity and have greater resistance (1/4 damage). This would solve most problems.

Minor werewolves would have resistance to non-silver weapons and greater werewolves would have greater resistance to non-silver weapons, and some regeneration...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
The reason I like immunities, when story imposed at least, is it forces players to think rather than just slodge through the HP at 1/4 the rate. It may seem like 1/4 damage would dissuade people from just attacking, but in my experience it doesn't. In fact I had a combat that the fighter had to roll max or 1 under max to do any damage, and he was the only one who could. But instead of problem solving and looking for the solution, which was there, the players just let the fighter plink it to death :P Would not be an issue with immunities.
My two copper.
There are creatures whose immunity to normal weapons is core to their nature - a werewolf that isn't damn near impossible to kill without silver weapons is barely any sort of werewolf at all.

Edit: I didn't really finish that thought... 3e went to far though, damn near everything had some sort of DR.  Demons and devils had stacking weapon type DR - low level ones required holy weapons or special materials (arbitrary by demon or devil) and then high level ones require both. Silver, Cold Iron, Adamantium, magic +X, holy, unholy, axiomatic... and then combinations of multiple.  Oof.  The occasional creature that requires a magic weapon to harm, sure.  But requiring +2 or higher is fiddly and gamey.

I do like the items we've seen so far.  A lot of them are classic items like Flametongue of course. (An example of a magic sword that does not have +1 to hit)

The belts... I have 2 thoughts...

One is that these are for groups that really want to play classic dnd, where balance is not a huge concern.  Belts of giant strength that actually give the strength of a giant are iconic things. (maybe their rarity should be bumped up so that even hill giant strength is a legendary item - that would push them out of the range of things that can be randomly found in treasure)

The other is that as part of the playtest they may well throw out things they know will provoke a reaction.  So maybe they want to put the question of the classic belts of giant strength to us and see what we do with them before they sit down and redesign them.
There are creatures whose immunity to normal weapons is core to their nature - a werewolf that isn't damn near impossible to kill without silver weapons is barely any sort of werewolf at all.

Edit: I didn't really finish that thought... 3e went to far though, damn near everything had some sort of DR.  Demons and devils had stacking weapon type DR - low level ones required holy weapons or special materials (arbitrary by demon or devil) and then high level ones require both. Silver, Cold Iron, Adamantium, magic +X, holy, unholy, axiomatic... and then combinations of multiple.  Oof.  The occasional creature that requires a magic weapon to harm, sure.  But requiring +2 or higher is fiddly and gamey.

I do like the items we've seen so far.  A lot of them are classic items like Flametongue of course. (An example of a magic sword that does not have +1 to hit)

The belts... I have 2 thoughts...

One is that these are for groups that really want to play classic dnd, where balance is not a huge concern.  Belts of giant strength that actually give the strength of a giant are iconic things. (maybe their rarity should be bumped up so that even hill giant strength is a legendary item - that would push them out of the range of things that can be randomly found in treasure)

The other is that as part of the playtest they may well throw out things they know will provoke a reaction.  So maybe they want to put the question of the classic belts of giant strength to us and see what we do with them before they sit down and redesign them.



I disagree about the werewolf. I think Lycanthropy is enough to make a werewolf, the "immune to non-silver weapons" might be good for some sort of Werewolf Lord, but otherwise I'd prefer to see it changed to a weakness. Honestly, I see werewolves and trolls fairly similiarly. Both have high regeneration, though wolves aren't coming back from the dead.

I think the main reason they even have the silver weakness is because most werewolf stories involve only a single monster, so it is much more exciting if they are near impossible to kill. In a world full of monsters, they should be powerful but not that powerful unless there are special circumstances.

Sorry if my thoughts are a littlejumpy, I'm tired

its easier to have the default be magic-mart and then having them be rare.

if they are rare there are no mechanics (or prices) to have them be bought, you dont have as many and they all tend to be very powerful.

in a magic-mart you want alot of magic items, most of which are fairly mundane (bag of holding being a good example) and of course you DO want some that are crazy powerful as well, the kind that would awe a king and would change the course of history.
with the exception of the items designed to be over-powerful (rares) you also want them to heap everyone equaly, to make it easy to balance encounters.

if you start with magic-mart and go to them being rare you just remove the weak items, ignore the rules for buying them, and adjust the encounter balance however much you need to. if you go from rare to magic-mart you have to give prices to every magic item, make up alot of items, and figure out how it effects the balance.

