4E, Magic Items, and Epic characters [Archive] - Wizards Community

4E, Magic Items, and Epic characters [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
rob_douglas
01-30-08, 06:19 PM HI All

Did you see this article?

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080123&authentic=true

It talks about the redesign of magic items for 4E. The reason I bring it up here is that it has some interesting insights into epic level character design. Even if you are not thinking about going to 4E, the points it raises do come up in current 3.5 Epic. Namely, that you must have stat boosting items for all your combat abilities (STR, DEX, CON, WIS, and prime spellcasting stat). This limits what the character has and can have.

Looks like they are planning to do away with or severely limit stat boosts. Also, just as a fun aside, they envision only epic characters can have 2 Rings at once or use Ioun Stones.

I have to say, there are things I hate and things I am intrigued by with 4E. I really want to see if they make Low-epic (to level 30) really balanced and workable. I see all the problems with the current system. I am not much of a mid to high epic (level 50-100+) guy, so if they can get my PCs to deityhood, something that was promised, in a way that meets my goal of not making the epic character completely dependent on his equipment to be viable, I am intrigued to say the least.

ROB
Tequila_Sunrise
02-01-08, 04:43 AM They promised deityhood in 4e? Didn't catch that tidbit. In any case, this article makes it clear that characters will still be dependent on their items, even if there aren't quite as many standard items.

TS
rob_douglas
02-01-08, 11:11 AM Yeah, they said something about going to 30th level where the characters can challenge the gods, or even become gods themselves. I am sure they meant retirement at that point, but still, that works for me.

Yes, I think the characters will still need their gear, but it looks like they will be less defined by it. Some gear might improve class abilities, but the class abilities seem to be the main thing someone can do. Like a wand or staff apparently makes your spells better - as opposed to getting a fighter with UMD giving him access to all levels of spells. And fewer standard items allows more variety in magic item design. Look at all the slots and cash an epic character uses for improving ability scores.

ROB
Roivas
02-02-08, 08:03 AM Okay this is another terrible sign that 4th edition will be terrible. Does another else not see this? Using rings after a certain level? WoW. Clothy characters? WoW. Making each class pretty much exactly the same as far as damage output and combat roles seems as though they're trying to balance the game for players vs. players. More WoW.
This is wrong. Dungeons and Dragons has been around for over 30 years and traveled through generations spawning a plethora of similar styled games both electronic and paper. Now in the name of the all mighty dollar Wizards is taking everything that made the game worth playing and throwing it into the maw of MMOFRPG. Did anyone on the development team have the guts to say isn't this turning into a WoW clone?
I won't be stepping past 3.5 unless it somehow manages to prove me wrong.
Taeldrin Laesrash
02-02-08, 11:43 AM Relax. Nothing is wrong with WoW, nor is D&D's taking inspiration from it. I find the ring limitation silly, but the reduction in magic item use is good. (I'd like to do away with them completely, but a +4 sword is just so D&D)
BillTheManiac
02-02-08, 06:49 PM Okay this is another terrible sign that 4th edition will be terrible. Does another else not see this? Using rings after a certain level? WoW. Clothy characters? WoW. Making each class pretty much exactly the same as far as damage output and combat roles seems as though they're trying to balance the game for players vs. players. More WoW.
This is wrong. Dungeons and Dragons has been around for over 30 years and traveled through generations spawning a plethora of similar styled games both electronic and paper. Now in the name of the all mighty dollar Wizards is taking everything that made the game worth playing and throwing it into the maw of MMOFRPG. Did anyone on the development team have the guts to say isn't this turning into a WoW clone?
I won't be stepping past 3.5 unless it somehow manages to prove me wrong.
Having very few item slots? WoWy. Oh wait that's the opposite of WoW, which I'm pretty sure has more/the same number of item slots as D&D 3.5. Because, you know, everyone can use rings in WoW. The only level-based item restrictions in WoW are WEAPON/ARMOR PROFICIENCIES (D&D since 1st edition). Notice how the cloth, unlike WoW, will not provide an armor bonus (like WoW)? It will just be enchanted, like oh say, 3.5 robes.
Interestingly, the designers of WoW and D&D are both mainly worried about PvE balance. So you're wrong twice.
Sorry.
rob_douglas
02-04-08, 11:58 AM Easy Roivas. I don't know if it is that bad. I am a doubter too, but willing to see what is going on. Like I said, I am concerned that 3.5 magic items are mostly about getting enhancement bonuses to all stats, so fixing that in 4E is a good thing to me. I am intrigued by certain magic items being too powerful for lower level folks to use. Never had that in DND, but it makes sense. Right now that rule is enforced through wealth guidelines, not explicit rules. As for enchanting robes, that has always been a point of confusion in 3E. Magic Vestment allows it, but there are no explicit rules about it in the magic armor creation rules. I have been allowing it, as Robes of the ArchMagi offer armor bonuses. So if a character wanted +5 Robes of Fortification, that worked for me. Making this explicitly allowed doesn't change things.

