4e magic items!

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Here it is, you see the start of it. PC-characters have crit-boosting items that don't work in the hands of the NPCs/villians/henchmen. *Sigh* That just sucks.

[Jacob_Orlove]

I was hoping that the "Diadem of Acuity" gave like +2 to Notice or something, but it seems BGII had a "Ring of Acuity" that granted bonus spells, so that's quite possibly what the diadem does. Ugh.

[Voss]

I don't entirely believe it either, but different designers are running around contradicting each other. I was pretty sure one of the wizard monkeys said there would not be any temporary stat boosting effects (cuz the math was hard), but I can't find it now.

All I really know for certain is that they really dropped the ball on this one, and one way or another the 'secondary' magic items and potions are going to explode and break the game.

Rereading the bit, I'm not convinced at all that a lack of enhancement bonuses make secondary items 'essentially optional'. I guess it could mean that as a DM, I don't have to worry about giving them to players and they won't be able to handle level appropriate encounters if I don't. But I can't shake the feeling that if I do give them out, the game explodes.

Of course, I can always take the Enworld moron's stance and pretend that magical effects like flying don't make the character more powerful

Suntzu- just to make it worse, I was informed (in the ENworld thread of stupid) that if you give an NPC a magic weapon, it actually increases his level.

[bitnine]

1201215109[/unixtime]]Suntzu- just to make it worse, I was informed (in the ENworld thread of stupid) that if you give an NPC a magic weapon, it actually increases his level.

Hm, though I might have gotten the wrong impression, I had thought that 4e essentially did away with the application of levels as a standard metric of advancement for PCs and NPCs. That is to say, that all "level" means for a monster or NPC is a gauge of their appropriateness of interaction with PCs - essentially a renaming of 3rd edition's CR into a namespace conflict.

In that sense, I don't think that it's all too off that powerful gear might increase a monster's level (aka CR) in and of itself. However, I am more critically curious about this name/concept amalgamation actually simplifies things. Particularly in the artifacts it tosses into the system.

(You see, players have a LEVEL level, but monsters have a CR level. So while the players need to be level level 10 in order to use a ring {?}, giving a ring to a monster just increases his CR level since he's a bit tougher. And since monsters just don't have a level level, so they'll be able to use rings when the DM thinks that's a good idea. Aw, don't worry about it too much, because now everything has a level tag that tells you when it's okay to toss into a game and that idea is simple and awesome, right? ...Right?)

[Voss]

CR doesn't exist. Everything just has levels And I mean pretty much everything. PCs, npcs, monsters, magic items, traps, etc. Levels are really the only metric for advancement. And from the spined devil stat card, level effects pretty much everything. Hit points, defenses, skill bonuses and BAB.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

About the ring level requirements: It looks like WotC went with a Tolkienesque view of magical rings. I'm pretty sure there's a quote in LoTR to the effect that even the minor magical rings of Middle Earth are not to be trifled with.

It's pretty clear that "optional" is way too strong a word, especially for some of those non-weapon/armor slots. It looks like they've separated constant numerical bonuses from "special effects," which include numerical bonuses that are only temporary or only apply in certain conditions. But everyone is going to want an item in the arm slot (to get an offensive or defensive special effect) and in the neck slot (to improve a save). These slots don't really sound optional at all.

And the other slots don't look all that optional either. I guess any item that fits those slots might be optional, in the sense that you might prefer another kind of special effect to the one presented to you. But realistically, everyone's going to feel the need to have as many slots filled as possible.

I agree that the really broken stuff is going to be in the "optional" slots. After all, since they "don't really affect the numbers," they won't feel compelled to put much effort into balancing them. I get the strange feeling that a lot of these items will have to be banned, or have 1/encounter effects houseruled to 1/day, in order to maintain some semblance of sanity.

[tzor]

1201214330[/unixtime]]PC-characters have crit-boosting items that don't work in the hands of the NPCs/villians/henchmen. *Sigh* That just sucks.

"Why do magic items exist mommy?"

"Well, my daughter, wizards make magic items because out there somewhere there are four to eight people in the entire world that actually can use them."

"Really?"

"Yes, my daughter, we are all just rotten NPCs that exist only to give meaning to the heroic PCs."

[Voss]

So, I got a reply from Mikey on magic items. He seems to miss some of the point.

