General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Though here's a question: if you take out the magical item economy, what would gold be used for? That's pretty much the only thing that you can buy, outside of alchemical items.
There's always Roleplaying things, like houses and keeps and such.
That raises the question of why PCs need to be rewarded with gold all the time? Surely the occassional magic item a few coins, some praise(or terror) and the experience are reason enough?
Though here's a question: if you take out the magical item economy, what would gold be used for? That's pretty much the only thing that you can buy, outside of alchemical items.
Though here's a question: if you take out the magical item economy, what would gold be used for? That's pretty much the only thing that you can buy, outside of alchemical items.
True, which is why my step 4 is optional...I distinctly remember pre 3.x games where we would find thousands of gp and not give a care in the world since you couldn't really buy anything you consider useful.
There's also something I don't think many people realize about the 4e treasure system.
Someone on the WOTC board actually did the math for the treasure parcels and compared it and noticed that even if the treasure lists were totally randomized, the party would not be ADVERSELY affected.
So instead of everyone having the +3 longsword of their choice if you let players request certain magic items, they could have the +2 longsword of their choice OR the +3 random magic item.
In effect, you get the best of both worlds...the thrill of magic items being special since they will be "more powerful" than your level when you get them AND the customization option if you are willing to forego a little power.
Contray to popular belief, a character that is wielding a longsword +2 instead of a +3 is NOT a gimped character...Frankly, you're not going to notice it over the course of an encounter due to the numbr of rolls made...
When trying to be snarky, make sure you do not look foolish . The devs have indeed stated on two seperate occasions that the + items where left in the game for bovine reasons. One of the places was an online article, the other a post iirc.
Foolish about what? I would think that statments like that would be plainly against the board rules.
I told you what it was I didn't know. You still haven't identified where this came from, or anything that lets someone who doesn't know the context make any sense of it in terms of game design.
The thing that's setting off my bs detector is that "sacred cow" is a perjorative term. It suggests to me that the designers included something that they knew wouldn't make for a good game. For what reason? Since when did the 4E people give two hoots about anything in prior editions? Why would they admit to comprimising on their principles without an explanation?
I'm being skeptical, not snarky. There are lots of people on this board making unsubstantiated pronouncements about what 4E should and shouldn't be. And like you, they may or may not be right but I think it's sensible to expect a little substance (I don't mean restating what you said and adding the word "indeed" to the end). I often suspect that these rememberances that people have are filtered through a layer of interpretation. Saying "I remember seeing it somewhere" is fine for your purposes I suppose, but I see no harm in asking for sources on things that you're claiming were said by someone else.
The other thing about context: I remember one instance of the devs not agreeing on an issue. The case I remember was character death and dying rules. So the opinion of a single dev about a certain rule that was kept in the game may not be the final word on what the other devs thought or what it all really means.
Though here's a question: if you take out the magical item economy, what would gold be used for? That's pretty much the only thing that you can buy, outside of alchemical items.
This is one reason I have gotten rid of gold and instead have a very, very loose and easily reimagined "Resource" amount. It goes from 1-5. One being you can just make ends meat and such. 2-5 varies for each campaign if it is in a rich area, then perhaps 5 is your own airship, in another it means you can actually live inside the town, etc.
I also like that since Resource is fairly open it can be whatever you wish. You find out some juicy info, then that is a Resource point, you gain the favour/letter from a ruler that is another Resource point. As well as normal treasure and such.
As such Resources becomes more a plot-tool and such and less a means to gain power, or equipment.
__________________ Secret Member of... *blink, blink* Damn you amnesia!
I mean, thinking that no matter how Strong/Intelligent/whatever you are, that you'd be simply worse off if you didn't have [insert-item-here]. I want to be the strong/intelligent/whatever one. Because of what I am, not because of what I own.
I understand how you feel. Usually I'm not bothered by the phenomenon. After all, even Thor had a magic belt of strength. Sometimes the item is part of the legend.
My only real quibble with the whole thing is that if you want to play a character who's hygienic, he can lose half his powers by having his clothes stolen while he's taking a bath.
But that break in suspension of disbelief aside, I like the magic item system simply because, as a game, it's fun to get stuff. Sure, you could just tack on all the powers of a Holy Avenger onto the character, but then you lose the fun of finding the Lost Sword of St. Argantine buried in the lich-lord's crypt.
Now I suppose one could make a claim that you could still find said Lost Sword, it simply wouldn't have any powers. But speaking from my own experience, what makes for a memorable magic item is the combination of a good backstory and interesting/potent powers. Only one or the other simply doesn't get the job done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuindordm
I could go on... but in their effort to make magic items not matter too much, it feels to me like WotC made items not matter at all.
I agree. Magic items seem to have become significantly less potent in this edition of the game. And because of this, it's even more important for DMs to make them special in other ways. Many of us were doing this already, but it's more necessary now since a lot of the time a magic item's powers won't be making anyone "ooh" or "aah" on their own.
Currently I'm leaving magic items as they are. I don't want to mess with the balance at this point. Once I've gained more experience with the new system, I may drop a more potent item into the mix here and there.
__________________ signed Jere, Lord of Pendragon
"Raven dark but beautiful, in a malevolent sort of way;
With eyes that speak of wonders on the other side of Day.
She dances in the shadows where others fear to tread;
But though her touch may kill you, it's her love that you should dread."
There's always Roleplaying things, like houses and keeps and such.