I am really in a wait-and-see and debate frame with 4E. Looking for insights, so I can decided if I am going to switch.

ROB
Roivas
02-07-08, 12:01 PM I may be going a bit more melodramatic than warranted but to quote Jill Valentine after she's been savaged by zombies, "I've got a bad feeling about this." $th edition could be good but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath for it and optimism isn't my strong suit.
Also the WoW comparisons were mostly due to the wording of Wizards own statements which seemed to use fairly familiar terminology. The whole ring thing seems ridiculous in particular because how the hell can a ring tell what level you are? The fourth wall seems thinner than ever here.
And if you don't think that turning a well known and loved game into a WoW clone is a bad thing try playing Star Wars Galaxies.
Taeldrin Laesrash
02-07-08, 09:26 PM And if you don't think that turning a well known and loved game into a WoW clone is a bad thing try playing Star Wars Galaxies.

I'd suggest playing the Star Wars SAGA Edition, which was a mechanical forefather of 4e. As I recall, it was well-liked, which gives me hope.

WoWing something may not always work out, I agree, but I'd also suggest ignoring anything they say about 4e short of the actual material. Doubtlessly, they're tripping over themselves at times, and their research may be questionable. Form your own opinions.
Roivas
02-08-08, 05:03 PM I did form my own opinion. It was based off of data collected through my eyes and ears. A positive attitude is not forthcoming.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rob_douglas 01-30-08, 06:19 PM	HI All Did you see this article? http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080123&authentic=true It talks about the redesign of magic items for 4E. The reason I bring it up here is that it has some interesting insights into epic level character design. Even if you are not thinking about going to 4E, the points it raises do come up in current 3.5 Epic. Namely, that you must have stat boosting items for all your combat abilities (STR, DEX, CON, WIS, and prime spellcasting stat). This limits what the character has and can have. Looks like they are planning to do away with or severely limit stat boosts. Also, just as a fun aside, they envision only epic characters can have 2 Rings at once or use Ioun Stones. I have to say, there are things I hate and things I am intrigued by with 4E. I really want to see if they make Low-epic (to level 30) really balanced and workable. I see all the problems with the current system. I am not much of a mid to high epic (level 50-100+) guy, so if they can get my PCs to deityhood, something that was promised, in a way that meets my goal of not making the epic character completely dependent on his equipment to be viable, I am intrigued to say the least. ROB
Tequila_Sunrise 02-01-08, 04:43 AM	They promised deityhood in 4e? Didn't catch that tidbit. In any case, this article makes it clear that characters will still be dependent on their items, even if there aren't quite as many standard items. TS
rob_douglas 02-01-08, 11:11 AM	Yeah, they said something about going to 30th level where the characters can challenge the gods, or even become gods themselves. I am sure they meant retirement at that point, but still, that works for me. Yes, I think the characters will still need their gear, but it looks like they will be less defined by it. Some gear might improve class abilities, but the class abilities seem to be the main thing someone can do. Like a wand or staff apparently makes your spells better - as opposed to getting a fighter with UMD giving him access to all levels of spells. And fewer standard items allows more variety in magic item design. Look at all the slots and cash an epic character uses for improving ability scores. ROB
Roivas 02-02-08, 08:03 AM	Okay this is another terrible sign that 4th edition will be terrible. Does another else not see this? Using rings after a certain level? WoW. Clothy characters? WoW. Making each class pretty much exactly the same as far as damage output and combat roles seems as though they're trying to balance the game for players vs. players. More WoW. This is wrong. Dungeons and Dragons has been around for over 30 years and traveled through generations spawning a plethora of similar styled games both electronic and paper. Now in the name of the all mighty dollar Wizards is taking everything that made the game worth playing and throwing it into the maw of MMOFRPG. Did anyone on the development team have the guts to say isn't this turning into a WoW clone? I won't be stepping past 3.5 unless it somehow manages to prove me wrong.
