|
2 years ago ::
Oct 03, 2011 - 9:04PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2006
|
Legends and Lore
Magic and Mystery
by Monte Cook There's no good transition for me to be able to tell you that last week I wrote about perception so of course this week I'll be discussing . . . magic items. Talk about this column here. 
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 03, 2011 - 9:17PM
#2
|
|
|
It's all well and good for rare items that do exotic things. But if the game assumes you have no magic items and you obtain a+6 sword you just went from, say, needing an 11 to hit most monsters to a 5. That's a huge difference. I think one of 4th's strengths is that it FINALLY gave magic items to the players, the main users of said magic items. Sure it took away a little mystery, but so what? Who honestly didn't sneak a peak in the older DMGs to see what the magic items did?
No I think a stronger route would be a good template for creating magic items and making them balanced and interesting, or at least interesting and not completely unbalancing. And a magic item that has no combat application (such as your cubic gate) doesn't even need to count to the parties treasure "ration" for that level, since it is pretty much a story item that helps move the campaign along, rather than a combat item that helps players overcome challenges.
Or maybe creating two classes of magic items. Combat items, which are expected and rationed to players at an expected and reliable rate (your +2 swords, or +3 armors). And a class of magic items that is useful for story or roleplay purposes, and perhaps useful once or twice in a rare combat situation. Things like a +1 longsword vs a bag of holding, or a +2 wand vs a flying carpet, or a vorpal axe vs goggles of clairvoyance. Just for examples.
The other road is to kill the sacred cow that is +n items. They're already kind of weird, do people refer to them as a +2 flaming sword in the game world? What does +3 really MEAN? And who, and how do people, tells the difference between such items? And replace them all with items that add effects and do exotic things. Such as a flaming weapon, or a githyanki silver weapon, or a vorpal weapon that don't add a numerical bonus but instead modify the players combat performance in some other way; i.e. adding a new damage type, trigger specific effects, have attack or utility powers, etc.
Actually, now that I think of it, I rather like that last idea. Just saying a flaming axe rolls off the tongue much better than saying a +1 flaming axe. Though the idea of item levels is still good. It lets the DM know what items are appropriate for players to have. No vorpal swords for level 6 characters.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 03, 2011 - 9:19PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
Legends and Lore
Magic and Mystery
by Monte Cook
There's no good transition for me to be able to tell you that last week I wrote about perception so of course this week I'll be discussing . . . magic items.
Talk about this column here.
This confirms my fear that Monte Cook is not up to date on modern balanced design and is nostalgic for 1st Ed. Nothing wrong with that but you can already play that way if you choose. It just happens to be easier and funner (imo of course) to have a reasonably balanced game.
Throwing a mace+1 into a pit in the castle of Lum the Mad. Yes he's channeling the spirits of 1st edition clearly...
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 03, 2011 - 9:20PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
I actually liked this article. A lot.
I've been hoping that D&D would start weaning itself from the oh-so-rigid mentality of "At X level, you should have a +X weapon so you can keep up". Inherent bonuses helped this quite a bit. My thought is that if everyone has a +2 sword, there's not much "magical" about them. They're just another + on your character sheet. Magical items should be...you know...magical. Sticking a +1/+2/+3 in front of something doesn't exactly invoke a sense of wonder. My +1 Flaming Sword is now a +2 Flaming Sword. Whoop-tee-do. I like Monte's take on this, and hope to see more come of it.
Now, if we could just get rid of +X items altogether....
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 03, 2011 - 9:25PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2007
|
Yeah, +X needs to die. Hitting will always be great as long as missing exists.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 03, 2011 - 9:26PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
I actually liked this article. A lot.
I've been hoping that D&D would start weaning itself from the oh-so-rigid mentality of "At X level, you should have a +X weapon so you can keep up". Inherent bonuses helped this quite a bit. My thought is that if everyone has a +2 sword, there's not much "magical" about them. They're just another + on your character sheet. Magical items should be...you know...magical. Sticking a +1/+2/+3 in front of something doesn't exactly invoke a sense of wonder. My +1 Flaming Sword is now a +2 Flaming Sword. Whoop-tee-do. I like Monte's take on this, and hope to see more come of it.
Now, if we could just get rid of +X items altogether....
That's relatively easy. Strip off the bonuses leave the effects and give inherent bonuses. Voila.
What's not easy is his unpredictable suggestions with regards to player power.
He's actually referencing kobold grinding as if this is an MMORPG!!!!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 03, 2011 - 9:26PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2007
|
I haven't read the article yet, but I would be happy to see, in the next edition, the same expectations of accuracy and defense, only better mathed out, so to speak, and with none of those expectations coming from or being affected by your magic items. Have magic items give you new things you can do, not make you better at things you already do.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 03, 2011 - 9:43PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2007
|
Okay, I read it... wow.
If the numbers in the game matter for the game's balance, then the ways to adjust those numbers needs to be balanced. I don't really know how else to expand on that.
Also, magic items should be rewards? How are they not rewards? You know what else should be rewards? Experience points and levels. Should we decouple those from advancement?
Seriously, my mind is just blown. Your character's advancement should be faster and more impressive if you're tackling additional obstacles? Okay, I can get behind that. We already have a mechanism for that. The harder the stuff you're fighting, the faster you're leveling, and the faster that expected treasure is coming in.
I'm not opposed to idea of magic items being decoupled from advancement, but I am if they, themselves, provide advancement.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 03, 2011 - 9:44PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2002
|
The notion of questing for a higher plus instead of a better enchantment of weapon just makes me cringe. It's unpleasant enough in Dragon Age and Diablo.
I really hope Monte gets around to reading the 4E books some time.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 03, 2011 - 9:47PM
#10
|
|
|
The notion of questing for a higher plus instead of a better enchantment of weapon just makes me cringe. It's unpleasant enough in Dragon Age and Diablo.
I really hope Monte gets around to reading the 4E books some time.
I'm only okay with the ocassional side quest to retrieve a magic item of great power to some ends or purpose. Like to defeat the evil tyrant, or slay a marauding dragon. A PC saying "hey what do I have to do to get this artifact?" is not okay. Thats the line for me.
|
|
|