---

if you start with high magic and with magic items helping everyone equaly you also can make a campain at any point between those two extreams and have it work.

of anything in the entire game magic items should be modular, the very idea they are hard-coding "magic items are rare" means they dont take the idea of the game being modular serously. even that was not a stated goal it is not their place to make the game lean that way it is a campain decision not one someone 100's of miles away should make. and because it changes so much its a waste of time anyway, the rules they are making will only help those people who WANT magic items to be super rare and it will help everyone not a wit.

---
to be honest its starting to feel like they are only doing magic items the way they are because its much easier to make a fewer items and not care if they are balanced then make system for balancing them and provide enough to be usefull for high-magic campains
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )

to be honest its starting to feel like they are only doing magic items the way they are because its much easier to make a fewer items and not care if they are balanced then make system for balancing them and provide enough to be usefull for high-magic campains


I disagree. I feel their assesment that magic items over the last 2 editions have lost their flavor is spot on. In 3e, by level 15 if you didn't have at least a +4 stat increasing item, you had new players or your DM was a dick. Items like that were expected in 3e, and it only became worse in 4e. I actually got frustrated having to add 5 total magic items to every dungeon in order to meet the treasure packet "quota". 

Not to mention this is doing great things on the opposite end of the spectrum. By making magical items rarer, they are making mundane and masterwork items a bit more desirable, instead of items relegated for levels 1-3. To me, that is cool. 
My two copper.

to be honest its starting to feel like they are only doing magic items the way they are because its much easier to make a fewer items and not care if they are balanced then make system for balancing them and provide enough to be usefull for high-magic campains


I disagree. I feel their assesment that magic items over the last 2 editions have lost their flavor is spot on. In 3e, by level 15 if you didn't have at least a +4 stat increasing item, you had new players or your DM was a dick. Items like that were expected in 3e, and it only became worse in 4e. I actually got frustrated having to add 5 total magic items to every dungeon in order to meet the treasure packet "quota". 

Not to mention this is doing great things on the opposite end of the spectrum. By making magical items rarer, they are making mundane and masterwork items a bit more desirable, instead of items relegated for levels 1-3. To me, that is cool. 



what if my world is build around magic being common? where that is very important to the overall plot? or what if I just life having high magic where any major town has a magic shop?

in 4e you could use inherit bonuses and not need magic items (it did change the balance of the game, but that can be factored into encouter design) but because its default was high magic you could do that if you wanted

the problem is that this is NOT something that should happen at a desgin level, it is something that each campain should be able to do differently if they want to.

by not having any rules for buying items, nor costs, nor having a large list of items they are not allowing those people who want to have high magic worlds do so. its easy to trim away what you dont want from high magic, it is not easy to make dozens of balanced items and the rules for buying them



Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
i  the very idea they are hard-coding "magic items are rare" means they dont take the idea of the game being modular serously.  



That is what many dread. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

 

by not having any rules for buying items, nor costs, nor having a large list of items they are not allowing those people who want to have high magic worlds do so. its easy to trim away what you dont want from high magic, it is not easy to make dozens of balanced items and the rules for buying them



Yup much easier.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I think we can all agree that a 4e style of default high magic doesn't work too well either. I think a lot of these fears come from just an unfinished product. I'm sure there will be buying rules in the finished product, or at least a rule like 2 or 3x the sell price. Something like that.
My two copper.
I think we can all agree that a 4e style of default high magic doesn't work too well either. I think a lot of these fears come from just an unfinished product. I'm sure there will be buying rules in the finished product, or at least a rule like 2 or 3x the sell price. Something like that.



I belive it works well, it is set up in a way that allows it to be changed to any style you wish, I cant say the same with how 5e is starting to look
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
I really appreciate the efforts to make magical items far more interesting with tons of flavour and randomised backgrounds and quirks. The party will be leaning forward in their chairs when they find their first few magical items, wondering about its enchantments and nature. I think this adds wonderfully to the fabric of the game. 

What doesn't work so well is the 10 minute attunement thing. It is too generic, like a universal plug adapater every sentient creature can "ohhhmmmmmmmmmmmm" for 10 minutes and tap into the essence of any item. I'd prefer the attunement to reflect the item's creator or nature. Some of the individual magic items feature requirements on class or race to attune to a particular item, but I think it should be more interesting and especially more varied. 

For example, Excalibur, sealed in stone until it can be pulled by a man with a pure heart. Game terms it could be a Holy Avenger and it's extractor need be a Lawful Good Paladin before it can be removed from the stone. The act of removing it from the stone is the act of attunement, not the 10 minutes of thoughtful meditation afterward. 

