|
1 year ago ::
Jan 28, 2012 - 5:20PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2012
|
It's been a long time, but I seem to recall in 1E not getting any magic items other than potions before 4th level at least. Maybe a scroll of something useless. Scrolls were mostly effects you couldn't get from spells and defensive/preventative if I recall correctly. Can't even remember how wands were used in 1E.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 28, 2012 - 8:47PM
#12
|
|
|
Bruce: Magic items have always been a part of the game, but with 4th it became part of a player's natural progression so that you would have to pick up items from stores or other places to keep up. One of the negative things that brought up was that it eliminted some of the exploration that was so integral in earlier editions. You no longer had to go questing or searching for that magic item. We want to decouple magic items from character progression so they're not needed, and return that exploration and excitement of finding magic items.
Greg: Monte you had a poll like this in your L&L, do you remember what the results were?
Monte: Yeah, it was surprising. A majority wanted magic items to be special and not to be able to buy them in shops and such. Of course that could be campaign specific. We're running with the idea that magic items are special and not bound to character progression, though things could change through playtesting. But we want it to be something that the DM plans, or something that a player/character wants to go on a quest to get that magic item they've heard of or need to accomplish there goals.
sounds good to me but remember it is only a seminar this is discussing things they are thinking about.
so already calling it confirsmed might be a bit to soon, puting it in the very likly group is no problem.
Dear Bruce:
Nobody has ever bought a magic item in any of my campaigns. The very concept of a magic shop would make someone's head asplode. Never was needed in 4e. I guess this is news to you guys.
In point of fact it is the situation where items are entirely optional in which they have no place in exploration. You BETTER want to go questing for that +4 sword because truth is you gonna need it where you goin' baby! 
I've had magic shops in my games, but I restricted what was available. Even some special items could be commissioned from master craftsmen (assuming you could track down their hidden worshops and convince them to help you). Of course, the shops mostly trafficked in healing pots, salves, and scrolls. The only problem was that one of my players tried to steal from a magic shop. I had to put a stop to that. So, I created a magic anti-theft system: all the items are cursed (reversed effects) until the shop-owner deactivates the anti-theft curse.
Getting back on topic, this is another bad idea for balance. Classes aren't designed with balance; meh, it could still work out. Classes aren't designed for balance and magic items have no balance point; that's a bit more problematic. I guess DMs will just have to give more magic items to classes getting the short end of the balance stick. I hope the other players aren't the jealous type.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 3:49AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
In 1e AD&D, players had little control over how thier characters developed. A magic-user might be able to research a new spell and gain some distinctiveness that way - with DM aproval, of course - but that was about it. Everyone else was was basically the same as any other character of the same race, class and level - except for the items they found. AD&D had wealth of items - ranging from cute but useless to overwhelmingly powerful to inexcapably deadly curses - and DMs were always adding more.
In AD&D, players /really/ needed control over what magic items they got, because magic items where major defining elements of the character's abilities, feel, and even personality (items /could/ change that, too). But, items were entirely the perview of the DM, even a player making an item needed a lot of DM aproval and the DM ultimately created the final draft of how the item worked.
Over the eds, players have gotten more and more ways to define their characters - in 2e, kits and non-weapon proficiencies. In 3e, skills, feats and modular multiclassing. In 4e, skills, feats, multiclassing, hybrids, backgrounds, themes, builds, power choice, and re-skinning. But, the players also got progressively greater control of the items they acquired, and the items were progressively toned down, as well. In 2e, item-creation was a bit less restrictive, and some campaign settings featured veritable aftermarkets in magic items. In 3e, items were taken down several notches, rarely doing anything spells couldn't and item-creation and market value was standardized, putting item choice firmly in the players' hands. In 4e, items were placed in the PH, and players could make/buy items with little restriction, and make 'wish lists' to let the DM know what items would be 'right' for each character.
See what's going on here? The more character-defining items were in any given ed, the less control players had over them. Exactly backwards.
If 5e wants to make items window dressing that evokes the fantastic elements of the genre and setting without particularly defining and empowering the character that gets the item (as in 4e, but more so), then there's no need for players to be able to get just the item they 'need' for their build or concept (exactly the opposite of 4e). If 5e is going to make items dramatic, powerful, and an important component of what a character is capable of (as in AD&D), and thus who & what he is in the context of the setting and story, then they need to be firmly in the hands of the player, a choice little less important than race or class (exactly the opposite of AD&D), with a special defining item sticking with a PC throughout his carreer (like 3.5 ancestral weapons, for instance).
