Why is the Christmas Tree effect so reviled? [Archive]

Xefas

2012-07-20, 03:42 AM

The concept in and of itself is not inherently bad.

It's just that what some (possibly a lot of) people want out of their fantasy game doesn't happen to coincide with the Christmas Tree. Others, it's fine. Eberron, for instance, seems to embrace it. And there are folks who like Eberron, certainly.

And there're many facets to that Christmas Tree that you have to take into account together. It's not just that your +5 Sword/Boot/Hat/Cloak/Armor/Belt seems to be more important than your actual class features at times. It's also things like, if you're expected to fight humanoid opponents that will actually challenge you, you'll likely be carting away buckets upon buckets of +1 and +2 swords, chain shirts, and so on. It makes magic items very commonplace. Which, is okay. But, once again, doesn't coincide with what some people want. It's a difference in taste of setting. Magic As Technology, versus Magic As Mysterious Crazy Unexplainable Thing.

Imagine reading a Lovecraft book where each investigator loots every body and ends up wearing thirty horrible alien artifacts because they grant +1 AC each. And don't do anything else.

And then imagine an Eberron game where you raptor-riding halfling can't sling wands like guns because each one is a rare once-in-a-lifetime artifact of wondrous might.

Doorhandle

2012-07-20, 03:57 AM

I wounder if you can strike a balance between the two?

Like, having weak wands, potions, and possibly scrolls be incredibly common, possibly acting like Mario-style power-ups, but each and every magic weapon, rod, or shield be both incredibly powerful and rare?

Also, giving each item a history and an unusual appearance might work if you're doing "Magic As Mysterious Crazy Unexplainable Thing." As would having them do stuff other than "replicate/improve spell x" and "add X to attack rolls and do y more damage when z happens." basically, having everything act more like a wondrous item.

I don't know for sure however. No all magic items are regularly useful: how many people honestly use the apparatus of the crab?

erikun

2012-07-20, 05:42 AM

The problem is not so much when a character has a lot of magical items, but when the system assumes a character must have a lot of magical items to function at a basic level. D&D3, for example, assumes a character to have a +5 weapon, +5 armor, +5 shield, +5 ring, +5 cloak, +5 object of stat boosting, and an item of flight just to participate at roughly 15th+ level.

The problems begin occuring when the character is lacking in such "basics". It shouldn't be surprising what happens when a character suddenly has -5 to -15 to their rolls on a d20 and is unable to even move around.

Sample Item #1: Fiery Longsword +1
This longsword, when used as the attacking weapon gives a +1 To-Hit and +2 Damage.
If the wielder has Fire Affinity it may do an extra 1D6 Fire damage (Rank2 Penetrating), +1D6 for each Rank in the Affinity.
Furthermore it gains an extra +1 for every rank in Longsword-Fighting, this stacks with the normal gain for this ability.
Compare to this:
Magical Fiery Longsword
This weapon holds magical properities, granting it the ability to bypass resistances against purely mundane weapons. Furthermore, the weapon deals an additional +1d6 fire damage with each successful strike.

If the wielder has Fire Affinity, the weapon deals an extra +1d6 fire damage on a successful strike for every rank of Affinity.

Characters who have Longsword-Fighting gain an additional +1 to attack rolls for every rank in that ability.

The problem with Christmas Trees isn't with having magic equipment, it's with needing excessive magical equipment. Heck, if you build your system to where mundane swords can hit most targets you'd expect them too, there there is no reason to have magical weapons with an accuracy boost - simply overcoming damage resistance or having special properities will be enough.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-20, 06:53 AM

That isn't the problem; how his power comes from his sword, anklets, belt, helmet, gauntlets, amulet, cape, and a steady drip-feed of potion, each of which is individually magical, is a problem.

*shrug* I'm not sure why. Batman has historically used a lot of gadgets. He inherited a giant pile of money, much of which was used to buy awesome stuff. I'm pretty ok with that.

Likewise, I'm very ok with magical toys everywhere.

Kholai

2012-07-20, 07:04 AM

A lot of the things I'd say have already been covered but thought I'd add this:

Is a swordsman so much better if he gets his reality-breaking attacks and magical effects from himself or from the legendary sword?

Actually, yes.

Niten Dōraku slew four opponents with a simple wooden stick.

Samson slew an army of Philistines with a *jawbone*.

George smote down the Dragon with nothing more than a Protection from Evil and a non-magical blade.

Would Rurouni Kenshin have been impressive if he was utterly dependent on his +5 Vorpal Sakaba of Speed?

How the heck did Arthur actually manage to hold his own against Mordred when it was Mordred who was wielding the Caledbwlch?

How much was Conan dependent on his weapons across his adventures, did he even *have* a magic sword?

The person holding the sword has to be worthy of the sword he holds, otherwise he's not a hero, he's his weapon's cohort.

For your example, I think the better example for a Fighter would be War Machine, Iron Man's buddy.

Iron Man (genius artificer) made himself a super suit.
War Machine only has a suit because Iron Man made it for him.

Without his suit, Iron Man is a genius artificer who could build himself another one, or make a laser cannon out of discarded tin cans or something.

Without his suit, War Machine is a black guy who is probably going to have to go and bother his friend to make him a new super suit.

Since this is D&D, Spiderman, the party bard, came along and asked Tony for a supersuit as well. His is just as good as War Machine's, except he's already super strong, has web shooters, can climb on walls, and can avoid injury with his spidey-sense class feature.

So far, that's okay, I mean, Spiderman's not the strongest of heroes, he's not that much better than- OH COME ON GALACTUS! You don't even *need* a super suit! You could just make your own! Oh fine. Now Galactus has a supersuit too. Great.

Magic Items: Everyone can get them, everyone can have them, but they need to be super awesome enough to make the Fighter able to compete with a real class. Meanwhile, a naked Wizard or Druid can still trounce most Fighters with all their gear... And can have magic items of their own.

A class that isn't all about making magic items shouldn't have a dependency on magic items, and the Christmas tree effect, with game balance being built around it, is self-perpetuating that dependency.

Siegel

2012-07-20, 07:14 AM

Well Rhodey is still a trained Air Force or whatever guy and could simply punch out Tony without suits...

dsmiles

2012-07-20, 07:23 AM

A class that isn't all about making magic items shouldn't have a dependency on magic items, and the Christmas tree effect, with game balance being built around it, is self-perpetuating that dependency.This. A million times, this.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-20, 07:28 AM

Well Rhodey is still a trained Air Force or whatever guy and could simply punch out Tony without suits...

Former AF here. Punching people out was not a part of basic training. Or any training, for that matter. Relying on fists isn't really our MO.

dsmiles

2012-07-20, 07:34 AM

Former AF here. Punching people out was not a part of basic training. Or any training, for that matter. Relying on fists isn't really our MO.<.<
>.>
Except at the bar.
:smallbiggrin:

Anecronwashere

2012-07-20, 07:34 AM

So if all classes were equal and strong without Magic Items and the items were flavourful and not show-stopping (discounting Artificer creations worn by the maker ala Stark) they would be fine?

The system I'm making is a point-buy system just so you know and I want to avoid as many problems now as I can before getting too far in as to have the bugs baked in.

How is this:
Items have a very weak base that everyone gets. Every swordsman can pick up Excalibur and use it like any other sword that is just a bit sharper than usual, but for those trained in combat (higher level), devoted to using magical implements (Feat-Chain to make Batman) or made Excalibur themselves (Artificer Feat-Chain to make Stark) they can unlock the more esoteric of abilities, wielding Excalibur like it was meant to be wielded: at full power

This way you don't get rid of your +1 sword of Flaming, you just become better at using it to stab things and it becomes a +1 sword of Fireball. Or you invest some XP to make it a +2 sword of Fireball.
But for the same (or slightly more) cost you can just buy a +1 To-Hit or learn a new maneuver to use with any sword

Tyndmyr

2012-07-20, 07:41 AM

<.<
>.>
Except at the bar.
:smallbiggrin:

Fair point. :smallamused:

Also, I endorse the idea of an Avengers bar fight. Provided Banner keeps his cool.

Anecronwashere

2012-07-20, 07:45 AM

I actually would like to see Banner fight without Hulking out.
Because the dude goes to all those martial arts places and learns meditation with monks he has to know some esoteric combat forms.

Seharvepernfan

2012-07-20, 08:01 AM

I think it's okay, as long as the items aren't more powerful than the character. They should give him an edge, not "make him".

My analogy is this: special forces badasses often have a christmas tree of gear and gadgets, but give some random thug all their gear and put that thug up against a naked special forces badass, I'd put money on the badass.

Kholai

2012-07-20, 08:26 AM

So if all classes were equal and strong without Magic Items and the items were flavourful and not show-stopping (discounting Artificer creations worn by the maker ala Stark) they would be fine?

Pretty much exactly. The goal of a balanced system is where a naked Fighter is overall equal to a naked Wizard (okay, assume a mundane spellbook/sword whatever if necessary), with each having a few items that boost them - equally.

Out of thematic/fluff preference, one magic item they learn to use is definitely better would be definitely more enjoyable than "time to drop Excalibur, just found Exbalibur-II with an extra +1".

For your system, this actually sounds similar to something like the Mutants and Masterminds system - buying a power in a "device" is cheaper than buying it for yourself, but carries the inherent vulnerabilities as a result. You might find it worthwhile to check it out as a possible comparison.

JoshuaZ

2012-07-20, 08:46 AM

Part of it is the fluff not fitting well with classical fantasy. For example, in Lord of the Rings, each major character has probably one magic item or at most two magic items. Similarly, in the Chronicles of Narnia, each of the four children gets a single magic item. Magic is thus rare, powerful and mysterious. When magic is common enough that one has lots of magic items as a normal thing, it loses some of that mysterious nature.

It also produces serious consistency issues since one starts needing to wonder why the world doesn't end up looking a lot more modern rather than pseudo-medieval. For example, if ever-glowing lanterns are cheap and common, you get all the associated changes that cheap lighting produces.

Deepbluediver

2012-07-20, 09:49 AM

There was a D&D 3.5 book called Weapons of Legacy (I think) which gaves rules and examples for special weapons that your character could find and (for lack of a better word) attune to himself through rituals. These weapons would then give special properties, but only to that user. You might want to look into something like that for magic items.

Jay R

2012-07-20, 10:25 AM

Because Lancelot, Hercules, Sigurd, El Cid, Gilgamesh, and others are heroes, totally apart from the magic items a few of them have.

The possessions aren't the hero. The hero is the hero.

Also, I don't inherently want all character classes to be equal, any more than archers are inherently equal to spearmen or shieldmen. But I want a party of a wizard, a cleric, a fighter and a thief to be better than a party of four fighters or four wizards, just as an army with a shield wall backed by spearmen protecting the archers is greater than just spearmen, or just archers.

(Finally, many people don't like the absurd proliferation of magic items in modern D&D. If your game cannot be played with few or no magic items, you're cutting yourself off from a large audience, just as modern D&D has done.)

Craft (Cheese)

2012-07-20, 10:31 AM

My favorite reason? It's because people imagine magic items to be glowing and flashing bright colors all the time. A single one is tolerable but someone covered head to toe in them? It just looks ridiculous!

Hopeless

2012-07-20, 10:33 AM

I remember a Conan story where he ran into a noble wielding a sword that granted its wielder the ability to fight like a sword master and said noble went nuts and attacked literally everyone until he ran into Conan who eventually killed him.
The sorceror who gave the noble that sword when he learnt how the man died commented that his killer had to be an impressive swordmaster in his own right to achieve such a feat.

This is what i thought of whilst reading this thread inspired by the Conan reference of course!

I believe that whilst magical items are nice its dangerous to become reliant on them, there was a time when the dm could just as easily have them stolen, taken away after the PCs are captured, cursed and that also applies to spellbooks too!

I had a cleric who ended up having to buy his own suit of enchanted armour, bastard sword and even a ring of mind shielding because barring one incident he couldn't find such items whilst adventuring.

Nero24200

2012-07-20, 10:47 AM

For me the main reason is that it makes magic mundane, which just does sit well with me. The whole point is magic is that it's...well...magical.

If you run a D'n'D campaign ending at mid to high levels then the fighter has to be using a magic weapon. He's losing out if he isn't. And that's just it, having a Christmas Tree effect built into the rules doesn't allow for much alternative.

If magic items were useful, but not necessary, then you could have alternatives. You could have a magic heavy campaign where the fighter has enchanted fillings in his teeth or a magic lite campaign where the magic items are scarce, it wouldn't matter. With the Christmas Tree effect hard-wired into the rules you can't really have a magic lite campaign without serious houserules.

Lord Tyger

2012-07-20, 11:01 AM

To the best of my knowledge, Conan used a magic sword once in the original Robert E Howard stories. (I take no responsibility for pastiches) That was in the Phoenix on the Sword, where he got a one time upgrade to fight a semi-incorporeal gribbler. There was also one novel length story where he went on a quest to find a magical macguffin of marvels, the Heart of Ahriman, to counter the dark magic of an evil wizard (previous evil wizards had been countered by the simple expedient of stabbing them until they gave up, but Xaltotun was something special).