Taeldrin Laesrash 02-02-08, 11:43 AM	Relax. Nothing is wrong with WoW, nor is D&D's taking inspiration from it. I find the ring limitation silly, but the reduction in magic item use is good. (I'd like to do away with them completely, but a +4 sword is just so D&D)
BillTheManiac 02-02-08, 06:49 PM	Okay this is another terrible sign that 4th edition will be terrible. Does another else not see this? Using rings after a certain level? WoW. Clothy characters? WoW. Making each class pretty much exactly the same as far as damage output and combat roles seems as though they're trying to balance the game for players vs. players. More WoW. This is wrong. Dungeons and Dragons has been around for over 30 years and traveled through generations spawning a plethora of similar styled games both electronic and paper. Now in the name of the all mighty dollar Wizards is taking everything that made the game worth playing and throwing it into the maw of MMOFRPG. Did anyone on the development team have the guts to say isn't this turning into a WoW clone? I won't be stepping past 3.5 unless it somehow manages to prove me wrong. Having very few item slots? WoWy. Oh wait that's the opposite of WoW, which I'm pretty sure has more/the same number of item slots as D&D 3.5. Because, you know, everyone can use rings in WoW. The only level-based item restrictions in WoW are WEAPON/ARMOR PROFICIENCIES (D&D since 1st edition). Notice how the cloth, unlike WoW, will not provide an armor bonus (like WoW)? It will just be enchanted, like oh say, 3.5 robes. Interestingly, the designers of WoW and D&D are both mainly worried about PvE balance. So you're wrong twice. Sorry.
rob_douglas 02-04-08, 11:58 AM	Easy Roivas. I don't know if it is that bad. I am a doubter too, but willing to see what is going on. Like I said, I am concerned that 3.5 magic items are mostly about getting enhancement bonuses to all stats, so fixing that in 4E is a good thing to me. I am intrigued by certain magic items being too powerful for lower level folks to use. Never had that in DND, but it makes sense. Right now that rule is enforced through wealth guidelines, not explicit rules. As for enchanting robes, that has always been a point of confusion in 3E. Magic Vestment allows it, but there are no explicit rules about it in the magic armor creation rules. I have been allowing it, as Robes of the ArchMagi offer armor bonuses. So if a character wanted +5 Robes of Fortification, that worked for me. Making this explicitly allowed doesn't change things. I am really in a wait-and-see and debate frame with 4E. Looking for insights, so I can decided if I am going to switch. ROB
Roivas 02-07-08, 12:01 PM	I may be going a bit more melodramatic than warranted but to quote Jill Valentine after she's been savaged by zombies, "I've got a bad feeling about this." $th edition could be good but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath for it and optimism isn't my strong suit. Also the WoW comparisons were mostly due to the wording of Wizards own statements which seemed to use fairly familiar terminology. The whole ring thing seems ridiculous in particular because how the hell can a ring tell what level you are? The fourth wall seems thinner than ever here. And if you don't think that turning a well known and loved game into a WoW clone is a bad thing try playing Star Wars Galaxies.
Taeldrin Laesrash 02-07-08, 09:26 PM	And if you don't think that turning a well known and loved game into a WoW clone is a bad thing try playing Star Wars Galaxies. I'd suggest playing the Star Wars SAGA Edition, which was a mechanical forefather of 4e. As I recall, it was well-liked, which gives me hope. WoWing something may not always work out, I agree, but I'd also suggest ignoring anything they say about 4e short of the actual material. Doubtlessly, they're tripping over themselves at times, and their research may be questionable. Form your own opinions.
Roivas 02-08-08, 05:03 PM	I did form my own opinion. It was based off of data collected through my eyes and ears. A positive attitude is not forthcoming.