|
1 year ago ::
Mar 28, 2012 - 3:17AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
There's been a lot of talk about how D&D Next will handle magic items, and I have to say that I'm pretty displeased with the talk. It's all a bunch of, frankly, cliche talk about magic items being "magical" (whatever that even means), characters not being magic item christmas trees, or magic items being a big deal within the game world. I must say that this totally clashes with my vision of D&D, and this is why:
I want magic items not to be a big deal. I want characters to frequent the magical bazaar where they can find the right pair of magic boots that matches their magic gown so they can attend the magic ball in style later tonight. Why do I want this? Because I don't like for magic items to take up a very big part of my stories. Think about real life. Do you think that you're defined by your computer? Your cell phone? Your car? Of course not, because those things are everywhere. The same goes for magic items in a fantasy world. The rare and powerful artifact here and there aside, when magic items are common, they stop being a big deal.
Yeah, so what if you have a +1 flaming sword? Those are standard issue for the police department. When magic items are rare, when they're a big deal, characters become defined by which ones they have. King Arthur is defined by Excalibur; Harry Potter is not defined by the Nimbus 2000 (though better examples should be so minor that I can't think of them!). I don't want any characters that I play or any characters in campaigns that I run defined by their Wand of Shocking Grasp; I want to treat that like a tazer, because that puts the focus on the ingenuity of the character as opposed to the might of his magic item.
Then there's the issue of motivation. I think that being motivated by riches, particularly in magic items, is the most boring possible character motivation. Characters risk opening the chest just because it might have that Amulet of Natural Armor +1. They go on entire adventures just looking for a +2 Dagger. This simply will not do for my characters or my campaigns. I don't want magic items to be motivation, so that means that they need to become unremarkable, just another part of character customization, like feats. We're playing heroes! They should be motivated by defeating the evil lich or ending the war or saving the world! Not a couple of shiny rings. When magic items are common, these motivations can be tossed aside far more easily in favor of much more original and heroic character goals.
Now, here will be the test to see if you read the entire post: The above is just my personal preference, and I do not think that this should necessarily be the default way that the system is designed or balanced. I would be absolutely perfectly happy with a high-magic re-balancing variant as an optional module (though I would prefer it be available soon upon Next's release so that I don't have to suffer though low-magic campaigns for very long). Indeed, it makes perfect sense to me for the game to be designed by default around low-magic when it comes to magic items.
So what's my point then? Well, my point is just that I don't think that the question of what to do about magic items is as clear as everybody seems to be discussing it as being. If Next is really going to be able to accomodate all playstyles, then it needs to be able to accomodate people who like to play at different levels of magic item prevalence. It needs to be able to accomodate both people who want Excalibur and people who want the Nimbus 2000, people who want Dark Sun and people who want Eberron, people who want crafting magic items to be an ancient lost art and people who don't even bother with it because they can just visit Jim, the level 1 commoner that lives down the street with the magical trinket stand at the bazaar.
Balancing these different possibilties will not be easy. In fact, if it is easy, then they've surely done it wrong. But it needs to be done if Next is going to deliver on its promise to let us all play the characters and campaigns that we want to play.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 28, 2012 - 3:47AM
#2
|
|
|
I hate these threads... They remind me that both high magic and low magic settings are fun and that I can't have both at the same time.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 28, 2012 - 4:05AM
#3
|
|
|
I hate these threads... They remind me that both high magic and low magic settings are fun and that I can't have both at the same time.
4E handles it rather well. Unfortunately, though, a ton of balancing must be done in every facet of the game to allow for this. This also can leave the DM a lot of extra work making sure that he/she distributes an abundance of magic items on a very regular basis.
My answer would be to design 5E as a mid-magic setting that does not rely on +X magic items for balance and then provide guidelines how to add magic to be high magic and how to remove magic from it to be low magic.
As someone that always runs low-magic campaigns exclusively, I think it would be a fair compromise.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 28, 2012 - 4:18AM
#4
|
|
|
It seems your looking for the difference between "which magic item you have defines your character" and "whether you have magic items defines your character."
Am I defined by my car? Yes and no. I'm not defined by the fact I have a car (in comparison to my current peers), as we all do. I'm defined by which car I have. But yes, I completely agree with the points you're making here on supporting high-magic and low.
Given that they are planning on removing presense or lack of presense of magic items from the game's assumed balance and power progression, it sounds like they are trying to support both playstyles.
We honestly don't have enough information to know if that includes things like removing pluses to magic items across the board and making them effect based, or what. And without that specific implementation information, we can't comment on their direction much.
But I do think they're trying to accommodate both styles.
Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Show
Theora, A World of Modern Science
Show
Build Around This
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 28, 2012 - 6:59AM
#5
|
|
|
I feel that 3/3.5E did well with high vs low-magic campaigns. If you wanted magic items pervolent then just throw them on your monsters and in shops. If you don't then let them be rare. The reason they cost so much is because with either easy to come by or difficult, the cost wizards a lot to make them. Wether it be XP costs or in 1/2E age. If you happen to be running a high magic item campaign then chances are half the magic items are being sold and that means the characters are rich. If running a low magic item campaign then it works as the characters wont have as much and magic items will actually be expencive.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 28, 2012 - 7:06AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2006
|
Personally, like this post is about personal preference, I prefer low magic settings. And, it's easier to add magic to a setting than remove it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 28, 2012 - 7:39AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2007
|
Spoiler:
Show
There's been a lot of talk about how D&D Next will handle magic items, and I have to say that I'm pretty displeased with the talk. It's all a bunch of, frankly, cliche talk about magic items being "magical" (whatever that even means), characters not being magic item christmas trees, or magic items being a big deal within the game world. I must say that this totally clashes with my vision of D&D, and this is why:
I want magic items not to be a big deal. I want characters to frequent the magical bazaar where they can find the right pair of magic boots that matches their magic gown so they can attend the magic ball in style later tonight. Why do I want this? Because I don't like for magic items to take up a very big part of my stories. Think about real life. Do you think that you're defined by your computer? Your cell phone? Your car? Of course not, because those things are everywhere. The same goes for magic items in a fantasy world. The rare and powerful artifact here and there aside, when magic items are common, they stop being a big deal.