By way of an interesting contrast, one of Howard's less well known characters, Solomon Kane, got a hold of a magic staff, (later revealed to have belonged earlier to a more famous Solomon, before that to Moses, but ultimately to have been older than the world). He keeps hold of this, and uses it fairly frequently, against vampires, djinn, and all sorts of things that grim determination and flintlocks aren't enough to kill.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-20, 11:04 AM

BRC

2012-07-20, 11:09 AM

I think part of it is static bonuses. Magic Items are supposed to be rare and powerful, but once you get past level 5 or so, everybody is expected to have a magic weapon, magic armor, an item of +X to their primary stat, and maybe a save-booster, plus any utility items they might have.

Lord Tyger

2012-07-20, 11:18 AM

Harry Dresden, on the other hand, routinely packs the following.

Four individual magic rings, magical trenchcoat, staff, blasting rod, amulet, shield bracelet.

Those are with him essentially always. The total can scale upward quite noticeably depending on the job. I have no problem with any of those.

There's a difference there though, as noted with Tony earlier- those are all things he made. It's still his ability, it's just that this is a different way of him expressing it. Fundamentally, take all of those away, and he loses some of his utility and backup options, but he's still a wizard. Stark's a lot more limited without his tools, but he's still the genius that built them, and capable of making more. (In a cave! With a box of scraps!)

I think that's a good way to look at it actually. If you take away all the fancy items, except those that are required for the core character to work (IE, don't take away the wizard's spellbook or the alchemist's reagents), how valid is the class at any given level?

Lapak

2012-07-20, 11:26 AM

Man on Fire

2012-07-20, 11:31 AM

Hi all, I'm working on a D10 leveled-based but classless game and doing research on good/bad design stuff and I came across this.
Having a reliance on equipment and magical items is apparently terribad and a significant flaw in a system.

Why is it so bad?
Is a swordsman so much better if he gets his reality-breaking attacks and magical effects from himself or from the legendary sword?

I was brainstorming the higher levels (the 3rd tier of play where Planeshifting you and your enemies to other Planes for a bonus is a basic skill) and thought of implementing Item Actions. Each Tick (which is a kind of Mini-turn. Actions take X Ticks and a Round is 10 Ticks) you get two menus, one using your abilities (swing your sword, trip everyone around you, cast Fireball) and the other using one of your items (increase your AC for a Round, cast Cone of Cold from a Periapt of Ice-Wizardry, get an extra iterative attack etc.).
Vow of Poverty would give some permanent bonuses and weaker Item Actions.

But why is it so bad? Why is Iron Man worse than Captain America (to use a comic analogy)?

My main problem is that it makes impossible to play low magic or non-magic game, unless you do some massive homebrewing, houseruling or banning. The higher level you get in D&D, the more you need magic items to be able to deal with the monsters and as you advance you need more and more of them, stronger and stronger each time. And in low-magic game you will rarerly find a single one, least buy one or enchance one you have in a store. Most low-magic games I ever heard of ends as stories about bad DM trying to get unfair advantage over the party. If you're making game that is high fantasy or heroic fantasy styled, then it's not a problem, through then I would suggest looking at Earthdawn, which had interesting idea - items there have several levels, the better you knew the item, the stronger bonuses it gave you, it automatically made GM plot hooks to make players rediscover the history of the item and unlock it's hidden power.

The Random NPC

2012-07-20, 11:32 AM

Man on Fire

2012-07-20, 12:23 PM

One more thing - it's anticlimatic. Look at characters from fantasy everywhere. Some don't have a single magic item (Conan, Thorgal, Fahrd and Gray Mouser), some have only one (Aragorn, Serpico, Farnese and Ishidro from Berserk), or few (Guts from Berserk, Conan in cartoon version). D&D characters are enteirly covered in them. It doesn't help making climatic game, but a mockery of it and degrades magic items to nothing but cheap bonuses and not legendary, important artifacts that character forms bond with.

Urpriest

2012-07-20, 12:23 PM

To add to those saying the problem is not the items, but the fact that most of them are required numbers upgrades: in general, game elements should never have merely quantitative effects. You always want the primary decisions to be qualitative in order for there to be interesting strategic decisions and/or roleplaying opportunities.

Deepbluediver

2012-07-20, 12:49 PM

LibraryOgre

2012-07-20, 01:04 PM

Some of it comes back to different types of superheroes.

Tony Stark, for example, is a "gadget" hero. He's got gadgets. That's his schtick. You take away Tony's toys, and he's a genius inventor, but put him in a bar fight, he's not much better than the average human.*

Captain America, when you take away the shield, is still Captain America. He's still strong, agile, and tough. He's a consummate martial artist, acrobat, and soldier. If you take away his shield and give him a standard soldier's kit, he will stand well above the standard soldier.

Tony's toys let him stand equal with Captain America.

In Christmas Tree games, you pretty much have no choice but to be Tony Stark, just to keep up. Because even if your character is Captain America in your head, everyone else is Tony Stark... and they will keep upgrading their weapons, while you're using the same vibranium shield you've had since the 40s.

End result? You wind up like Thor, Loki, Sif, and the Warriors Three. Not only are you a well-trained warrior (or mage, if you're Loki), but you've got not only Mjolnir, but Megingjörð and Járngreipr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megingj%C3%B6r%C3%B0), and your transportation is a cart drawn by Tanngrisnir and Tanngnjóstr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor%27s_Goats). Because if you don't, you might as well be playing Þjálfi, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Ej%C3%A1lfi) and watching the goats while everyone else goes in the dungeon.

I may have mixed some metaphors in there.

*Yes, I realize he has a lot more training and experience. Picture Tony Stark at the beginning of Iron Man, however, not the one at the end of Avengers.

Kholai

2012-07-20, 01:13 PM

I'm a little confused; does the christmas-tree effect refer just to magical items, or to any amount of equipment in general?

What I'm thinking about is this: a warrior is trained to fight with weapons and armor, and if he acquires better armor and a better sword (fluffed as magical or not) then he can be a better warrior. A magic ring or staff might enhance a wizard in a similar way. But a magic sword and armor wouldn't benefit the wizard and all, and the same goes for the ring and staff for the warrior.

I've never had an issue with equipment making players better at what they do, provided at least some of the power comes from the player instead.
I thought the difference was between something like Excalibur, which made Arthur a better knight and king, versus a magic sword that just turns anyone who weilds it into Conan the barbarian.

My understanding of people's complaints was that they referred to explicetly magic items that where required to fix broken or unbalanced classes. If this is incorrect, please let me know.

The Christmas Tree effect, most typically, refers to the specific effect assumed at higher levels where a character will be decked out with enough sparkling glowing baubles that if the character were a Woodling then children would start leaving boxes by his feet.

And this is the assumed setting where everyone has to do this to function. It's even worse when bad classes (like the fighter) get more out of their items than they do from their class features, but it is still quite possible even with decent characters (a Warblade 'tree is still something to avoid, if less egregiously bad than a Fighter one)

BRC

2012-07-20, 01:21 PM

It can also get in the way of character archetypes. For example, the Barbarian Hero, clad in only a few loose scraps of animal hide, wielding a massive axe. A living reminder that, for all our pretentions of civilization, we are not so different from the beasts of the wild.
You can do that at first level, but eventually it simply gets impractical. Those scraps of animal hide will need to be enchanted. If you want to keep up with the monsters, that axe will also need to be magic. You'll need a magic gauntlet or belt to augment your strength, a magical cloak to boost your saving throws, maybe some spiffy magic boots for increased mobility. You'll also want some potions on your belt, a magical helmet that lets you see in the dark, an amulet that makes you more resiliant, and if your meaty barbarian hands are not sporting some magic rings than something is very wrong with you. If your image of your character is a Barbarian fighting with nothing but pure strength and savage ferocity, it can feel a little wrong to have that strength and ferocity augmented by enough magic items to buy a small town.

Somebody mentioned a system with, what I think, is a better solution. Your crazy superpowers can either be inheriant OR come from magical items, with magical items being cheaper for the same effect, but coming with downsides like being occasionally deactivated or lost.

Deepbluediver

2012-07-20, 01:29 PM

In Christmas Tree games, you pretty much have no choice but to be Tony Stark, just to keep up. Because even if your character is Captain America in your head, everyone else is Tony Stark... and they will keep upgrading their weapons, while you're using the same vibranium shield you've had since the 40s.

And this is the assumed setting where everyone has to do this to function. It's even worse when bad classes (like the fighter) get more out of their items than they do from their class features, but it is still quite possible even with decent characters (a Warblade 'tree is still something to avoid, if less egregiously bad than a Fighter one)

But I thought that part of appeal of many tabletop games was that you kill monsters, and then get a whole pile of sparkly shiny stuff, wether it's magic weapons, artifacts, or gold coins that let you buy the same.
Looking at D&D 3.5, since it's the system I know best, if you took away a wizard's spellbook and spell component pouch, he would be about as much use against the evil dragon as the naked fighter.

I know there are games designed to not include the treasure>equipment>more treasure>better equipment upgrade ladder, but they aren't usually Sword 'n Sorcery style games.

I'm still uncertain whether this is just a question of balance (some classes NEED magic items, and other's can get along alright without) or if there is some objection to equipment providing any kind of benefit at all for high level players.

Reluctance

2012-07-20, 01:47 PM

The problem in D&D is that you have a mandatory parallel subgame, that's only loosely connected to the main character building. This screws with a lot of concepts. Just like how D&D as we know it would suffer if there were a mandatory parallel subgame forcing you to recruit heroes for your army.

If you want a good item system, look to other systems where ownership of a game element (NPC, place, item, etc.) requires you to invest resources into it. That way you have at least a rough point of compare between the guy who wants to play a christmas-tree style artificer, the one who wants to invest heavily in one uber-item, the one who wants to run everything on personal skill, and the one who likes minionmancy. As is, not only are items mandatory, there are some attitudes towards gear that are clearly better than others.

(The part where most of the important items are boring numeric bonuses is another point. +1 to hit and damage is fine if you just picked up Stormbringer without investing anything into it. Well built up magical swag should do properly magical things.)

Eldariel

2012-07-20, 01:53 PM

im suprised by this, since I often see people saying to "not take this feat, or that spell, or that feat. Because you can get it with this item" constantly.

Maybe a different group.

This is mostly because newer D&D systems are designed with characters having like 8+ magic items each so to make the most out of the system you need to use the magic items; feats are much more rare and valuable (ironic as that may be).

Man on Fire

2012-07-20, 02:20 PM

But I thought that part of appeal of many tabletop games was that you kill monsters, and then get a whole pile of sparkly shiny stuff, wether it's magic weapons, artifacts, or gold coins that let you buy the same.

No, the appeal of tabletop games is that you can play in specific setting and create your own story, similiar to that from your favorites. And as I and BRC have said, it doesn't work if you want to play somebody, who doesn't have many items, like Conan, so instead of playing what you wanted you play what you described.

I know there are games designed to not include the treasure>equipment>more treasure>better equipment upgrade ladder, but they aren't usually Sword 'n Sorcery style games.

Sword and Sorcery, as in Heroic Fantasy? yeah, good luck playing that in D&D, that supports only high fantasy subgenre.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-20, 02:40 PM

Sword and Sorcery, as in Heroic Fantasy? yeah, good luck playing that in D&D, that supports only high fantasy subgenre.

The good news is, there's lots of other systems that better support specific game styles.

D&D is pretty good at simulating high magic, high fantasy games, especially with a focus on combat and dungeon crawling. It's what it was made for. It is less awesome the further you get from that.

kyoryu

2012-07-20, 02:53 PM

The good news is, there's lots of other systems that better support specific game styles.

D&D is pretty good at simulating high magic, high fantasy games, especially with a focus on combat and dungeon crawling. It's what it was made for. It is less awesome the further you get from that.

Yup.

Though I think that 3.x and 4e are more magic-item dependent than 1e/2e (especially 1e).

The assumption that you'll get randomized treasure kind of throws a wrench into the idea of presuming item acquisition as part of character advancement. (But then, older games had a totally different meta-game than is commonly seen in 3.x/4e anyway, and I'm not sure that that isn't a part of this effect).

obryn

2012-07-20, 03:41 PM

Though I think that 3.x and 4e are more magic-item dependent than 1e/2e (especially 1e).
I'd dispute this on the basis of how many 1e/2e monsters require +X weapons to hit them. :smallsmile:

1e in general assumes a high degree of magic item saturation by the time you hit mid-levels. Published modules have a ton of them, and magic swords, armor, and shields are relatively common on the random item tables. It wasn't figured directly into the math (since there were no mathematical expectations), but your magic items are pretty character-defining in 1e.

Both 3e and 4e came forward with Inherent Bonus systems which can ease the magic item burden a lot. I can't speak for the 3e system, but I have nothing but good things to say about the 4e one. I'm running a 4e Dark Sun game right now which relies mostly on inherent bonuses for the "big three" items, and it works great.

-O

Clawhound

2012-07-20, 04:01 PM

For magic classes, they get cool abilities as they level up, and they use their wealth on additional capabilities. Their powers scale as they level up.

For melee classes, they get abilities from items, but have to constantly use their wealth to upgrade their items. These items don't scale with them.

In short, the Tier 1s-2s get to use their wealth on expanding their abilities, but the weaker Tier 3-4's must use their wealth just to keep competitive, further increasing the disparity between the classes.

Personally, I have no problem with getting abilities from items, but I do have a problem with stronger classes getting a much better deal than the weaker classes.