Originally Posted by Voss
If you take all those separate items together, in all their different slots where they don't overlap, how does that not accumulate into a giant pile of combat-related awesome, even if it doesn't give a single enhancement bonus?

The key is that, in most cases, magic items give more options, rather than improvements to existing options.

Strictly speaking, the fighter with no items is less powerful than the fighter with a ton of items, yet if the campaign tends toward few or no items, the game still functions fine. For instance, the math behind monsters looks to magic items only for the static bonuses that they grant.

Primarily, the benefits conferred by magic items are useful in specific situations or they cater to specific tactics. Many also are limited in scope, such as providing a benefit for the length of one encounter per day.

The important thing to remember is that, in monster and math design, only the static benefits had an effect on the math. If you change how items work, everything works out fine as long as you are consistent wtih that change. We've shifted away from making some classes, like the fighter, heavily gear dependent, while others, like the wizard, don't need it as much.
__________________
Mike Mearls - Lead Developer, RPG R&D

If it isn't a static bonus, it doesn't affect the system!


I reply a bit later, here:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p ... 4012579[br]

[Jacob_Orlove]

I like how this change addresses the "golf bag" problem: now instead of a bunch of different magic weapons, you carry around a bunch of the same belts and bracers, so that you can keep using their one encounter/day effects in each encounter. The problem is totally fixed!

[Voss]

oh, no, you can have a bunch of weapons too. We don't have any idea what DR is like yet.

Won't that be fun.

And woot, I got my first 'How dare you question the holy wisdom of the divine Mearls' response. Because, clearly, nothing proves your worth as a game designer more than abandoning an unfinished work and publishing it anyway.

[Talisman]

1201213619[/unixtime]]You know, when I see them throwing around the idea that belts will give temporary bonuses to Strength, I just don't think I believe that anymore.

There's all the difference in the world between an item that adds a flat +4 to Strength all the time and one that, say, lets you add +4 to Strength once per day as a swift action (lasting 1 round). The former's a no-brainer; the latter's a resource management issue, especially when there are other cool items that could be taking up that slot.

Note that I'm not saying 4e will be like that; just that it should (hey, I can dream).

I'd like to see Sig's limited list of bonus types (maybe 5 max) plus this list of slots:
- Body (armor, robes, belt, whatnot)
- Neck/Head (crown, cloak, helm, mask)
- Hands (rings, gloves, gauntlets, fingernail polish)
- Feet (boots, slippers, whatever)
- Weapon A (sword, staff, wand)
- Weapon B (off-hand weapon or shield)

Everything else would be either consumable (potions, scrolls), miscellaneous (bag of holding) or artifact (flying carpet). Miscellaneous items would have strict limitations on what they could accomplish, starting with "must be held in the hand," "NO permanent effects," and "no spell effects higher than 3rd level."

But hey...that's just me

[CatharzGodfoot]

The whole idea of item locations is something which should stay in video games. It's probably impossible to wear more than one helmet at a time, but wearing more than one cloak just makes you look silly, and wearing more than one necklace makes you look rich.

Then rather than placing limits on how many rings will fit on your fingers, you simply have a hard 'activated item' cap. The cap could really be anything, but you probably don't want to keep track of more than four or five ongoing effects (and IMO just two would be fine). These could be shared with buffs from other abilities, or your could artificially separate them.

[Koumei]

1201235390[/unixtime]]And woot, I got my first 'How dare you question the holy wisdom of the divine Mearls' response.

I noticed that. It made me laugh enough that it could have gone on Threads that make us laugh and cry. How could any of us know about game design? We haven't published a series of failures and mistakes, after all.

[Username17]

How come Mike Mearls keeps getting to say "Now that there are only 30 different magic item prices, the power of an item is easy to figure out!" without people saying "Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?"

The "optional" items are supposedly less important than the "primary" items, right? Which would lead us to believe that they were less powerful, less well important than the primaries. And yet... they cost the same. They cost the same because they have the same item level.

So when Mike keeps saying that having a one to one item level / cost equivalency makes calculating importance and power easy; and then he turns around and says that the extra item slots are not needed (and thus are not important, he is wrong. I haven't seen the whole system, so I don't know which part of that is a bold faced lie, but I do know that those two statements are absolutely incompatible.