Yeah, so what if you have a +1 flaming sword? Those are standard issue for the police department. When magic items are rare, when they're a big deal, characters become defined by which ones they have. King Arthur is defined by Excalibur; Harry Potter is not defined by the Nimbus 2000 (though better examples should be so minor that I can't think of them!). I don't want any characters that I play or any characters in campaigns that I run defined by their Wand of Shocking Grasp; I want to treat that like a tazer, because that puts the focus on the ingenuity of the character as opposed to the might of his magic item.
Then there's the issue of motivation. I think that being motivated by riches, particularly in magic items, is the most boring possible character motivation. Characters risk opening the chest just because it might have that Amulet of Natural Armor +1. They go on entire adventures just looking for a +2 Dagger. This simply will not do for my characters or my campaigns. I don't want magic items to be motivation, so that means that they need to become unremarkable, just another part of character customization, like feats. We're playing heroes! They should be motivated by defeating the evil lich or ending the war or saving the world! Not a couple of shiny rings. When magic items are common, these motivations can be tossed aside far more easily in favor of much more original and heroic character goals.
Now, here will be the test to see if you read the entire post: The above is just my personal preference, and I do not think that this should necessarily be the default way that the system is designed or balanced. I would be absolutely perfectly happy with a high-magic re-balancing variant as an optional module (though I would prefer it be available soon upon Next's release so that I don't have to suffer though low-magic campaigns for very long). Indeed, it makes perfect sense to me for the game to be designed by default around low-magic when it comes to magic items.
So what's my point then? Well, my point is just that I don't think that the question of what to do about magic items is as clear as everybody seems to be discussing it as being. If Next is really going to be able to accomodate all playstyles, then it needs to be able to accomodate people who like to play at different levels of magic item prevalence. It needs to be able to accomodate both people who want Excalibur and people who want the Nimbus 2000, people who want Dark Sun and people who want Eberron, people who want crafting magic items to be an ancient lost art and people who don't even bother with it because they can just visit Jim, the level 1 commoner that lives down the street with the magical trinket stand at the bazaar.
Balancing these different possibilties will not be easy. In fact, if it is easy, then they've surely done it wrong. But it needs to be done if Next is going to deliver on its promise to let us all play the characters and campaigns that we want to play.
The issue here is that you dont like magic items in your game. And I dont see any reason to discuss your personal preferences Magic items are magical. The rarity of such items and how necessary they'e for the adventures should be handled by the DM and setting.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 28, 2012 - 8:29AM
#8
|
|
|
4E handles it rather well.
I recently discovered the subtle details of D&D Essentials and I must say I am very pleased with what I'm reading.
It didn't handle it well at all before supplements like Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium. But I agree with you, it does handle it pretty well now.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 28, 2012 - 8:49AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2009
|
I don't have a specific preference in the item department. I like low magic settings and settings where the magic is basically the same (if not more) as sci-fi technology.
Maybe I like the second even better (plenty of magic gadgets and trinkets!), sadly rarely I see it well done...
What I hate? How D&D handles magic items by default. The items are generally just flat and boring bonuses, a +2 Dagger is just dull. What's the point to even have those? Just work it in the general progression of the character and be done with it...
I would prefer more (and cheaper) "utility" items and less "Big Sticks of Doom" in D&D Next, sadly the direction seems to be the opposite :S
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 28, 2012 - 9:05AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2012
|
In my opinion, none of the editions I played (for instance, 2e AD&D, 3e, 3.5e and barely 4e) handled magic items well, although each one had merits and flaws. I'll talk spcefically what I think was most problematic for me: weapons.
I can't say I have a clear opinion about 2e, because there's been so long time since I last played it that I've almost forgotten how it works. But for what comes to my mind, magic items were rare and more difficult to handle.
My largest experience with D&D was in 3/3.5. In both, the problem was that the monsters were designed assuming that the characters posessed magic weapons. You woudn't dare to fight that zombie with DR 10/+1 if you don't have a +1 weapon in lv1, and this dependance scaled to higher levels too. It was limitating, for the DM had a lot of work to suit the monsters to the adventure, or was forced to throw more powerful magic items at the table.
3.5 fixed much things, so it wasn't impossible to defeat a certain creature without the correct magic item. The game was scaled down, but the problem of the assumption of characters relying on magic items/ weapons to overcome chalenges was still there.
In 4e, magic items were builded into character advancement. As every power require an attack roll, dependability on magic weapons/implements was even increased!
I like high magic as much as low magic campaigns, but I think that the DM, not the game design, should handle magic weapons. The DM should be able to introduce any creature/NPC he wants in his game without requiriments of certain type of magic weapon or buffing the characters with other magic stuff. Of course, anything can be turned into a new adventure, even the seach for some magic boost. Just don't make things mandatory. 'hum, It would be very nice if I could throw them a white dragon, but they are so low on magic weapons that facing one is a certain party-wipe'. This kind of thing sucks.
|
|
|