Madcrafter

2012-07-20, 04:09 PM

I'll add on (since it was passed over before), that if the DM ever wants to take away a player's stuff for whatever reason (hopefully a good one), then he's essentially gimped that player completely. If it happens to one, they're now useless in combat (and sometimes outside of it too), and if it happens to the whole party, than everything has to be scaled down accordingly (not so bad in the very early levels, but increasing exponentially the higher you get).

That's why so many people hate item familiars. They just exacerbate the problem, and purport to use it as balance. But the DM can never actually take that item away, because of the consequences to the player.

Person_Man

2012-07-20, 04:29 PM

I personally hate the Christmas Tree effect (which my friends and I call the "Diablo effect" or a Monty Haul Campaign (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MontyHaul)) on magic items, and the trend towards numerous "small" modifiers, abilities, feats, etc within gaming in general (I'm looking at you, 4E).

The Christmas tree effect exists because game developers & DMs consciously or unconsciously want to be able to set up a conditioned response (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning). Play Game -> Rewarded with Treasure & XP. It's usually important to have this to some degree, otherwise progression is impossible. But if you do it too much, you just end up devaluing everything else.

Arbane

2012-07-20, 04:30 PM

Looking at D&D 3.5, since it's the system I know best, if you took away a wizard's spellbook and spell component pouch, he would be about as much use against the evil dragon as the naked fighter.

I'd argue that's not a defense of D&D as much as it's a further condemnation of how gear-dependent the system is.

I know there are games designed to not include the treasure>equipment>more treasure>better equipment upgrade ladder, but they aren't usually Sword 'n Sorcery style games.

As has been pointed out, D&D isn't exactly Sword and Sorcery - the archetypical S&S character, Conan, started a lot of his adventures armed only with a sword, hungover, dead broke, and looking for something to steal.

(Conversely, you have Elric, who was designed to be the Anti-Conan - he's dependent on Stormbringer to a degree all but the most munchkin-tolerant of GMs would veto.)

Anecronwashere

2012-07-20, 10:12 PM

In my game I'm trying to stabilize the disparity between Mundanes/Magics so needing Items to keep up shouldn't be a problem (I hope)

So to sum up everything:
1. Items cannot be better than the character wearing them
1.a Except when the character is a gadget-guy who makes the Items and uses them
2. Items should not be essential. Low-magic settings must be an option.
3. Items should be upgradeable (through enchanting, unlocking higher options etc.)
4. Other options should be available for gold-spending.

How about these options:
Keep-building. Adventurers may devote any gold they wish to the building and upkeep of a base of operations. This attracts a type of minion suitable to the type of building (at the DMs discretion). Keep-buildings need not be for Humanoids, Crypts to attract Undead, Altars to summon Angels and Demons and Dungeons to attract denizens are all viable buildings to sink gold into. After a certain threshold these buildings become self-sufficient and the player is advised to build a hoard or donate to a charity unless in a Low-Magic campaign.
Charity/Hoard: Gold devoted to this type give mostly permanent bonuses and a few Powers. Gold devoted to charities are lost but a hoard may be recoverable (though you lose the bonus for having the gold hoarded)

The first gives minions for minion-mancy, the second is like Vow of poverty but optional as to how much you give up.

As the PC gets high up then having minions becomes less effective unless the GM makes a Low-magic game and also disallows Charity after a certain point.

KnightDisciple

2012-07-20, 10:59 PM

I've seen 2 characters listed as some sort of "counter-example" for the statement that the Christmas Tree Effect is bad/boring: Batman, and Harry Dresden.

Let me explain why those two examples have very very little to do with CTE, or at least CTE as I understand it and would apply it.

CTE stems from having a bunch of flat, static numeric bonuses to a lot of basic things. Your AC (via armor, ROP, AONA, and so on), your saves, your to-hit and damage, your stats. All of those things, the CTE has you putting on items that give +1 to +5 (or +2 to +6, for stats) to those things. The bonus is just a number, nothing more. Everyone has at least some of them; everyone wants better stats ans saves and AC, and anyone fighting wants better to-hit and damage numbers. So every character ends us with a very similar list of body slot items and bonuses. That's the problem. CTE results in a bunch of same-y items that everyone gets, and that are only exciting in the sense of "this might help me not die now".
And it is really kind of required; good luck taking, say, a fighter with completely non-magical gear against some of the mid-to-high CR creatures. Oh, he might survive, but it's going to be a dicier proposition, especially once he starts getting hit, and keeps getting hit, because his AC is way way lower.

Right, now let's look at the 2 sample "counter-example" characters.

Harry Dresden has, as stated by someone else:

Four individual magic rings, magical trenchcoat, staff, blasting rod, amulet, shield bracelet.
Let's look at what those items do, shall we?
Magic Rings (12 or more, I don't remember, he's got them stacked something fierce): Each ring stores kinetic energy up to a certain point, and then can release it in a sort of blast. These are unique magic items (really, it ends up working like 1 item, because they all do the same thing), that in D&D wouldn't provide a static bonus, but would instead give the character a power. So, not really contributing to CTE there.
Trenchcoat: Well, this one might almost stick. It's a comparatively basic item. Though, instead of AC, he's clearly using the "armor as DR" rule variant. That said, it's also not something we really see replicated by other wizards (oddly enough), and it's hand-made by him.
Staff and Blasting Rod: These are focusing devices and required for his magic, and thus would essentially be class features. When not used to focus his magic, they're...very sturdy pieces of wood.
Amulet: It's not an Amulet of Natural Armor, for sure. Usually it just lights his way. As of Changes it has an extra function, but that function's essentially an Artifact. Unique item, not contributing to CTE.
Shield Bracelet: This isn't like Bracers of Armor; he makes a shield that 100% stops attacks of...basically any type, and does so in an area around him. Others can benefit from the power. So, really, another custom item, not contributing to CTE.

So with Dresden, we have 2 strikes against him being an example of classic CTE: He made everything himself, and all the items are unique, flavorful, and provide distinct powers, rather than more generic physical boosts or the like.

Batman:
Batman only has a few pieces of consistent gear. Then again, he's been interpreted and re-interpreted so much, it's hard to pin down anyways.
Let's go with a few of the most consistent and obvious.
Batsuit: Provides protection against bullets, knives, blunt trauma, environmental extremes, and so forth. Not invincible, can be damaged, but still very sturdy. Cowl has communication gear, night vision, hearing enhancement, and basically a billion fiddly little gadgets. Often the cape lets him glide. So...sorta CTE? In some ways, it's like the best suit of +5 Armor ever, especially because it stacks as many resistances on as possible, probably some DR, partial resist to crit hits...basically, at the level of ability it displays, it's a custom-crafted artifact-level armor suit. So...again, sorta CTE.
Grapple Gun: It's a grappling hook, but self-propelled, and with a retractor. Unique item, not CTE.
Batarangs: Typically non-magical throwing stars. Some can be remotely controlled, or explode, or a bunch of other things. Offhand they're like one-shot alchemical items, or very cheap magic items. His inventory of them shifts as needs dictate. Unique, one-shot/expendable, not CTE.
Utility Belt: He carries a load of mundane tools in here. He carries explosives in here. Handcuffs. Lots of fiddly little things, in other words. Nothing really powerful. Not CTE, unless the rogue having some thieve's tools and such counts, which it doesn't.

Batman's got one main piece of gear (his suit), and a bunch of small items that are either very specific in use (grapple gun), basic tools (most of his belt contents), or one-shot ('rangs and such). His suit is always unique in what it provides, and it's clearly a single integrated unit, even if he has to "assemble" it (full plate isn't one solid piece either, folks, but it works as a single item). So another guy avoids CTE.

Basically, CTE is having a bunch of static, basic, numeric bonuses you stack up on a bunch of items just to "keep pace".
On the flip side, having a bunch of interesting little magical gizmos, like wands and scrolls and potions and one-shot items (especially one-shot items) isn't quite CTE.
And having items that possess unique, interesting powers that do something other than "+3 to hit and damage", but instead provide new attacks, or add fire to your sword, or give you insight into the future, or basically anything that isn't "+X to Y" helps avoid CTE.

I would say that many weapon abilities in 3.5 are a step in the right direction; flaming, for instance, is "my sword is on fire, thus extra damage". It's pretty straightforward, but it's at least thematic, and gives the weapon a unique flair.

The real issue is that there aren't a lot of good guidelines for making truly unique items, or at least that's what it feels like. Some of this stems from the fact most unique powers are really "Spell X activated Y times per day" or some such. That helps, but it's still kind of bound to the wizard's spell list.

The point about how the fighter completely relies on someone else to make his gear also contributes; while Batman may not always make his own gear ground-up, he almost always has a hand in tweaking and customizing it. He also comes up with the specifications a lot of the time; he just might not have a bunch of manufacturing equipment in the cave (though, this isn't guaranteed, sometimes he might).

erikun

2012-07-21, 01:53 AM

I'm a little confused; does the christmas-tree effect refer just to magical items, or to any amount of equipment in general?
It generally refers to "hard" to find, "rare" magical items that are "difficult" to replace, yet are manditory to operate at an assumed level set out by the game.

Mundane equipment generally isn't Christmas Tree, because it is easy to replace and the ability to replace it (crafting, mercantile, etc.) is a part of the character's capabilities. Note that magical equipment that is "mundane" to acquire probably wouldn't count as Christmas Tree either. In Eberron, everyone can acquire a Potion of Spider Climb, and so being able to climb walls like a spider isn't that unusual in the setting. (Also note that almost everyone thinks about people being capable of climbing walls, as well.)

But I thought that part of appeal of many tabletop games was that you kill monsters, and then get a whole pile of sparkly shiny stuff, wether it's magic weapons, artifacts, or gold coins that let you buy the same.
The appeal of many roleplaying games is that you can play a character in an imaginary system. This can mean killing monsters and taking their stuff, but doesn't have to.

...unless the Christmas Tree is in effect, which means that yes, the characters must plunder every body and area they come across and wear the bling like some deranged kleptomaniac hobo. Hence, the typical stereotype - noble heroes of the kingdom who are crazy murdering hobos on the side. (This is not intended to be flattering.)

I'd dispute this on the basis of how many 1e/2e monsters require +X weapons to hit them. :smallsmile:
Sword, armor, shield, and maybe a ring? Probably a few spare items for utility effects, as well.

In my game I'm trying to stabilize the disparity between Mundanes/Magics so needing Items to keep up shouldn't be a problem (I hope)

So to sum up everything:
1. Items cannot be better than the character wearing them
1.a Except when the character is a gadget-guy who makes the Items and uses them
2. Items should not be essential. Low-magic settings must be an option.
3. Items should be upgradeable (through enchanting, unlocking higher options etc.)
I like how AD&D did magic stat-items, where a specific item boosted the character up to a specific value rather than adding to their value.

One example was the Gauntlets of Ogre Power. Wearing them granted you the strength of 18/00. As such, a relatively weak character could wear them and perform as well as a a strong character. It meant that characters didn't need to be optimized from the start of a campaign, and even a poorly-rolled character could end up excelling. An already strong character had no use for the gauntlets, but benefitted by not losing anything if the item/magic was lost.

An interesting side-effect was that the gauntlets frequently became a part of the character. They became a character who was strong with their gauntlets. It turned into an interesting character fault. And unlike D&D3, where everybody had gauntlets because everybody benefitted from them, it made the character more unique and stand out more.

Note that the gadget-guy in this example is the weak item-crafter who makes equipment to give themselves exceptional strength and speed. It fits the Tony Stark idea far better than the D&D3 model.

4. Other options should be available for gold-spending.

How about these options:
Keep-building. Adventurers may devote any gold they wish to the building and upkeep of a base of operations. This attracts a type of minion suitable to the type of building (at the DMs discretion). Keep-buildings need not be for Humanoids, Crypts to attract Undead, Altars to summon Angels and Demons and Dungeons to attract denizens are all viable buildings to sink gold into. After a certain threshold these buildings become self-sufficient and the player is advised to build a hoard or donate to a charity unless in a Low-Magic campaign.
Charity/Hoard: Gold devoted to this type give mostly permanent bonuses and a few Powers. Gold devoted to charities are lost but a hoard may be recoverable (though you lose the bonus for having the gold hoarded)

The first gives minions for minion-mancy, the second is like Vow of poverty but optional as to how much you give up.

As the PC gets high up then having minions becomes less effective unless the GM makes a Low-magic game and also disallows Charity after a certain point.
These options are a bit more questionable, because gold tends to fluctuate from game to game. Some games have very little spare gold beyond the essentials, while some games end up with vast reserves of gold.

I do like the idea of Leadership-like abilities being reliant of gold, as long as the "level" of what you get is dependent on character level and the amount you get dependent on gold spent. I don't want to see all the characters pooling their money to get a 20th level hireling at level 5. You might also want to include land-ownership and mercantine activities; it provides a bit of interactive 'world building' for the players and is something that they'd possibly want to pursue.

Deepbluediver

2012-07-21, 07:58 AM

It seems like people are objecting more to the imbalance between certain classes that use magic items than to the idea of characters having just really good equipment (magic or mundane), and that the flat-stat increasing gear negates the ability to use more interesting but less purely beneficial things.
An amulet of Natural Armor is bad, an amulet that lets you grow wings and fly would be good (again, pleast correct me if I've misunderstood).