Edit: The other thing I don't get is how people keep saying that an announcement that everyone is dependent upon three items and can get bonuses to their stuff from a bunch more is somehow a reduction in the needed magic items. A Wizard needed a headband of intellect and a cloak of resistance. And... that's it. Anything else he did with his time was completely optional. In 4e they have replaced his headband with a golfbag of wands, staves, and orbs; and they replaced his cloak of resistance with a cloak or amulet of resistance. And they announced that he needs Cloth armor.

And now he can wear a "belt of battle" and bracers of hitting things and such which effectively raise his DCs. Meaning that the number of items that do exactly what the Headband used to do (make his color sprays work more often) has increased. At the very least it represents a 50% increase in the number of required items for a mage build, and in all probability involves an increase of two to three hundred percent. So seriously, WTF?

Wizards used to use magic items only for weird awesome stuff because they were largely not allowed to add them to their combat utility. Now we've been told explicitly that they too will have to cover themselves in items that give stacking numeric bonuses just like Fighters did.

-Username17

[Voss]

I'm putting this here, because well, the magic item shit spawned it. But I seriously don't understand it. Or rather, I understand what he's saying, but the result, and the concepts involved, make no fucking sense to me at all.

It might be worth noting that this guy is at least partially guessing, but what he is saying is apparently based on the Worlds and Monsters book, and one other person has said roughly the same thing, even if it was that idiot Mourn.

Originally Posted by Voss
Actually, no, not really. Its more that I think that if the PCs are going to earn an item, the best way of showing they are worthy of it is to face it. (Barring one-use consumables, of course. But thats its own issue, since stockpiling potions helps really break the game). I think, if they are getting the +2 axe from the orc, the orc should get the actual bonus from the axe. So, if the party is fighting two 7th level orcs (and whatever else to make it an appropriate encounter) the two orcs should be whatever is appropriate for 7th level orcs, and the one using the +2 axe should have the bonuses that a +2 axe gives. Without... weird metagame side effects that increase the orcs level in some weird way.

The point being, in 4e monster design, level is simply a metagame device for interacting with a monster stat table and an XP table. So if the stats change, the level changes and hence the XP.

Suppose (for the sake of argument) that a 7th level Brute has a to-hit bonus of +10. Your 7th level Orc with that bonus (but who the GM has decided is unarmed) loots a dead body and picks up a +2 axe. The Orc now has a +12 to hit. To find out how many XP the Orc is worth, we now look at the table again, see that a Brute with a +12 to hit is 8th level, and award XP accordingly.

If in the above scenario the XP didn't change despite the fact that the monster gets tougher, then in effect you would be doing what I suggested above: using the magic item as part of the reward, in lieu of XP, for the tougher fight.

Originally Posted by Voss
That makes even less sense. Picking up or putting down an axe changes his level and hit points, and whatever else? Attacking an NPC in the shower actually changes his level?

First, just to make sure we're on the same page, I asuume you know that in 4e there are no monster hit dice of the sort that previous versions of the game have had. Hit points are level and role dependent and called out in a table, the same as to hit bonuses and damage ranges.

So the question about hit points is this: what happens if the Orc above has the to hit bonus of an 8th level Brute, but the hit points of a 7th level Brute. how many XP is the Orc worth? I assume the table will handle this by suggesting a range of hit points for each level, or otherwise giving some guidance.

On the other hand, if the table tells us to add or subtract hit points, that's not necessarily absurd: someone's capacity for self-defence may well be less when they are unequipped.

Undoubtedly this would destroy any simulationist reading of hit points. But that's already been well confimred by Chris Sims on the Healing thread.

From what I can grasp of what he's saying, he's confirming that yes, the orc's level would change and so would his hit points and other level related stuff (there won't be hit dice, but that doesn't matter). And it would change every time the orc picked up or put down a magical weapon. But somehow, and this is the part I don't get, thats OK

[SphereOfFeetMan]

I don't see how the system can work if you define a monsters "level" by numbers that can fluctuate in combat. A +2 on a weapon is just a bonus. Buff spells, circumstance modifiers, aid another, bardsongs, etc all change a monsters bonuses. I know they say that in-combat buffing is lessening, but I don't know that I believe that yet. Regardless, what happens if you disarm him of the weapon in combat? And then hit him with it?