I also like the idea that not all items are immediately plug-n-play safe for the party. The powerful staff they picked up from the evil wizard can only be attuned by shouting out the name of a particular demonic entity in some black speech drinking the blood from a sacrificed goat. This should give pause to some "good-aligned" players at the table, while the borderline sorcerer just wants more power. The evil staff as temptation to "easy" access to power at the cost of the party's collective "goodness", that's good ol' D&D.

All of this can easily be done by any half-decent DM, but it'd be nice if it was in the text. 
The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. -Gary Gygax
I really appreciate the efforts to make magical items far more interesting with tons of flavour and randomised backgrounds and quirks. The party will be leaning forward in their chairs when they find their first few magical items, wondering about its enchantments and nature. I think this adds wonderfully to the fabric of the game. 

What doesn't work so well is the 10 minute attunement thing. It is too generic, like a universal plug adapater every sentient creature can "ohhhmmmmmmmmmmmm" for 10 minutes and tap into the essence of any item. I'd prefer the attunement to reflect the item's creator or nature. Some of the individual magic items feature requirements on class or race to attune to a particular item, but I think it should be more interesting and especially more varied. 

For example, Excalibur, sealed in stone until it can be pulled by a man with a pure heart. Game terms it could be a Holy Avenger and it's extractor need be a Lawful Good Paladin before it can be removed from the stone. The act of removing it from the stone is the act of attunement, not the 10 minutes of thoughtful meditation afterward. 

I also like the idea that not all items are immediately plug-n-play safe for the party. The powerful staff they picked up from the evil wizard can only be attuned by shouting out the name of a particular demonic entity in some black speech drinking the blood from a sacrificed goat. This should give pause to some "good-aligned" players at the table, while the borderline sorcerer just wants more power. The evil staff as temptation to "easy" access to power at the cost of the party's collective "goodness", that's good ol' D&D.

All of this can easily be done by any half-decent DM, but it'd be nice if it was in the text. 




have to agree with you there, I think the best way to go is to do like 4e did then have some stuff in the DMG on how to change how magic items work based on how rare they are, how powerfull the items are (have several ways to attune to the items ect) and stuff like that

detail enough systems that the DM can decide what one he wants to use without have to make everything from scrach
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
 
What doesn't work so well is the 10 minute attunement thing. It is too generic, like a universal plug adapater every sentient creature can "ohhhmmmmmmmmmmmm" for 10 minutes and tap into the essence of any item. I'd prefer the attunement to reflect the item's creator or nature. Some of the individual magic items feature requirements on class or race to attune to a particular item, but I think it should be more interesting and especially more varied. 

For example, Excalibur, sealed in stone until it can be pulled by a man with a pure heart. Game terms it could be a Holy Avenger and it's extractor need be a Lawful Good Paladin before it can be removed from the stone. The act of removing it from the stone is the act of attunement, not the 10 minutes of thoughtful meditation afterward. 

I also like the idea that not all items are immediately plug-n-play safe for the party. The powerful staff they picked up from the evil wizard can only be attuned by shouting out the name of a particular demonic entity in some black speech drinking the blood from a sacrificed goat. This should give pause to some "good-aligned" players at the table, while the borderline sorcerer just wants more power. The evil staff as temptation to "easy" access to power at the cost of the party's collective "goodness", that's good ol' D&D.

All of this can easily be done by any half-decent DM, but it'd be nice if it was in the text. 



Very nice ideas there... I have had my head whirring with other possible uses of attunement, like Excalibur and analogs being treated as multiple attunements... because these center piece items take more attention and are character defining... Learning higher level spells might takea attunement, hmmmm no Merlin cant exactly use Excalibur because his essence was partially bound when he learned the magic to ride on the breath of the dragon.
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Very nice ideas there...



Thanks.

I think the simplest way to describe what I'm suggesting is that an item can never attune to an individual; the individual must attune to the essence of the item.


The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. -Gary Gygax
Very nice ideas there...



Thanks.

I think the simplest way to describe what I'm suggesting is that an item can never attune to an individual; the individual must attune to the essence of the item.





While not a terrible idea at all, remember that the base rules are meant to be simple and functional. They work on a base level and allow you to stack whatever you want on top. Want to pull a sword from the stone, go for it, but I can see how a lot of DMs wouldn't want to spend the time coming up with a unique attunement ritual/event for every weapon.
My two copper.