I don't think it's impossible to play a Conan-type character in D&D games, I think that it's harder to play Conan in the same game as some one else is playing Merlin, unless you can get every one else to hold back on the various game shenanigans, in which case your DM might need to tone it down as well.
And every time you invent a character that doesn't rely on ANY equipment, you would also need to invent some reason for them NOT to use it and get a leg up on other characters. Like every monk taking a VoP (a monk is not a powerful class, I know, but the fluff seems to fit) or every barbarian having a fear or hatred of magic (again, mostly fluff). As soon as you do this, of course, players start trying to find ways around it.

IMO, it seems like it would be easier to just discuss what level of play you wanted with your DM and group, rather than trying to build or fix a system that negated the problems with or allowed for every different level of magic/mundane item.

huttj509

2012-07-21, 11:12 AM

It seems like people are objecting more to the imbalance between certain classes that use magic items than to the idea of characters having just really good equipment (magic or mundane), and that the flat-stat increasing gear negates the ability to use more interesting but less purely beneficial things.
An amulet of Natural Armor is bad, an amulet that lets you grow wings and fly would be good (again, pleast correct me if I've misunderstood).

I think part of it comes down to the difference between

a) I am awesome
b) I have awesome stuff
c) I am awesome because of my awesome stuff
d) I need more awesome stuff to do what I'm expected to do

In part, the difference between b and c is very subjective. d is often referred to as a design failure, especially if the awesome stuff is implied to be rare/difficult to get/random.

In addition, if player X is awesome because of his stuff, but player Y is awesome on his own, AND can get the SAME awesome stuff, well, the stuff doesn't compensate between X and Y.

nedz

2012-07-21, 11:41 AM

D&D has always had the Christmas Tree effect, its not a 3E thing.

Part of the attraction of the game is its aspirational aspect where players look forward to gaining levels and acquiring stuff. The whole point of killing things and taking their stuff is to acquire more xp and even more gear.

I quite like the idea of Magic is Special, but in D&D it just isn't. In D&D magic is everywhere.

Slipperychicken

2012-07-21, 12:08 PM

I'm fine with it, long as it still matters who is wearing all those items.

Fighters need special equipment in real life, too, and it's a massive failure for a state to let soldiers go without the right equipment. There was even a scandal a while back about US soldiers not getting the proper body armor. Our boys need their Goggles of Night Vision, Vests of Bullet-Protection, Helmets of Shrapnel-Resistance, Fatigues of Minor Camouflage, Boots of Glass-Stomping, and Radios of Communication.

I don't care how strong your Kung-Fu is. You enter a fight naked, you should expect to die.

Beowulf DW

2012-07-21, 12:53 PM

Well, here's my take on the issue. I really like characters like Soul Knives, Unarmed Swordsages, and Monks (PF Soulkife and Monk, not the 3.5 versions) for one basic reason, and that is the idea that a major part of what makes them effective, what makes them powerful, comes from within them. I don't like the idea that most of my characters' powers come from gear that they bought at Magical Item Warehouse, Inc.

To use an example from Order of the Stick, there's Kubota. When Elan engaged him in an attempt to subdue and capture him, Kubota simply walked away because he had enough money to buy a set of armor that was heavily enchanted. Despite the fact that Elan was clearly a more capable combatant, Kubota foiled his attacks simply by donning his armor.

And that's just not right. In most works of mythology and fantasy, a hero has one or two weapons that serve them very well. When they do find something like Excalibur or Hrunting, it's usually because fate/the gods decided that they needed it. And even then, not just anyone can wield those weapons. The hero had to earn the infinity+1 sword of jackass smiting.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-07-21, 03:32 PM

im suprised by this, since I often see people saying to "not take this feat, or that spell, or that feat. Because you can get it with this item" constantly.

Maybe a different group.

People say that because the Christmas Tree Effect is a thing in D&D, and given that, it's more cost-effective and often easier to use items than character abilities to achieve something. That doesn't mean that people like the CTE effect, just that you might as well take advantage of it while it exists.

*shrug* I'm not sure why. Batman has historically used a lot of gadgets. He inherited a giant pile of money, much of which was used to buy awesome stuff. I'm pretty ok with that.

Likewise, I'm very ok with magical toys everywhere.

Harry Dresden, on the other hand, routinely packs the following.

Four individual magic rings, magical trenchcoat, staff, blasting rod, amulet, shield bracelet.

Those are with him essentially always. The total can scale upward quite noticeably depending on the job. I have no problem with any of those.

One of the salient differences between gadgeteer types and CTE characters that I don't think was mentioned is that the particular items a gadgeteer uses don't matter. Dresden stops carrying his blasting rod for a while because (spoilers!) but he gets along well enough without it; Batman can take people out equally well with his batarangs or his cable launcher or his fists; Iron Man is just fine when his wrist rockets are out of ammo, he'll just switch over to shoulder-mounted heat-seekers.

In fact, such characters are almost defined by the interchangeability of their gadgets and their ability to tailor them to the situation, and being Always Prepared and able to replace broken/lost stuff extremely quickly is common but not mandatory. If Stark is away from his main suit, he has a backup in a suitcase nearby; Batman has several different bat-vehicles for different missions; Dresden stocks one-off potions and trinkets in case they'd be useful.

In contrast, the CTE produces characters that are the opposite of gadgeteers: they need all their gear at all times to stay relevant, losing their +5 Magic Sword of Awesome is a major blow to their power and their finances, they're limited in the scope of their powers because they need to rely on generically-useful items and not tricky or unusual ones, and they get the same benefit from their items that anyone else does. In mythology and less so in the Marvel-verse only Thor can use his hammer, or even pick it up, but in D&D a fighter defined by the fact that he uses the hammer of thunderbolts+belt of giant strength+gauntlets of ogre power set is drastically weakened without them, he needs all three together to compete at the same level he's used to, and any other character can get the same benefit if they wear the same items.

NichG

2012-07-21, 03:35 PM

For me its not the item dependence so much as it is the item genericness. In fact, an optimized character in D&D 3.5 may have surprisingly few open slots and not enough wealth left such that something 'unique' or 'flavorfullly magical' can be equipped. Too much effort ends up going towards the raw numerical boost items.

I'd say though that this isn't an 'assumption of the system' per se. D&D 3.5 has so much dynamic range that someone who is good at optimization could make a naked character that can take on threats as proposed by the CR system (that they could make a well-geared character that is even more potent isn't the point - its quite possible to make any number of character concepts which can survive and thrive within the system's suggested difficulty level). Rather, its a consequence of the fact that an item has to either give you a +4 to Str or do something distinct and special. So when players make the choice between 'a sword that can call down thunder from the heavens' and 'a sword that hits better', most will say "Well, I'm going to be spending my actions hitting things, so I'll go with hit better".

So I think the Christmas Tree effect could be repaired by changing around how 'slots' work. What if instead of having slots for different magic items, you had something more like a materia or weapon/armor crystal system:

Each character can have a number of equipped magic items based on their class. Generally this is two (weapon and armor), up to four for a 'gadgeteer' style class. Each magic item has a number of slots for enchantments, possibly based on character level but it could just be based on the quality of the base item. Slots are restricted to certain types of enchantments, and are gained in a certain order:

Slot 1: Passive Magic. This slot can contain a non-numerical-bonus effect that is always on, such as a continuous spell effect. For instance, it glows when orcs are nearby, lets you climb walls, etc. It cannot however be something like True Strike, Armor, Shield, etc, things that give numerical bonuses.

Slot 2: Numerical Bonus. This slot can contain a standard numerical bonus enchantment to a stat or action, such as +4 to Strength, +2 to hit and damage, etc.

Slot 3: Augmentation. This slot can contain a 'named' weapon/armor enchantment like Speed, Flaming Burst, etc. Enchantments with the [Synergy] tag can be stacked into this slot.

Slot 4: Invoked Magic. The item can be invoked to cast a spell some number of times per day or at will. Instead of casting a spell, this can be a specific effect that can be invoked from the item that is comparable to invokable wondrous items and the like (so you could have a Decanter of Endless Water kind of effect here).

Slot 5: Item Invoked Magic. The item gains the ability to take an action each round, and can use whatever ability is placed in this slot on its own action (which can be the same sort of thing as Invoked Magic).

Slots 6+: Loop between Additional Passive Magic, Additional Bonus, and Additional Augmentation.

This way, you still have a christmas tree of effects, but they're buried in one or two unique items to each character.

Tengu_temp

2012-07-21, 03:35 PM

I don't care how strong your Kung-Fu is. You enter a fight naked, you should expect to die.

That's in real life. DND, and most other RPGs out there, are not supposed to emulate reality. They're supposed to emulate fantasy stories where a barbarian wearing only a single shoulderpad and an adult diaper fights twelve guys in full armor and wins, because he's that much more awesome than them.

Sutremaine

2012-07-21, 04:31 PM

Deepbluediver

2012-07-21, 08:46 PM

That's in real life. DND, and most other RPGs out there, are not supposed to emulate reality. They're supposed to emulate fantasy stories where a barbarian wearing only a single shoulderpad and an adult diaper fights twelve guys in full armor and wins, because he's that much more awesome than them.

A medium or high level barbarian could probably take on a few dozen low level fighters in armor and win pretty easily. The real challenge is for your naked barbarian to fight and win against a flying dinosaur that's smarter than he is AND has a built in elemental cannon AND magic spells.

The problem arises when you could have 100 high level barbarians, and they can't do ANYTHING to the dragon, who could massacre the lot of them without breaking a sweat, while it's possible for one frail wizard to handle the the dragon all on his own.

As I said before, the thing you need to careful of with awesome class X that doesn't need magic items, is how do you keep him from picking them up anyway, and unbalancing things against the classes that do need them.
If you really desperately want to play Conan, I think the simplest solution is to just talk to your DM and group, and convince them to run a game where you are in a party with Bilbo Baggins, William Tell, and Harry Potter, instead of Gandalf and the Avengers.

(oh god I've reused the same analogy like 10 times now, what are some other well-known fantasy novels I can pull character names out of?)

Each character can have a number of equipped magic items based on their class. Generally this is two (weapon and armor), up to four for a 'gadgeteer' style class.
...
This way, you still have a christmas tree of effects, but they're buried in one or two unique items to each character.

I like the concept, but I agree with Sutremaine that we should find some other way to control the number of items. For example, a fighter would probably wear a full suit of armor, which could occupy several different slots (hands, belt, chest, neck, head, etc). This one suit of armor could then have multiple effects, and as you level you can either buy new armor, or upgrade your existing stuff.
A wizard who doesn't wear armor might have at least one magic ring on each finger, a magic necklace, and various wands, rods, and staffs instead.

Ideally, all of these things offer something in addition or in place of the flat status effects; I don't object to magic suit of armor increasing your AC, because that's what armor is supposed to do. But rings and necklaces of +AC seem a little silly.

NichG

2012-07-22, 12:15 AM

My point with limiting the slots to specific types of enchantments is that it basically forces the players to say 'hey, I've got all these empty slots, why aren't I using them?'. If slots are universal, they'll all go to numerical bonuses.

Also, if one magic item can have ten 'slots' worth of enchantments, you need to reduce the number of magic items that can be equipped by a factor of ten or else everyone just has ten times as much stuff (and wealth can't keep up). Thats why I wanted to limit to to 2 per person, because that is in effect something like 10 magic item slots.

I guess what I should've added was, filling multiple slots would not incur the 'multiple enchantments on the same item' cost penalty. In this system, you can't overcharge an item or make a slotless item.

Conceptually you could divide the slots among pieces of a set, but I didn't want to get complicated in an initial example (so the 'suit of armor' case you could put slot 1 on your gauntlets, slot 2 on your helmet, slot 3 on your body armor, whatever, and its mechanically equivalent). I don't really see the advantage of diffusing out the awesome like that though, since I think its much classier to say 'I'm the wielder of the Gauntlet of Hyrissom, which gives me the strength of ten men, allows me to wreath my body in flame, lets me knock the arrows of my enemies from the skies with a gesture, and cannot be forced to let go of what it holds against my will' than 'I've got a cloak that wreaths my body in flame, a belt that gives me the strength of ten men, a ring that lets me deflect arrows, and a locked gauntlet.

Man on Fire

2012-07-22, 10:11 AM

The problem arises when you could have 100 high level barbarians, and they can't do ANYTHING to the dragon, who could massacre the lot of them without breaking a sweat, while it's possible for one frail wizard to handle the the dragon all on his own.

That's problem with lack of balance in D&D. As I said, things like that make it impossible to have fun unless you're a caster, so playing low or heroic fantasy is impossible, not without mass banning and carefully picking all opponents. Or just running no-magic, no-high level monsters game, where you just give Orcs class levels so they'll keep up with the party.

As I said before, the thing you need to careful of with awesome class X that doesn't need magic items, is how do you keep him from picking them up anyway, and unbalancing things against the classes that do need them.
If you really desperately want to play Conan, I think the simplest solution is to just talk to your DM and group, and convince them to run a game where you are in a party with Bilbo Baggins, William Tell, and Harry Potter, instead of Gandalf and the Avengers.

Typical D&D party is more like Slayers, especially with wizards being a lot like Lina - blowing everything away all the time.

(oh god I've reused the same analogy like 10 times now, what are some other well-known fantasy novels I can pull character names out of?)