Hopefully that poster is just talking out of his ass.

[Username17]

He is over-reading what could possibly be read from the stat cards. But basically they've revealed the following info:

• Monsters will no longer be calculated, they will be arbitrary.
  
• Magic items will do that complicated bullshit on a natural 20.
  
• More importantly, magic items will add directly to the character's calculations.

So the assumption is that since monsters and NPCs don't have strength scores, and belts of strength will give a temporary boost to your strength - that PCs and NPCs will get a different mechanical benefit from that belt of strength when they activate it.

And some of the people are suggesting this alternate benefit will be "nothing" and other people are suggesting that it will be "exchanging their monster entry for a more powerful version of roughly the same thing." But both of those suggestions are darts thrown in the dark, because there's no way to know that. For all well know they could just have written the strength bonuses on the belt to give a specific bonus to strength modifier - which in turn would have a calculated and direct effect on the monster.

---

But yeah, this is the basic problem with having arbitrary monster stats. The instant "stuff" happens the effects of the "stuff" is um... arbitrary.

-Username17

[Koumei]

Wait, monsters don't have all the normal stats and things? We're going back to second edition, where a monster was a loosely arranged mixture of numbers?

And well, I suppose that's one way to fix the LA system: monsters can't possibly be played out of the box, so people will need to just make shit up and approximate.

[MrWaeseL]

To be fair, giving monsters stats made them more transparent, but no less arbitrary.

[tzor]

1201229278[/unixtime]]So, I got a reply from Mikey on magic items. He seems to miss some of the point.

I think I understand what Mikey is trying to achieve; whether or not he can or even remotely achieve it is another matter entirely. He's looking at this from the 5,000 ft perspective, so in order to explain what I think he's talking about we need to go all the way up there.

Let's take a typical character and a typical encounter. Let's assume you need an Awesome 5 to meet the encounter. You have two options; one is Awesome 5 and the other is Awesome 2. Awesome 2 isn't going to cut it, so you really have only Awesome 5.

Anything that increases the Awesome 5 is in effect increasing your power. Anything that increases the Awsome 2 to the Awsome 5 isn't increasing your power (because your power is already Awesome 5) but giving you more Awsome 5 options.

Now this assumes you have a mechanism that limits the ability to get an Awesome beyond your current Awesome level. But they have already indicated that there is a "you must be this tall to ride" mechanism in the magic items. This is in theory doable.

If magic items simply make crap good then the idea is your power isn't increased only your options.

The problem is that not all Awsome 5 items are Awesome 5 all of the time. Awesome 5 greatsword isn't all that Awesome when you can't fly and the dragon can. Awesome 2 crossbow is equally awsome when the dragon can fly. One probably needs to create the "Average Awesome Index" and under this condition having more options increases the "AAI" making you slightly more Awesome.

As for monsters, I don't think we are going to 2E, I think we are going to 1E. :tonguesmile: But I need to look at a stat block to really prove this. (Well actually 1E+, or G2E or what 2E would have been if Gygax did it because aparently he was thinking of using different D types for different monster types for his next edition instead of D8's for every monster.)

[Username17]

I think I understand what Mikey is trying to achieve; whether or not he can or even remotely achieve it is another matter entirely. He's looking at this from the 5,000 ft perspective, so in order to explain what I think he's talking about we need to go all the way up there.

I don't think it's the 2000 meter perspective, I think it's tunnel vision. He straight up said that getting a +4 bonus to strength during the combat during every combat did not affect the game in the manner that getting a +4 bonus to strength all the time did. That's retarded.

The belt of raising your strength for one combat a day is supposedly not going to influence power in the game in the manner of a belt raising your stength for every combat in the game. Even though in reality all you did was increase the price of said belt by a multiple equal to the number of encounters you have in the day.

-Username17

[Voss]

1201263073[/unixtime]]Wait, monsters don't have all the normal stats and things? We're going back to second edition, where a monster was a loosely arranged mixture of numbers?

Thats part of whats confusing me, actually. They do have stats. Hit dice are gone , and hit points are now based on level and monster role (a brute will have more hit points than a mastermind or skirmisher, for example), so they pretty much replaced hit dice with level, and its exactly like PCs, except you apparently don't roll for it.
But based on the spined devil stat card, they do still have str, int, dex & co. And BAB, and AC, and all the normal things you expect.