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 7:39AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Sep 14, 2008
|
Personally, I think that there shouldn't be + to AC and AB because that just leads to "you have to have a +3 weapon at this level or risk not being able to hit the broad side of a barn", rather we should have magic items that just add cool effects. Maybe your greataxe allows you to throw it and having it return, or maybe you can daze a hit enemy once per encounter, or maybe it allows you to spend a healing surge once per day as an immdiate interrupt.
Heck, maybe if you want to just use the same greataxe your entire adventuring career (maybe there's benefits for this too)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 7:55AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2007
|
I am extremely happy about this. The problem with 4e magic items (and not 4e specifically, either; 3e had pretty much the same problem) was not so much the magic item shop as it was wealth-by-level (treasure parcels in 4e). It led (at least for me) to the metagame-inducing, immersion breaking problem of "well, I kinda have to get 1264 gold before I hit next level if the DM doesn't want to throw off the system math and leave me with a frustrating low chance to hit, so does it even really matter if we go look for that treasure chest that's supposedly down here and trapped out the wazoo?" From the DM's perspective it was the same problem, but in reverse. And (again, for me at least, and I suspect many others) 4e magic items did not feel special. You pretty much definitely had +2 armor of [something class related] and a +2 weapon of [something class releated] at level 8, and 6 other magic items of pre-known levels, and that was that. I know some people were happy in 4e with magic items feeling fairly routine and artifacts, perhaps, representing the really cool stuff, but I don't like that.
So I am extremely happy that magic items are no longer figured into the math; the only thing that would make me happier is if they do away with +x magic items entirely. +3 to attack and damage is boring and does nothing but throw off the math/become absolutely essential, depending on whether or not the system was built around it. Even a +3 damage for one attack per encounter" is mor exciting and interesting. I don't even really want +x skill items.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 8:53AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Apr 13, 2011
|
One thing you could do to make magic items no longer cetral to your character's development, and bring back some of the uniqueness to them, would be to do away with the 'vanilla' magic items. Those that just grant a numerical bonus to your attack or defense. +1 lonswords, +2 magic full plate, and so on. Much like the inherent bonus option in the character builder for low magic campaigns, these bonuses are already calculated into your stats. Maybe you gain a +1 to everything every 4 or 5 levels or so?
That would let magic items do more interesting things. Like change your damage type, give you more options in combat/exploration/roleplaying. Flaming weapons would change your damage type to fire, for example, while vicious weapons would be capable to delivering truely gruesome wounds (however that would be handled). Take the examples of the non-weapon, armor, and neck slot items from 4e. Some of those feet slot items let you do some truely interesting things. Of course, items that give boosts to certain skills may still be appropriate, but in this case, they should also give you some other new ability with that skill. Maybe magic climbing boots that not only give you +2 on climb checks, but also increased your climb speed, and maybe let you climb once per encounter, or once per day without a check.
That warm fuzzy feeling you get when you a forum thread you're subscribed to has a new comment.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 9:05AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
I play in an Eberron world. I love the Artificer and the "magic-punk" theme of that world and the quick availability of magic items. I could see them becoming less mechanical. Drop the +3 to hit on it and just have it do effects. But I would be sad to see my magic items go away.
+1 on this. My level 8 Bard (also Eberron, with inherent bonuses) has ten magic items, most of which are not about combat at all and only one of which has even a +2 enhancement bonus.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 01, 2012 - 12:10PM
#18
|
|
|
I don’t know what to think of this. I might be wrong, but when I hear magic items not mechanically important, I understand, they’re not taken into account in the math. But if they don’t take them into account in the math, how can there possibly be +5 swords without breaking the game. Either monsters are designed to deal with +5 swords (higher AC), either they are not, there’s nothing in between. Maybe it will be as simple as a “magic sword” (+1 to hit and damage), and that’s all you get. You would of course have other items like elven boots or cloaks of invisibility that will let you do things that don’t affect the numbers. I like the idea of DM giving these rare magic items as rewards that all adventurer dream of. But without a magic item market, why would players want money? A dragon's hoard with loads of gems and jewels won't feel as fantastic if you don't have anything to buy with that money.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 01, 2012 - 12:28PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2002
|
This seems to contradict the notion of magic items being required to boost your ability scores beyond a certain point and the importance of ability scores.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 1:04AM
#20
|
|
|
I like the idea of taking out +x items. They're boring and become overly-necessary. Effects like shocking burst, disrupting, and speed are flavorful and less game-breaking. Actually, my favorite magical items have always been of the wonderous variety. You can't go wrong with those trusty Wings Of Flying! If enhancement bonuses from items were eliminated, they would be very useful without being the sole focus of everything you do as a player, thereby making magic items a cool treat again, not something you'll die in 10 seconds without.
|
|
|