Black Company, Song Of An Ice And Fire, Elric Saga, the Witcher, Kedrigern, Earthsea.

I like the concept, but I agree with Sutremaine that we should find some other way to control the number of items..

How about ripping off Earthdawn? They have magic items that gave you stronger bonuses the more XP you invested in them and the more time you took to know their story. It you know Amulet's name you get +1 natural Armor, if you know the name of it's creator, you get completely different and stronger effect, if you know what he used it for, you get something even better.

For me its not the item dependence so much as it is the item genericness. In fact, an optimized character in D&D 3.5 may have surprisingly few open slots and not enough wealth left such that something 'unique' or 'flavorfullly magical' can be equipped. Too much effort ends up going towards the raw numerical boost items.

Oh God, this. Arthur has Excalibur, Lancelot has Arondnight, Guts has Berserker Armor and Dragonslayer, Conan in 90's cartoon has Skymetal Sword and his grandfather's amulet (which he didn't even knew was magical until somebody tried to petrify him and he found out what once saved grandpa from Bassilisk-Cthulhu), Elric has Stormbringer, Geralt has amulet in the shape of wolf's head that is symbol of his profession, Frodo has Stinger....D&D Fighter has Greatsword +4. It's just so anticlimatic.

Sutremaine

2012-07-22, 10:54 AM

I like the concept, but I agree with Sutremaine that we should find some other way to control the number of items. For example, a fighter would probably wear a full suit of armor, which could occupy several different slots (hands, belt, chest, neck, head, etc).
I was thinking less of controlling the number of items and more of controlling (or rather, not controlling) the enchantments that go into the item slots that individual items take up. As it stands, numerical bonuses are almost mandatory if you're expecting the CR system to hold weight as characters increase in level. This isn't a major problem by itself.

The problem is that having these numerical bonuses encourages you to use up numerous item slots by punishing you for using non-associated slots with an enchantment, and also for putting more than one enchantment on an item. So you have a cloak of resistance, an amulet of natural armour, a periapt of wisdom, and so on. Once you've paid your taxes and have your level-appropriate numerical boosts, your item slots are no longer empty and filling them further will cost you dearly. If you do have any empty item slots and you want to wear an item with an active effect, then you'd better hope the effect is associated with the item slot or that'll cost you dearly too.

Removing the slot association rules and the extra cost for enchanting an already-enchanted item would allow every enchantment on a Christmas Tree adventurer to be focused into a single item without any added gp costs. It would free up a bunch of item slots, but without slot association and massive costs for multiple enchantments these items slots are far less valuable.

This would allow both for lone signature items with a bunch of different effects, and for Christmas Tree adventurers who have one slightly-good item and a bunch of minor knicknacks.

It probably wouldn't hurt balance too much either. The classes most dependent on equipment are the weaker ones.

nedz

2012-07-22, 01:27 PM

D&D has a structural feature which encourages characters to have more items rather than fewer.
E.g. it costs more to have one item which adds +2 to AC than to have two items which each add +1 to AC.
If you simply reversed this principle then PCs should end up with fewer, more powerful, items.

Knaight

2012-07-22, 11:25 PM

Oh God, this. Arthur has Excalibur, Lancelot has Arondnight, Guts has Berserker Armor and Dragonslayer, Conan in 90's cartoon has Skymetal Sword and his grandfather's amulet (which he didn't even knew was magical until somebody tried to petrify him and he found out what once saved grandpa from Bassilisk-Cthulhu), Elric has Stormbringer, Geralt has amulet in the shape of wolf's head that is symbol of his profession, Frodo has Stinger....D&D Fighter has Greatsword +4. It's just so anticlimatic.

On the other hand Gawaine usually didn't have anything of note, Conan in the original works* rarely has anything of note and when he does doesn't keep it for long, and several major characters in both The Lord of The Rings and The Hobbit use pretty typical stuff. Moreover, as long as we're listing fantasy anime, Balsa has a reasonably well made completely mundane spear, and Edward Elric has a set of fairly nice but completely mundane prosthetics. The items listed are generally extensions of characters to some extent, and plenty of good characters don't have notable items.

*Yes, they are terrible, but the flaws have nothing to do with a lack of equipment.

Tvtyrant

2012-07-22, 11:39 PM

It would be funny to rip off Scott Pilgrim, and have everyone explode into coins when they die. Except the coins would actually represent their experience, and you can either use them as actual coinage, make them into objects, or absorb them into your character. Effectively combining WBL and experience, so items are a side option to simply getting stronger as a character.

VanBuren

2012-07-23, 01:40 AM

On the other hand Gawaine usually didn't have anything of note, Conan in the original works* rarely has anything of note and when he does doesn't keep it for long, and several major characters in both The Lord of The Rings and The Hobbit use pretty typical stuff. Moreover, as long as we're listing fantasy anime, Balsa has a reasonably well made completely mundane spear, and Edward Elric has a set of fairly nice but completely mundane prosthetics. The items listed are generally extensions of characters to some extent, and plenty of good characters don't have notable items.

*Yes, they are terrible, but the flaws have nothing to do with a lack of equipment.

His automail is at least Masterwork by the end of the manga.

Knaight

2012-07-23, 06:09 AM

His automail is at least Masterwork by the end of the manga.

Which is nothing more than a character who is fairly influential in the military taking advantage of well earned military resources. It remains every bit as mundane as it ever was, and no more special than a better than average car.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-23, 09:09 AM

I've seen 2 characters listed as some sort of "counter-example" for the statement that the Christmas Tree Effect is bad/boring: Batman, and Harry Dresden.

Let me explain why those two examples have very very little to do with CTE, or at least CTE as I understand it and would apply it.

CTE stems from having a bunch of flat, static numeric bonuses to a lot of basic things. Your AC (via armor, ROP, AONA, and so on), your saves, your to-hit and damage, your stats. All of those things, the CTE has you putting on items that give +1 to +5 (or +2 to +6, for stats) to those things. The bonus is just a number, nothing more. Everyone has at least some of them; everyone wants better stats ans saves and AC, and anyone fighting wants better to-hit and damage numbers. So every character ends us with a very similar list of body slot items and bonuses. That's the problem. CTE results in a bunch of same-y items that everyone gets, and that are only exciting in the sense of "this might help me not die now".
And it is really kind of required; good luck taking, say, a fighter with completely non-magical gear against some of the mid-to-high CR creatures. Oh, he might survive, but it's going to be a dicier proposition, especially once he starts getting hit, and keeps getting hit, because his AC is way way lower.

Meh. I disagree. Much of the best magic items are those that give you a new options as opposed to a flat numerical bonus. For instance, an item of flight is pretty critical to that fighter remaining relevant.

Let's look at what those items do, shall we?
Magic Rings (12 or more, I don't remember, he's got them stacked something fierce): Each ring stores kinetic energy up to a certain point, and then can release it in a sort of blast. These are unique magic items (really, it ends up working like 1 item, because they all do the same thing), that in D&D wouldn't provide a static bonus, but would instead give the character a power. So, not really contributing to CTE there.

It's twelve of the same thing...it's pretty christmas treeish.

Trenchcoat: Well, this one might almost stick. It's a comparatively basic item. Though, instead of AC, he's clearly using the "armor as DR" rule variant. That said, it's also not something we really see replicated by other wizards (oddly enough), and it's hand-made by him.

I don't understand why it being made by him matters at all. And yeah, it's pretty damned close to an AC boost. It's just a static defensive thing that's always active.

Staff and Blasting Rod: These are focusing devices and required for his magic, and thus would essentially be class features. When not used to focus his magic, they're...very sturdy pieces of wood.

They are not in any way required for him to use his magic. He can and has used magic without them. They do, however, offer bonuses to his magic, as his magic is better with them.

Amulet: It's not an Amulet of Natural Armor, for sure. Usually it just lights his way. As of Changes it has an extra function, but that function's essentially an Artifact. Unique item, not contributing to CTE.

CTE doesn't seem to be what you're railing against at all. It seems you dislike multiple people wearing the same gear. These are not at all the same thing.

Shield Bracelet: This isn't like Bracers of Armor; he makes a shield that 100% stops attacks of...basically any type, and does so in an area around him. Others can benefit from the power. So, really, another custom item, not contributing to CTE.

It's not a D&D-verse item exactly, true. However, it's an activated defense item. And an ablative defense item at that. Plenty of D&D parallels.

And this is just his normal gear. Depending on the particular adventure, there are likely magical macguffins, or some potions whipped up, or what have you. Yes, they ARE more well written than +1 sword. However, the writing of your adventure is not something controlled by the ruleset.

and several major characters in both The Lord of The Rings and The Hobbit use pretty typical stuff.

The hobbits have magical blades(Glamdring, Orcrist and Sting). Also, there's the magical rings. Basically everyone has one. In addition to the one ring, Gandalf is packing the ring of fire(and also his staff), Galadriel has a ring, sauron is all tied up in rings. Elrond has a ring. The entire purpose of gollum is the one ring...he's tied to magical items pretty strongly. You've got the magical

Boromir, you might be able to justify as being mundane. His horn is pretty likely magical, but whatever, the guy dies anyway. He's not a strong example of "can survive without magical toys".

We've got a mithril shirt, and mithril's kind of magical. It certainly isn't a purely realistic thing by our world's standards.

We've got Galadriel's magical mirror.

We've got the Palantir.

Frodo's got the phial from Galadriel, too.

We've got the army of the dead, which is pretty magical(and which was created via a magical item).

The entire fellowship had elven cloaks that changed color with the light. I'm pretty sure that's not what mundane cloaks do.

Lembas is not normal food. They're even eating magical food...how much more christmas tree-like do you want?

Magical drinks, perhaps? The party partakes of not one, but THREE kinds of magical drinks, one of which gandalf carries along with him.

Basically every character of note in the stories has magical items, often multiple magical items, and certainly all the central chars do. If you go into additional books, you find yet more references to magical items, and it's pretty clear that tolkien's world was deeply embedded in magic.

KnightDisciple

2012-07-23, 09:54 AM

Meh. I disagree. Much of the best magic items are those that give you a new options as opposed to a flat numerical bonus. For instance, an item of flight is pretty critical to that fighter remaining relevant.
I would say that flat bonuses are the "baseline requirement", and things that add flight or whatnot are secondary requirements.

Also, before I dive further, I will re-iterate that I already defined in that post what I have always thought of CTE to be.

It's twelve of the same thing...it's pretty christmas treeish.
12 of the same, yes. But they're all rings on his finger. And they're kind of interwoven on each finger. So...it's not what one first imagines.
And I don't think it blatantly contributes to CTE.

I don't understand why it being made by him matters at all. And yeah, it's pretty damned close to an AC boost. It's just a static defensive thing that's always active.
I already said he's clearly using "armor as DR".
And it matters that it's made by him because the most annoying part of CTE is, for fighters, having to rely on Magic Marts just to stay competitive.
Harry was able to equip himself, using his own talents and skills. It's like the difference between a fighter getting a spell cast on him, and a wizard buffing himself. It's not immediately obvious, but the difference is there.

They are not in any way required for him to use his magic. He can and has used magic without them. They do, however, offer bonuses to his magic, as his magic is better with them.
They're required for several of his more advanced and precise uses of magic. Hence why I say they are "focusing devices", and "part of his class features", since every Dresden wizard we see seems to carry something to help focus their magics. It's just that most seem to use rings and gloves and such; Harry's a traditionalist like McCoy. :smalltongue:

CTE doesn't seem to be what you're railing against at all. It seems you dislike multiple people wearing the same gear. These are not at all the same thing.
"Everyone requiring the same flat bonus items" was part of my definition of CTE. Or did you miss the paragraph where I defined my term. :smallconfused:

It's not a D&D-verse item exactly, true. However, it's an activated defense item. And an ablative defense item at that. Plenty of D&D parallels.I haven't seen an equivalent in D&D.

And this is just his normal gear. Depending on the particular adventure, there are likely magical macguffins, or some potions whipped up, or what have you. Yes, they ARE more well written than +1 sword. However, the writing of your adventure is not something controlled by the ruleset.
My whole point is that the ruleset shouldn't encourage everyone getting the same laundry list of bonus items, and then tossing in a few slightly more flavorful items.

Instead, we should be getting a smaller list of more unique items.

People have mentioned King Arthur. He's actually a good example. He has exactly 2 magic items, and they're related items: his sword Excalibur, and its sheath. Excalibur is supernaturally strong and sharp (and apparently a sign of kingship), and its sheath prevents death by blood loss/reduces wounds taken. But that's all he's got that's magical...

Now, I don't mind characters having a larger assortment of "trinkets", small items that do one specific task or some such. That can be fun, though it can also be overdone.

But I think it would be an interesting departure to have only a small number (like, 3-4) of "major" items. A suit of armor, a weapon, perhaps a shield, and a ring or amulet or some other small item; each of them doing something very unique and very much not "+3 AC". It seems like it would a.)help set you apart, and b.)lead to more people developing stories around their gear, naming their swords and whatnot.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-23, 10:02 AM

I would say that flat bonuses are the "baseline requirement", and things that add flight or whatnot are secondary requirements.

I would say that these are the LEAST important things, mechanically. The difference between a +1 and a +2 sword is almost never that big a deal. You're much better off getting a +1 something sword than a +2 sword, generally speaking.

I already said he's clearly using "armor as DR".