But from what this guy is saying, if you aren't using the out of the box monsters (or just modifying them in some way), you go to a chart and look things up by level & role. And then modify everything accordingly, because the magic item, like the +2 axe, apparently needs to be worked into the role/level table for the attack and damage bonuses so the monster has the right bonuses. And then all the monsters other stats are adjusted to whatever level match the attack and damage bonuses.

In some insane WotC logic, that makes more sense than just giving the monster a +2 to hit and damage for using a fucking magic axe in the exact same way anyone else does.

And apparently you can use other monster traits to figure out what the monster should be. So if you want a 'brute' monster with a 100 hit points, you look it up on the chart, find out what level a brute with a 100 hit points should be and get all the other stats in one easy look up. This aspect could actually be somewhat useful, at least from an ease of monster creation sort of thing. Unexpected, but somewhat tailored encounters in like 5 minutes, or whatever.

If, of course, it turns out to be true. From what one of the other WotC guys actually said about it, it sounded more like pulling numbers out of your ass and just arbitrarily pasting 100 hit points over the 'normal' amount.

WotC just sucks at marketing and PR. Every time a designer opens his mouth, he says shit in the most stupid and confusing way possible.

[Username17]

I think it is apropo to post up the Spine Devil again:



Things to note:

• Anyone who says that multiple attacks are a thing of the past is living in a god damned dream world.
  
• The critter has no hit dice.
  
• 47 hit points is a very arbitrary amount for a 6th level enemy. It's five more than 7 hit points/level.
  
• They agree with me that negative "bonuses" are bad - but decided to do so in a more confusing fashion. Your stat bonus is apparently your stat minus four, divided by two, and rounded down. Why it was important for a 1, 2, and 3 to provide a negative bonus is anyone's guess.

-Username17

[Talisman]

Just had a thought...

(Caveat: I've seen less 4e material than most, so this is a guess at best.)

According to The Great Mearls. giving a Brute an +2 axe will, in all likelihood, change his level, because it bumps the Brute's attack/damage numbers up to a higher level band. Okay, fine.

BUT (and I'm going out on a limb here)...presumably there's a chart that shows where attack and damage mods and level intersect, so you can see (1) what level a +12 attack/+5 damage critter is, or (2) what attack/damage mods a 7th-level Brute should have. Make sense?

NOW...given the titles, I'm guessing a Mastermind will have worse (melee) attack and damage values than a Brute. So what happens if we give our Mastermind that +2 axe? Does the Mastermind go up 6 levels to the Brute's 2, since his relative gain is greater? Or does the axe have no effect at all?

[Voss]

Actually,
- not that it makes much difference, but only iterative attacks (from BAB) are likely to disappear. People are confusing that with multiple attacks.
- true. but he does have a level. Which,
- hopefully thats 35 + 6*Con modifier. Its still looks a little high, but I suspect thats a reaction to PC hp being higher in the nice circular logic that WotC seems to like.
- the stat bonuses aren't what are in the boxes. That seems to be total bonuses for the associated skills. (1/2 level + stat bonus), like Saga, sadly.
The actual bonuses are the same as they are in 3e, matching the stats in the superscript.
Everything but the attack bonuses matches that (and if something like multi-attack is being applied to the 2 claw attacks, it matches that too).
Assuming most of it is like Saga, it works out
Fortitude = 10 +6 (level) +2 (14 Con)=18
same with Will and Ref
Init= 1/2 level + dex (3+2=5)
melee damage is +4 (19 str)
even the spot bonus works out. 1/2 level + wis (3+2) +5 (the big perception bonus) =10

I'm making a couple of assumptions, but the numbers match up better.
And the defenses are odd, since they should be 10+1/2 level+stat bonus+class/role bonus, according to some other info. But then again, monsters are supposedly not built the way PCs are, so they may just be bumped.

@Talisman- Mikey didn't hand that one down. 4e defenders came up with it from available previews/blogs/etc.
From whats been said, don't expect the BAB gap to be very big. Everyone is working off the same progression 1/2 level, with class bonuses making up the difference. At base, I expect the difference to be only about 4 or 5 points. Once you add all the crap in, of course, its going to be huge.