While not a terrible idea at all, remember that the base rules are meant to be simple and functional. They work on a base level and allow you to stack whatever you want on top. Want to pull a sword from the stone, go for it, but I can see how a lot of DMs wouldn't want to spend the time coming up with a unique attunement ritual/event for every weapon.


If the base rules can have a table for creator, nature, minor quirks and minor properties (which I imagine would be extended in the final rules) then I don't see how either tying the attunement to the creator/nature table; or better yet simply having an additional table for "other ways to attune" makes the base rules any less simple or less functional.

I do agree that I don't see a lot of DMs spending the time to come up with unique attunements for every item the players stumble across on their own, which is why it would be preferable for it to be written by the designers in the base rules. As far as I understand the magic items rules as they now are, not every item needs to be attuned... so only those "special" items need this extra level of consideration. Want to make a memorable item with a memorable attunement ritual, roll on a table - it already works so well for the other factors they've provided.

A table of various attunements is realtively easy. I'm sure that if a thread were made, we could collectively write 100 different attunements we'd all be satisfied with in very little time.

Here's a start (I tried to be vague to suggest any type of item, but some attunements really do fit certain backgrounds or items better than others. And before you all judge to hastily, I'm one DM writing the first ideas that come to mind... not a design team that could take these 20 things and make them all a helluva lot better).

d20     Attunement
1     At night, in a raging thunder and lightning storm, stand in the rain with nothing but the item. Hold it aloft, shouting at the heavens to grant you understanding. If you are granted this knowledge, lightning will lick across the surface of the item crackling and sparking. 
2     Place the item inside a cadaver of a recently buried convicted thief or murderer from sunset to sunrise.
3     Anoint the item in blessed oils and recite a well-known verse tied to the objects creator.
4     If you meet the prerequisites, you can remove this item from it's holding state. Only those with the correct class, race, sex or whatever other restrictions tied to the item can remove the item from its stone, box, cupboard, statue, weapon hilt, etc.
5     You must prove yourself worthy to the intelligent item by fulfilling tasks it assigns wither verbally or telepathically. It may add additional tasks on a whim as it suits. Some cursed items have nothing to offer for the succesful completion of these tasks, but the wicked intelligence inside the item continues to send luckless heroes on ever more challenging quests with only the promise of reward.
6     The item needs to be stolen, not given or found.
7     The item demands a daily blood ritual for one lunar phase. Good aligned weapons prefer a small pin prick of blood from the would-be hero, while evil aligned weapons want a vial to be poured across its surface. Especially war like or chaotic weapons want to be dunked in buckets of blood and gore.
8     The item requires that it's former owner's history be known to the current owner. 
9     The item must be made white hot in a blacksmith's furnace and it's owner must have his flesh branded. Some items are so powerful they demand that this brand is upon the wielder's forehead. 
10     The item requires that a secret that no-one else knows be told to it. The secret need be worth keeping and the DM can judge the value of the secret by what is going on in his campaign. 
11     All other items of the same type must be destroyed in honour of this item. If the item in question is a weapon, the item can be used to sunder the other weapons.
12     The item's creator will appear to the new wielder in a dream or vision in a jealous rage and try to kill the new wielder. This occurs in the hero's head and must face the creator alone. If the hero is defeated the item disintegrates, otherwise the creator bows and accepts the new owner of his device.
13     The wielder must adhere to a strict diet or perhaps even fast, as suggested by the creator or nature of the item for a fortnight. Dwarven items require a good deal of daily mead, while Elven magic require fresh fruit and vegetable. Items of religious significance take on aspects of the god in question, but usually involve fasting.
14     The item eats a value of gold a day. The gold pieces melts into it. During each unique ownership, the item grows 1 pound heavier for every character level attained.
15     The item must be cleansed in an ocean. Books and scrolls are magical waterproof.
16     The wielder and item must undergo a naming ceremony, forever bonding their fates. The PC must choose both names. The names of those passed bonded in this manner are all engraved magically into the surface of the item. 
17     The item is attuned when the wielder holds it in clouds at least 1000 feet in the sky. 
18     For the period of one week, the wielder may not talk - he has taken a vow of silence. Any lapse, resets the time. 
19     The item must return to the place of its making; the forge, the wizard tower, the plane of hell...
20     The item will only be attuned to the hero who issues a public challenge for the item's ownership. The item need be fairly won.
The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. -Gary Gygax
Name each something... a one word or few word (oh and very cool)

Quest of Worthiness
Steeped in Blood
Sundering connections to the past.
Winner Take All
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Sign In to post comments