How it that relevant? He's not in a world identical to D&D, but he IS a heavy user of magic items. His world need not be identical to D&D, even if there are similarities.

And it matters that it's made by him because the most annoying part of CTE is, for fighters, having to rely on Magic Marts just to stay competitive.

CTE is entirely distinct from fighter vs wizard imbalance.

Harry was able to equip himself, using his own talents and skills. It's like the difference between a fighter getting a spell cast on him, and a wizard buffing himself. It's not immediately obvious, but the difference is there.

And why does this difference matter?

They're required for several of his more advanced and precise uses of magic. Hence why I say they are "focusing devices", and "part of his class features", since every Dresden wizard we see seems to carry something to help focus their magics. It's just that most seem to use rings and gloves and such; Harry's a traditionalist like McCoy. :smalltongue:

They are common. They are not omnipresent. There's no real reason to assume them as class features purely because they are common. This sort of logic would categorize ANY common magical items as class features, then continue to whine about the dearth of common magical items in fiction.

Fact is, they ARE described as items. The books have no "class feature" conceit.

I haven't seen an equivalent in D&D.

So, I'm confused...is your complaint that fiction stories don't have lots of magical items on a protagonist?

Or is it your complaint that not all fiction stories are exactly D&D?

My whole point is that the ruleset shouldn't encourage everyone getting the same laundry list of bonus items, and then tossing in a few slightly more flavorful items.

It really doesn't. If your wizard is investing in gauntlets of ogre strength, then you're either a very strange sort of wizard, or you're doing something very wrong.

For the fighter though, such an investment is a viable option.

KnightDisciple

2012-07-23, 10:12 AM

...Okay, you keep switching between trying to draw parallels between Dresden and D&D, and then saying "it's a book so it's nothing like D&D".

My original post was pointing out how he was a poor example of my understanding of CTE (which I clearly defined, so please stop acting like I didn't). You said he was, but now it's almost like you're saying he isn't. It's very confusing and frustrating. :smallconfused:

As for wizards not using gauntlets of ogre power: Sure, they don't need them. Just like the Fighter doesn't need a Headband of Intellect.

But both end up having at least 1 stat-booster. And both want Dex and Con increasing items. Con especially. Heck, I don't think any character wouldn't want a Con item.

Man on Fire

2012-07-23, 10:30 AM

I don't understand why it being made by him matters at all.

Because that makes it his creation, his personal item. Anyone can make similiar thing, but this one has the handwriting of it's maker all over it. There may be many coats like that, but this one is Harry's, it's his personal and no one will ever know it as good as him.

Knaight

2012-07-23, 10:41 AM

How it that relevant? He's not in a world identical to D&D, but he IS a heavy user of magic items. His world need not be identical to D&D, even if there are similarities.

This right here? This is the key distinction. Harry Dresden is a heavy user of magic items, that is a character trait that emphasizes character aspects. It allows the gradual dwindling of power for him (where he is never anywhere near full power in the entire series, with maybe one exception), it emphasizes his preparation, and it emphasizes his bent towards tradition. To some extent, it applies to wizards in general, but it is still used as a character trait. Other characters have very few items (e.g Knights of the Cross, most fae), or effectively none (most vampires). As such, the way items are used supports the character, due to being an option.

In D&D, the Christmas Tree Effect is essentially mandatory. It affects every character, regardless of how well it fits them. Instead of being a character element, it is a setting element, where it is never a setting element in any of the material that D&D is inspired from, despite being a common character element in that same material.

KnightDisciple

2012-07-23, 10:59 AM

This right here? This is the key distinction. Harry Dresden is a heavy user of magic items, that is a character trait that emphasizes character aspects. It allows the gradual dwindling of power for him (where he is never anywhere near full power in the entire series, with maybe one exception), it emphasizes his preparation, and it emphasizes his bent towards tradition. To some extent, it applies to wizards in general, but it is still used as a character trait. Other characters have very few items (e.g Knights of the Cross, most fae), or effectively none (most vampires). As such, the way items are used supports the character, due to being an option.

In D&D, the Christmas Tree Effect is essentially mandatory. It affects every character, regardless of how well it fits them. Instead of being a character element, it is a setting element, where it is never a setting element in any of the material that D&D is inspired from, despite being a common character element in that same material.

Thanks for summing this up.

Fatebreaker

2012-07-23, 11:41 AM

Other characters have very few items (e.g Knights of the Cross, most fae), or effectively none (most vampires). As such, the way items are used supports the character, due to being an option.

I haven't read the Dresden Files, but I have some questions regarding exactly how "optional" items are.

(#1) If items make mages better, wouldn't items also make Knights of the Cross, fae, and vampires better? Even if you needed to make different items, what makes a vampire better without stuff than with stuff?

(#2) Within the subset of mages, what makes items optional? Isn't a mage with items better off than an equally skilled mage without items?

In other words, what keeps some optimizer from coming along and saying, "This can be better," and suddenly everyone needs magic items just to stay relevant?

Calimehter

2012-07-23, 11:51 AM

I haven't read the Dresden Files, but I have some questions regarding exactly how "optional" items are.

(#1) If items make mages better, wouldn't items also make Knights of the Cross, fae, and vampires better? Even if you needed to make different items, what makes a vampire better without stuff than with stuff?

(#2) Within the subset of mages, what makes items optional? Isn't a mage with items better off than an equally skilled mage without items?

In other words, what keeps some optimizer from coming along and saying, "This can be better," and suddenly everyone needs magic items just to stay relevant?

In Dresden, most of his gear amplifies abilities he already has, or can only be triggered by the "will" of a spellcaster who can channel arcane energies. Vamps (the non spellcasting majority of them anyway) and Knights really wouldn't be able to do anything at all with Harry's blasting rod or shield bracelet or (I think) even the force rings.

When these guys want to "buff up", they tend to get guns or flamethrowers or allies instead of "magic items", which in many cases can lend them 'equivalent' power boost to Harry's gear, without changing their concept to "needing Wizards to make me stuff" like D&D runs into.

Lapak

2012-07-23, 12:06 PM

Tyndmyr

2012-07-23, 12:06 PM

...Okay, you keep switching between trying to draw parallels between Dresden and D&D, and then saying "it's a book so it's nothing like D&D".

Others drew parallels to D&D. I don't much care if it's exactly like D&D.

I'm pointing out that buckets of magic items are not a hindrance to an excellent story.

As for wizards not using gauntlets of ogre power: Sure, they don't need them. Just like the Fighter doesn't need a Headband of Intellect.

But both end up having at least 1 stat-booster. And both want Dex and Con increasing items. Con especially. Heck, I don't think any character wouldn't want a Con item.

Sure. Something that makes you less likely to die is going to be wanted by all. There is no inherent problem in that. Is there a problem in that the item may be too inexpensive relative to the value? Quite possibly. I can see an argument that this specific item is too readily available.

Because that makes it his creation, his personal item. Anyone can make similiar thing, but this one has the handwriting of it's maker all over it. There may be many coats like that, but this one is Harry's, it's his personal and no one will ever know it as good as him.

So? He didn't make his car, but the car also tells you much about Harry as a person. Magical items, for a story, are just items. They can be used in the same way as any other, and in a magical setting in which wizards got along with each other more, buying and selling of items would be pretty reasonable.

In D&D, the Christmas Tree Effect is essentially mandatory. It affects every character, regardless of how well it fits them. Instead of being a character element, it is a setting element, where it is never a setting element in any of the material that D&D is inspired from, despite being a common character element in that same material.

Not at all. Say, a druid, can gleefully skip magic items and not sweat the consequences much, if at all. Any class can, with optimization, but some classes don't even require that, really.

I haven't read the Dresden Files, but I have some questions regarding exactly how "optional" items are.

(#1) If items make mages better, wouldn't items also make Knights of the Cross, fae, and vampires better? Even if you needed to make different items, what makes a vampire better without stuff than with stuff?

Oh, it absolutely does. So, in the case of the knights of the cross, you've got them wearing what's basically holy chainmail. They tend to rely on faith over arcane stuff, though. On the flip side, Dresden has no qualms about using holy water, even if it's not something he made.

(#2) Within the subset of mages, what makes items optional? Isn't a mage with items better off than an equally skilled mage without items?

A naked mage can still cast. And would beat down a naked non-mage. However, they would be vastly inferior to a prepared, geared mage. Preparation counts for rather a lot in Dresden Files, and loss or expenditure of items corresponds pretty clearly to a drop in available power.

In other words, what keeps some optimizer from coming along and saying, "This can be better," and suddenly everyone needs magic items just to stay relevant?

Nothing, really. It's a crazy world, with all manner of different routes to power, and people grasping at all of them. Magic items are not the only route to power...and not even the fastest of them, but they ARE less likely in general to make you appear evil/"must be stopped", and have little in the way of trade-offs(while other routes frequently have all manner of bad juju associated with them). So, they're pretty commonly used.

It's worth noting that Harry IS decently high on the magic item curve...but is also correspondingly high on the overall power curve. By the current end of the series, he's definitely a magical heavyweight.

Menteith

2012-07-23, 12:15 PM

In Dresden, most of his gear amplifies abilities he already has, or can only be triggered by the "will" of a spellcaster who can channel arcane energies. Vamps (the non spellcasting majority of them anyway) and Knights really wouldn't be able to do anything at all with Harry's blasting rod or shield bracelet or (I think) even the force rings.

When these guys want to "buff up", they tend to get guns or flamethrowers or allies instead of "magic items", which in many cases can lend them 'equivalent' power boost to Harry's gear, without changing their concept to "needing Wizards to make me stuff" like D&D runs into.

This, more or less. While magic items can be made in a way that allows them to be used by others, it's generally far more difficult and will result in a less powerful item. Wizards tend to use magical focuses which allow them increased efficiency in channeling certain types of energy, and most of these items are unique to the Wizard who crafted them. In the DF-RPG system, it's actually possible to make what amounts to an Artificer (who's actually quite powerful), but most of their gear will only work for themselves. On top of that, modern technology keeps pace with what magic items can do (for the most part). While certain activities are simply more powerful than tech, the Laws of Magic tend to limit what people can and can't do, which isn't the case in D&D.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-23, 12:25 PM

the Laws of Magic tend to limit what people can and can't do, which isn't the case in D&D.

While true, note that this is a soft limit, of the "if you break it, people will come and kill you" kind.

Breaking the laws of magic most definitely is possible, and doesn't even appear to be that hard in many cases. Also, it's very, very effective, albeit horrendously destructive.

Giving magical items to muggles MIGHT be somewhat inhibited by the rule against killing with magic, tho. The responsibility in such a case would be fuzzy, and retribution might fall on the crafter as well. However, this doesn't appear to be a major concern for Marcone.

Edit: To further this line of thought, note that EVERY* warden carries a magical sword...all of which are made by a single individual. This demonstrates that magical items most definitely can and are made for others in the dresdenverse, and supports that the limiting factor is probably the council.

*Avoiding spoilers intentionally here.

Menteith

2012-07-23, 12:29 PM

While true, note that this is a soft limit, of the "if you break it, people will come and kill you" kind.

Breaking the laws of magic most definitely is possible, and doesn't even appear to be that hard in many cases. Also, it's very, very effective, albeit horrendously destructive.

Giving magical items to muggles MIGHT be somewhat inhibited by the rule against killing with magic, tho. The responsibility in such a case would be fuzzy, and retribution might fall on the crafter as well. However, this doesn't appear to be a major concern for Marcone.

Wardens use magically crafted swords to execute individuals, so I'd say that it's legal. What constitutes breaking one of the laws is heavily debatable (while the Wardens will certainly use an "if in doubt, execute" policy, but whether or not Harry broke a law in Grave Peril by burning down Bianca's is subject to debate, for example). In the DF-RPG system, there are immediate consequences for law breaking, and while it's not an immediate "Smite the evil-doer", there are pretty severe mental consequences for lawbreaking in the books, as well.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-23, 12:33 PM

Wardens use magically crafted swords to execute individuals, so I'd say that it's legal. What constitutes breaking one of the laws is heavily debatable (while the Wardens will certainly use an "if in doubt, execute" policy, but whether or not Harry broke a law in Grave Peril by burning down Bianca's is subject to debate, for example). In the DF-RPG system, there are immediate consequences for law breaking, and while it's not an immediate "Smite the evil-doer", there are pretty severe mental consequences for lawbreaking in the books, as well.

The rules are very squishy and subject to interpretation, and the swords are most definitely an example of that. Also, there's the blackstaff. How exactly this relates to the immediate consequences is up for debate, though.

I'll also note that the roleplaying books are considered canon, and Harry has the lawbreaker trait, and is damned close to the line.

Menteith

2012-07-23, 12:36 PM

The rules are very squishy and subject to interpretation, and the swords are most definitely an example of that. Also, there's the blackstaff. How exactly this relates to the immediate consequences is up for debate, though.

I'll also note that the roleplaying books are considered canon, and Harry has the lawbreaker trait, and is damned close to the line.

Either way, we can agree that the setting places restrictions on magic using that aren't present in D&Dverse, both due to the actions of those within it (White Council enforcement) and due to the nature of the setting (Laws of Magic, mechanics of magic in general), which allows the mundanes/technology based individuals in the setting to compete with it.

Synovia

2012-07-23, 12:47 PM

I'm pointing out that buckets of magic items are not a hindrance to an excellent story.

D&D is not a story. Its a game with story elements.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-23, 12:54 PM

Either way, we can agree that the setting places restrictions on magic using that aren't present in D&Dverse, both due to the actions of those within it (White Council enforcement) and due to the nature of the setting (Laws of Magic, mechanics of magic in general), which allows the mundanes/technology based individuals in the setting to compete with it.

This depends on the specific setting your game of D&D takes place in. Some, like Dragonlance, do. Some don't. The settings diverge significantly enough that I can't really get any more specific than that.

The Random NPC

2012-07-23, 01:12 PM

It's twelve of the same thing...it's pretty christmas treeish.

It better translates to a wand of telekinetic thrust with a really easy recharge method (punch things), and more rings just add to the max charges you can have.

I haven't read the Dresden Files, but I have some questions regarding exactly how "optional" items are.

(#1) If items make mages better, wouldn't items also make Knights of the Cross, fae, and vampires better? Even if you needed to make different items, what makes a vampire better without stuff than with stuff?

(#2) Within the subset of mages, what makes items optional? Isn't a mage with items better off than an equally skilled mage without items?

In other words, what keeps some optimizer from coming along and saying, "This can be better," and suddenly everyone needs magic items just to stay relevant?

Most of the items are either passive, or just help them focus. So a sufficiently skilled mage wouldn't receive much benefit from the staff and rod, and there's some vague indication that the item needs to be made by the mage to be effective. But yes, most of them would be better off with magic armor and stuff but don't always have access to it, (Knights have angels guarding them, vampires are at war with the mages, and the fae can kind of enchant things on the fly.)

Beleriphon

2012-07-23, 01:12 PM

If you wan to discuss Harry Dresden and the CTE he doesn't really have it.

Functionally he has five magic items that are consistently used: his coat, his shield bracelet, his staff, his rings (they're really one item, in D&D I'd run an item like them as a single item even if each "ring" is presented as being separate) and his blasting rod. He eventually upgrades an otherwise completely mundane amulet (it was just a piece of silver he used a focus), but that's more artifact stuff. The other items have been upgraded and changed since the first book to the most recent, but they are still the same items. This isn't Harry finding a more spiffy blasting rod and dumping his old one, he determines his current one is working the way he wants so he changes the way it works.

He carries a bunch of other stuff with him, but those are all mundane items that let create different types of magical effects (rough equivilent to D&D's spell components). He's not using dozen of items that all do different things for him to let him work. He doesn't carry a dozen wands, have a circlet of intellect, a broach of armour, bracers of more stuff, a belt of other things, boots of awesome-sauce, a hat of coolness, two different rings, glasses of finding things, earmuffs of mind blank, and more.

BRC

2012-07-23, 01:27 PM

In Dresden Files, stuff like the Blasting Rod are focuses. Harry can shoot fire, he is very good at it. The Blasting Rod helps him channel his fire magic, kind of like the difference between throwing a Rock and using a Slingshot. However, each such magical item must be used by the spellcaster who created in. Throughout the Dresden Files, we see different wizards using different foci, each personalized for the Wizard, and their particular style of magic. Harry uses a staff and a rod because he's a traditionalist, other wizards use a length of chain, a mesh of wires, rings, bracelets, and more. The only time we see one wizard using another's foci is in Changes, where Harry borrows Ebenezer McCoy's staff, which was carved from the same tree as Harry's, by the wizard who trained him.

And there is also the Blackstaff, but that's more of an artifact.

Really, the issue with the CTE is how much extra baggage it adds. Every wizard worth their spellbook is going to want a headband of Intelligence. What if, say, the game simply gave PC's less treasure, and said "Alright, Wizards get an INT boost at this level", or just didn't assume that a classes primary stats would get a boost every so often. Monster's AC's are calculated assuming fighters are strength-boosted while wielding Magic swords.

That said, the Christmas Tree Effect is useful because it allows far more character customization than a class-based system usually allows. If you strip away all the "Obvious" purchases, and instead just leave items that actually open up new options for the characters, it can be a good way to construct your character.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-23, 01:45 PM

He doesn't carry a dozen wands, have a circlet of intellect, a broach of armour, bracers of more stuff, a belt of other things, boots of awesome-sauce, a hat of coolness, two different rings, glasses of finding things, earmuffs of mind blank, and more.

But he DOES own the equivalent of that. See, in his basement, next to the magical chicago, and summoning circle, he's got magical components of all stripes. So, when the ghosts are causing trouble, he's going to be packing ghost dust. Holy Water when the vamps are around. And much, much more I can't be bothered to list.

Long story short, while he doesn't pack the entire arsenal with him at all times, he DOES have a magical arsenal, and freely grabs items appropriate to the task at hand.

A more appropriate description is to say that at any point, he can be assumed to have at LEAST five magical items on him(note, the rings can be activated together, and thus are not merely additional uses), and probably has a lot more.

However, each such magical item must be used by the spellcaster who created in.

The swords rather handily disprove that. As does Bob(sure he's an intelligent item, but an item all the same). If you're talking merely about Foci, the model of chicago is one such, and it's most certainly not limited to it's creator for use.

As for the Foci being passive only, I give you Carlos' Gauntlet, which basically has a Disintegrate activated effect.

KnightDisciple

2012-07-23, 01:46 PM

BRC

2012-07-23, 01:49 PM

Honestly, why not be more generous with level-based ability boosts? Like, get +1 to 2 stats of your choice every 2-3 levels, but there are NO stat-boosting items?

That gives everyone enough points you don't end up with a bunch of dump stats; you can have a fighter who's got high str and con, solid dex and int, and average to decent wiz and cha. Or really high strength...

Hm, there's an idea. Put "caps" on abilities, but every 5-10 levels, raise the cap a couple points?
Unless the Caps are very extreme (to prevent cheesy minmaxing), I don't think they would be neccessary, but having natural ability boost every few levels (right now I think you get +1 every four levels or so) could work great.

Also, Carlos's Gauntlet is like Harry's blasting rod. It dosn't give him his disentigrate ability, it just makes him better with it. And the Swords must be attuned to the wizard wielding them (Even if they are made by somebody else, Luccio in this case) which is why Harry dosn't get one.

Talakeal

2012-07-23, 02:04 PM

The one problem I have always had with the CTE is making NPC opponents for the PCs.

If the PC group fights a party of evil adventurers that is roughly a "Fair fight" than the NPCs need to have a number of magic items roughly equal to that of the PCs. This means that after winning such a fight I either have to invoke some sort of DM fiat or double the number of magic items the party possesses.

In a low magic system where characters are expected to have only 1 or 2 magic items this is even harder to balance, not easier.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-23, 02:11 PM

Also, Carlos's Gauntlet is like Harry's blasting rod. It dosn't give him his disentigrate ability, it just makes him better with it. And the Swords must be attuned to the wizard wielding them (Even if they are made by somebody else, Luccio in this case) which is why Harry dosn't get one.

Is there any canon example of him using it without the gauntlet?

The swords must be attuned, granted. That limits looting and pillaging, but is not an obstacle to people making items for others.

The one problem I have always had with the CTE is making NPC opponents for the PCs.

If the PC group fights a party of evil adventurers that is roughly a "Fair fight" than the NPCs need to have a number of magic items roughly equal to that of the PCs. This means that after winning such a fight I either have to invoke some sort of DM fiat or double the number of magic items the party possesses.

In a low magic system where characters are expected to have only 1 or 2 magic items this is even harder to balance, not easier.

NPC WBL is sufficient for this. Be aware that given normal WBL curves, this should not actually be a concern. Mix in monsters that are not gear dependent, and there should be little issues here.

Note also that everyone keeps acting like everyone HAS to have magical gear to be a threat. This is not the case. Melee, at high levels, needs to. This is...by far not the majority case.

BRC

2012-07-23, 02:18 PM

Is there any canon example of him using it without the gauntlet?

He is not specifically stated as wearing the gauntlet in Dead Beat, but it could be there and unmentioned. To assume that Carlos gets his power from the gauntlet is to make him an exception to an established rule, in doing so the burden of proof would be on proving that he it gives him the ability, rather than making him more effective with it.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-23, 02:31 PM

He is not specifically stated as wearing the gauntlet in Dead Beat, but it could be there and unmentioned. To assume that Carlos gets his power from the gauntlet is to make him an exception to an established rule, in doing so the burden of proof would be on proving that he it gives him the ability, rather than making him more effective with it.

Does he use the entropy powers without the gauntlet in Dead Beat(It's been a minute since I've read it, but don't recall it)?

In any case, the RPG makes special mention of his entropy powers in the gauntlet entry(it's an example magic item). It's used "especially for the disintegration shield as shown in White Knight".

Mechanically, this is not an open and shut case, as with sufficient luck/dice tossed, you can basically get away with anything in the RPG...but it DOES provide substantial bonuses, so it's very definitely making it practically possible, and the fluff supports that.

Heliomance

2012-07-23, 02:38 PM

Oh God, this. Arthur has Excalibur, Lancelot has Arondnight, Guts has Berserker Armor and Dragonslayer, Conan in 90's cartoon has Skymetal Sword and his grandfather's amulet (which he didn't even knew was magical until somebody tried to petrify him and he found out what once saved grandpa from Bassilisk-Cthulhu), Elric has Stormbringer, Geralt has amulet in the shape of wolf's head that is symbol of his profession, Frodo has Stinger....D&D Fighter has Greatsword +4. It's just so anticlimatic.

This. So much this. But actually, that's a problem with statting out items at all. Defining them precisely strips the mystery. Excalibur? If you look up its mythological properties and translate it into D&D, the mythical sword of England becomes a +2 Frost longsword. That's all. And no Fighter would give much of a crap about that, beyond a certain level.

BRC

2012-07-23, 02:40 PM

This. So much this. But actually, that's a problem with statting out items at all. Defining them precisely strips the mystery. Excalibur? If you look up its mythological properties and translate it into D&D, the mythical sword of England becomes a +2 Frost longsword. That's all. And no Fighter would give much of a crap about that, beyond a certain level.
I think the name has a lot to do with it. A +2 Longsword is a +2 Longsword, but give it a name like Excaliber, and it's very different.

Also, didn't excaliber's sheath make you invincible or something?

toapat

2012-07-23, 02:42 PM

I think the name has a lot to do with it. A +2 Longsword is a +2 Longsword, but give it a name like Excaliber, and it's very different.

Also, didn't excaliber's sheath make you invincible or something?

The sheath granted Fast healing 2

and Exaclibur is a +2 Shocking Fiery longsword, not a Frost longsword. It just happens to also be able to control flames

Tyndmyr

2012-07-23, 02:48 PM

This. So much this. But actually, that's a problem with statting out items at all. Defining them precisely strips the mystery. Excalibur? If you look up its mythological properties and translate it into D&D, the mythical sword of England becomes a +2 Frost longsword. That's all. And no Fighter would give much of a crap about that, beyond a certain level.

This is true. However, nothing is stopping you from naming your loot as a dungeon master. At least the really good drops, anyway.

And as a PC? I recommend the spell Legend Lore, also known as "Spin me a tale, Dungeon Master...".

Menteith

2012-07-23, 02:52 PM

This is true. However, nothing is stopping you from naming your loot as a dungeon master. At least the really good drops, anyway.

And as a PC? I recommend the spell Legend Lore, also known as "Spin me a tale, Dungeon Master...".

Unearthed Arcana's Item Familiars can replicate those items pretty well. It's just open to abuse, and not well thought out...perhaps a similar variant system could appear in D&D Next?

Heliomance

2012-07-23, 02:52 PM

The sheath granted Fast healing 2

and Exaclibur is a +2 Shocking Fiery longsword, not a Frost longsword. It just happens to also be able to control flames

Nope. No electricity, no fire control. Frost, and a 1/day - or less - activated Sunburst spell that I forgot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excalibur) And even the Frost's ambiguous - it could just be a +2 longsword.

And the sheath doesn't grant fast healing at all. It makes you immune to bleeding damage and automatically stabilises you below 0 HP, possibly grants you the effects of the Diehard feat. That's all.

Calimehter

2012-07-23, 03:51 PM

The swords rather handily disprove that. As does Bob(sure he's an intelligent item, but an item all the same). If you're talking merely about Foci, the model of chicago is one such, and it's most certainly not limited to it's creator for use.

Well, sorta. The swords are powered by faith (or pure intentions or something like that) rather than magical ability, but you still need to have said faith/purity/etc. to use the Swords. Contrast Harry's attempt to use one in Grave Peril with Murphy's attempts to use one. Even after Harry has had their use explained to him, he does not attempt to use one again, knowing that faith/purity/etc. isn't exactly the characteristic or ability that he has a lot of. I don't know if that carries over into the RPG rules, but its how the books describe it. You may not need magic, but you still need something that not every person has.

Likewise, other Wizards could use the chicago model (assuming their skill level was high enough to analyze it properly and figure out how to access it) but other mundanes would not be able to, because they are not magical. A lot of Harrys items would work for other wizards, but not for mundanes.

Bob does work for everyone, magical or mundane. As do the Denarian coins. Those items are pretty much personalities in their own right, though.

Calimehter

2012-07-23, 03:56 PM

Nope. No electricity, no fire control. Frost, and a 1/day - or less - activated Sunburst spell that I forgot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excalibur) And even the Frost's ambiguous - it could just be a +2 longsword.

And the sheath doesn't grant fast healing at all. It makes you immune to bleeding damage and automatically stabilises you below 0 HP, possibly grants you the effects of the Diehard feat. That's all.

Does anyone remember 2nd ed. AD&D's interpretation of Excaliber? I had the book long ago and I seem to recall that they had a very potent set of abilities attached to sword and scabbard, but I haven't read it in a good long while and may be mistaken.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-23, 03:56 PM

Well, sorta. The swords are powered by faith (or pure intentions or something like that) rather than magical ability, but you still need to have said faith/purity/etc. to use the Swords. Contrast Harry's attempt to use one in Grave Peril with Murphy's attempts to use one. Even after Harry has had their use explained to him, he does not attempt to use one again, knowing that faith/purity/etc. isn't exactly the characteristic or ability that he has a lot of. I don't know if that carries over into the RPG rules, but its how the books describe it. You may not need magic, but you still need something that not every person has.

Different swords, talking about the Warden Swords.

The Knight swords are different...artifact like. Can't really just make more willy nilly. Sure, they're magical items, but they're also not going to proliferate because you literally can't make more.

Likewise, other Wizards could use the chicago model (assuming their skill level was high enough to analyze it properly and figure out how to access it) but other mundanes would not be able to, because they are not magical. A lot of Harrys items would work for other wizards, but not for mundanes.

Bob does work for everyone, magical or mundane. As do the Denarian coins. Those items are pretty much personalities in their own right, though.

Granted. That said, a lot of people are assuming a mortal/magical equality from what they wish D&D to be.

This does not exist in the dresdenverse. Sure, you *do* have badass mortals running around...but having magic is undeniably an advantage.

Calimehter

2012-07-23, 04:01 PM

Different swords, talking about the Warden Swords.

Ah. My bad.

I can't recall if any non-wizard has ever tried using one of those in the books, and if their magic-cutting abilities would work for just anyone swinging it. I suppose it would be a bit tough for a mundane to take one from a Warden, so we may never know that one.:smallwink:

Talakeal

2012-07-23, 04:07 PM

Does anyone remember 2nd ed. AD&D's interpretation of Excaliber? I had the book long ago and I seem to recall that they had a very potent set of abilities attached to sword and scabbard, but I haven't read it in a good long while and may be mistaken.

IIRC it was just a long sword of sharpness with a higher than usual +

Tyndmyr

2012-07-23, 04:16 PM

Ah. My bad.

I can't recall if any non-wizard has ever tried using one of those in the books, and if their magic-cutting abilities would work for just anyone swinging it. I suppose it would be a bit tough for a mundane to take one from a Warden, so we may never know that one.:smallwink:

Well, they're supposed to have attunement with the warden swords to use 'em...and I can't imagine that the warden's are happy with the idea of handing out warden blades to non-humans, so it's not really explored in detail.

Interesting "what-if" scenario, tho....

Lapak

2012-07-23, 04:22 PM

Does he use the entropy powers without the gauntlet in Dead Beat(It's been a minute since I've read it, but don't recall it)?

In any case, the RPG makes special mention of his entropy powers in the gauntlet entry(it's an example magic item). It's used "especially for the disintegration shield as shown in White Knight".

Mechanically, this is not an open and shut case, as with sufficient luck/dice tossed, you can basically get away with anything in the RPG...but it DOES provide substantial bonuses, so it's very definitely making it practically possible, and the fluff supports that.The shield, yes - but the shield is clearly a variant on the energy blasts that he tosses around in both books. (And with both hands in White Knight, including the ungloved hand.) The gauntlet is a focus item that lets him take that same dissolving energy and shape it into a static wall that melts everything going through it rather than an energy-bolt.

So it's another focus item based on his powers. Just like Harry can easily produce a great big blast of fire without his blasting rod, but it takes extreme duress or concentration for him to make a tight, focused shot without it.

The Random NPC

2012-07-23, 06:49 PM

The swords rather handily disprove that. As does Bob(sure he's an intelligent item, but an item all the same).

Bob isn't an item, the skull that keeps him from being banished/killed is, but Bob is some kind of intelligence spirit that helps out whoever owns the skull.

Wyntonian

2012-07-23, 06:56 PM

Bob isn't an item, the skull that keeps him from being banished/killed is, but Bob is some kind of intelligence spirit that helps out whoever owns the skull.

Yeah, he is, in the story.

However, if I were to give my players something equivalent to him, I'd make him an intelligent item that includes +x to spellcraft and Know (arcana), maybe a XP cost reduction on making potions and some x/day(or week) divination spells.

I've only read through Death Masks, though, so if it turns out he's actually an angel with a blazing sword in disguise, don't tell me.

He's on the bubble of being a character and not. I'd personally call him an item for the purposes of this discussion, sentient or not

Kadzar

2012-07-23, 09:56 PM

Really, the issue with the CTE is how much extra baggage it adds. Every wizard worth their spellbook is going to want a headband of Intelligence. What if, say, the game simply gave PC's less treasure, and said "Alright, Wizards get an INT boost at this level", or just didn't assume that a classes primary stats would get a boost every so often. Monster's AC's are calculated assuming fighters are strength-boosted while wielding Magic swords.

That said, the Christmas Tree Effect is useful because it allows far more character customization than a class-based system usually allows. If you strip away all the "Obvious" purchases, and instead just leave items that actually open up new options for the characters, it can be a good way to construct your character.So, basically, the problem with the Christmas Tree Effect is that it's essentially a feat tax for magical items? It's not that the characters have a lot of items, it's that they need them to be basically competent, and this takes up space that could be used for far more interesting items?

Augmental

2012-07-23, 10:46 PM

Note also that everyone keeps acting like everyone HAS to have magical gear to be a threat. This is not the case. Melee, at high levels, needs to. This is...by far not the majority case.

Do you have any proof that more players play magical classes then mundane?

The Random NPC

2012-07-23, 11:00 PM

So, basically, the problem with the Christmas Tree Effect is that it's essentially a feat tax for magical items? It's not that the characters have a lot of items, it's that they need them to be basically competent, and this takes up space that could be used for far more interesting items?

That and they tend to be uninteresting taxes to boot.

Lord Tyger

2012-07-23, 11:28 PM

Do you have any proof that more players play magical classes then mundane?

Well, let's look at the core classes. For Pathfinder, there's Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard.

Of these, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard are clearly magical classes. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue are clearly mundane classes. (Well, the monk has mystical abilities, as does the barbarian, but I'm assuming we're talking about casters vs. noncasters).

Paladin and Ranger are both semicasters, so it depends on where you put them. Assuming you count them as mundane, yeah, that's six mundane vs five casters, so assuming for the most simplistic outcome that players are equally distributed through the classes, slight edge to mundane. If you count Paladins and Rangers as casters, one as each, or disregard them altogether, anywhere from a slight to major edge to casters.

Man on Fire

2012-07-24, 04:36 AM

So? He didn't make his car, but the car also tells you much about Harry as a person. Magical items, for a story, are just items. They can be used in the same way as any other, and in a magical setting in which wizards got along with each other more, buying and selling of items would be pretty reasonable.

So? Everyone can have a car and nobody is special because of it Hell, entire tuning thing is really popular because people want their cars to be special Sure, anybody can have a magic trenchcoat, but only Harry Dresden has his magic trenchcoat.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-24, 09:14 AM

Do you have any proof that more players play magical classes then mundane?

I said melee at high levels was the minority case.

Some people play magical, some people play mundane. The stock party is wizard, cleric, rogue, fighter. So, about fifty fifty.

Now, lots of people play at low level. At level one, magic items are not a notable part of balance. Level two? Also not really. Christmas tree effect isn't really a thing until you've got some levels under your belt.

So, the majority of chars are not heavily magic item dependent.

Additionally, it is correct that the majority of classes are magical. So, regardless of how we break it out, the "people who can't make magical items, but need them to be playable" are definitely a minority.

Knaight

2012-07-24, 09:17 AM

So, the majority of chars are not heavily magic item dependent.

The majority of characters are not heavily magic item dependent yet, if that's the argument.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-24, 09:27 AM

The majority of characters are not heavily magic item dependent yet, if that's the argument.

And may never be such. Magical chars never really are. Certain high op chars never really are(I'll grant that this is a thin slice of the chars, tho).

And plenty of campaigns never make it to high levels. Look at published modules, there's a pretty heavy bias toward lower levels.

Lapak

2012-07-24, 09:30 AM

Additionally, it is correct that the majority of classes are magical. So, regardless of how we break it out, the "people who can't make magical items, but need them to be playable" are definitely a minority.I think the general thrust of your argument is on-target, in that there is more low-level than very-high-level play, but being a magical class does not mean 'able to make magic items.' Only some magic-using characters will take item creation feats in 3.x, and few of those will take the full slate of them so that they can craft all the gear they use. I think it's safe to assume that the majority of high-level characters will be using at least some gear that they consider essential but did not make themselves.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-24, 09:41 AM

I think the general thrust of your argument is on-target, in that there is more low-level than very-high-level play, but being a magical class does not mean 'able to make magic items.' Only some magic-using characters will take item creation feats in 3.x, and few of those will take the full slate of them so that they can craft all the gear they use. I think it's safe to assume that the majority of high-level characters will be using at least some gear that they consider essential but did not make themselves.

Not all of them, certainly...but wizards get scribe scroll as a feat. Artificers will absolutely be able to create things...but more importantly, they mostly don't HAVE to craft gear to keep up. Look at the tiers. Highlight all the magical classes. There's mad skewing there.

The druid? Probably won't do any item crafting. But hey, he can remain useful throughout twenty levels of play even if he decides that more than X magic items are too many for his concept. Even if X is zero, and he took vow of poverty. He doesn't need to be a magical christmas tree...he merely can be one, if he wants to be.

toapat

2012-07-24, 09:43 AM

This Topic has inspired me to attempt to solve the Christmas Tree Effect Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250436)

Tyndmyr

2012-07-24, 09:57 AM

This Topic has inspired me to attempt to solve the Christmas Tree Effect Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250436)

Are you familiar with Legacy Weapons? Looks like a very similar concept.

toapat

2012-07-24, 09:59 AM

Are you familiar with Legacy Weapons? Looks like a very similar concept.

yes, i was using legacy weapons as a basis

Calimehter

2012-07-24, 11:14 AM

Besides legacy weapons and item familiars, the rules for Bonded Items from DMG II are also available for mundane-types to create or improve existing magical gear. They even let you tie the item creation effect to meaningful events in the characters life.

jseah

2012-07-24, 02:23 PM

I am going to wind back to the OP and attempt to answer the question again, the source being the replies in this thread.

The Christmas Tree effect is so "reviled" because people treat magic as special.

That is it. Magic is viewed as something that is rare and special, often a little mystical as well. You know what rare means.
By "special", I meant that magic is something that is not grounded in reality, logic or other normal things.
By mystical, I mean that magic is a thing that runs on fairytale thinking. A bridge of mist and sunbeams that occurs once every two full moons; living wood tree sprites as refluffed warforged; that kind of thing.

Decking out characters with common, cheap and simple (+1 bonus) items goes against every single one of the traits.

You can tell I don't subscribe to that, I'm fine with the Christmas Tree effect.

Augmental

2012-07-24, 06:00 PM

The druid? Probably won't do any item crafting. But hey, he can remain useful throughout twenty levels of play even if he decides that more than X magic items are too many for his concept. Even if X is zero, and he took vow of poverty. He doesn't need to be a magical christmas tree...he merely can be one, if he wants to be.

The Druid can ignore magic items because it's Tier 1 - aka overpowered. What if you're playing a low-tier, high-level game? Just because high-level campaigns aren't the norm doesn't mean you can just choose to ignore them.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-25, 08:04 AM

The Druid can ignore magic items because it's Tier 1 - aka overpowered. What if you're playing a low-tier, high-level game? Just because high-level campaigns aren't the norm doesn't mean you can just choose to ignore them.

If you're all low tiered, then you have no problem, and can gleefully use magic items to taste.

All low tier or all high tier isn't really a balance problem at all. The problem is when you've got a mix.

darkdragoon

2012-07-27, 12:48 PM

Problem #1: Math

If characters need a ton of stat boosters and the like to keep pace, would it not be simpler to give them inherent bonuses instead of a zillion +1 attack here, +2 basketweaving there?

Problem #2: Equivalencies have to be well, equivalent.

Unfortunately there's not much in the way of "store brand" effects. You have a ton of items that are poor substitutes for knowing how to cast Haste or having good Charisma. You have others that laugh at their feat or class ability counterparts.

Or it could be a decent effect, just horribly costed.

That's before you get into things like Dispel Magic.

This becomes even worse when you look at how relatively inexpensive some of the caster support items are. I mean really, look at the cost of a pearl of power or rod of lesser extend to adamantine plate, much less something fancy.

Problem #3: Acquiring them

Making items is skewed towards magic-users: Caster level requirement for item creation feats. Spell requirements for many items. Oh and a good chunk of those classes need high Intelligence, so they are going to be better than you at using an Intelligence skill like Craft anyway. You're no Iron Man, heck, you'd have trouble being Paste Pot Pete.

If it's not available at Magic Depot or you don't have a convenient spooky forest where the Master Sword is probably sitting there, what do you do? Ask Santa?