That raises the question of why PCs need to be rewarded with gold all the time? Surely the occassional magic item a few coins, some praise(or terror) and the experience are reason enough?
That depends. Often the motivation for going into a dungeon is the promise of treasure.
Magic items haven't been "magic" since 2e IMO. Most of the Flavour has been missing since, a failing of the last two editions.
I'm not sure if they were all that more "magical" in 1e, either.
As far as I can tell, a great part of what people want when they complain about magic and/or magic items being "not magical" is unpredictability, and not knowing what something is or what it can do.
This is a tricky thing to want in a game, especially of things that are commonly player-used (like magic).
__________________
Cannon is a big gun. Canon is the accumulated official setting material.
"The only thing more cliched and annoying than fanboy elf-love is fanboy elf-hate."
Yeah, I don't think we want to go back to the way magical items were handled in 2e (arbitrary random qualities) but it was those arbitrary random qualities which made them interesting. Magical items in 3e, and to a greater degree 4e, are much more standardized. Thus it is harder to have wonder when it fits a modular slot of boosting existing character abilities, or providing a single (balanced for level) ability. Part of what made gauntlets of Ogre Power or the Girdle of Giant Strength cool was the fact that you became the strongest man in the world when you wore them. This is always going to have to be sacrificed if you want balance, and if you don't want your character to be all about your gear. Still, it always a hoot for the DM to grab an overpowered and poorly designed magical item off the random treasure table, if only for a little while.
I think though that I might have been a bit harsh on 4e magical items as I go through a lot of the conversions. Most of the wondrous items have carried forward with flavour intact, and those are the ones I like best anyway.
As for what you spend gold on besides magical items... why hirelings and strongholds of course! The neglected and unappreciated third pillar of D&D. We just need to make it easier to fit with adventuring. Instant fortresses, ships, and astral domains are all steps in the right direction.
And because of this, it's even more important for DMs to make them special in other ways. Many of us were doing this already, but it's more necessary now since a lot of the time a magic item's powers won't be making anyone "ooh" or "aah" on their own.
Currently I'm leaving magic items as they are. I don't want to mess with the balance at this point. Once I've gained more experience with the new system, I may drop a more potent item into the mix here and there.
An easy way to do that is to simply describe the magic item's effects in unique ways.
Take a Lifedrinker Dagger for example. The mechanics say that it simply drains HP on a hit. What if it were instead a "Tendril of Zuggtmoy" that buries blood-sucking fungal mycelia into the wounds it inflicts? Then, when the blood is drained, mycelia grow into the wielder's hands and transfer the vitality. The wielder feels this as a strange, tickling sensation.
Last edited by Hexmage-EN; 28th May 2009 at 02:07 AM..
My new theory is that the problem isn't the ruleset, but the internet.
Before 1999, I barely had any idea what other gaming groups did. Then I got on the Eric Noah message boards (later EN World), and people started all using the same gear and posting builds and stuff. I wonder if 2nd edition magic items would have fared any better.
__________________ Ryan "RangerWickett" Nock
Author of the War of the Burning Sky serialized novel, free at EN World. Part Two, The Irons Have Tolled, now available.
My new theory is that the problem isn't the ruleset, but the internet.
Before 1999, I barely had any idea what other gaming groups did. Then I got on the Eric Noah message boards (later EN World), and people started all using the same gear and posting builds and stuff. I wonder if 2nd edition magic items would have fared any better.
I think 2e would have fared the same if it had the same magic item creation rules as 3e. Rather than the internet, I think that's the main culprit.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
An easy way to do that is to simply describe the magic item's effects in unique ways.
Take a Lifedrinker Dagger for example. The mechanics say that it simply drains HP on a hit. What if it were instead a "Tendril of Zuggtmoy" that buries blood-sucking fungal mycelia into the wounds it inflicts? Then, when the blood is drained, mycelia grow into the wielder's hands and transfer the vitality. The wielder feels this as a strange, tickling sensation.
This is exactly what I already do. But there's something for a magic item actually being potent as well as cool.
__________________ signed Jere, Lord of Pendragon
"Raven dark but beautiful, in a malevolent sort of way;
With eyes that speak of wonders on the other side of Day.
She dances in the shadows where others fear to tread;
But though her touch may kill you, it's her love that you should dread."
Though here's a question: if you take out the magical item economy, what would gold be used for? That's pretty much the only thing that you can buy, outside of alchemical items.
It can be spent on followers, or for building a fortress.
__________________ "Democracy must be something more than two gnolls and an elf voting on what to have for dinner."
Personally for my group when it comes to specifically money (I don't think I have actually specifically used gold in years) Resources they have used it for:
Bribery.
Paying for certain tasks. Having a spy master as a NPC-friend need to give them something in return.
Paying for bolt-holes to hide in.
Travel costs such as trains, airships, etc.
There are others but those are some big ones I remember.
__________________ Secret Member of... *blink, blink* Damn you amnesia!
It can be spent on followers, or for building a fortress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rechan
Which costs what? And what are the rules for followrs? Are they minions?
There are no rules for it in 4.0E.
A DM would either have to make it up from scratch, or base it on previous editions.
Henchmen would have a salary whether they are minion/thugs, or standard/specialists.
And fortresses would be assigned "levels", with different features (size, location construction, etc) determining the level and value.
Heck... I can see it now, the Construct Fortress ritual... just add gold and you have a brand spankin' new fortress in an hour!
Seriously, I'd like to see the DMG-III have fortress and hireling guidelines. As a player, I enjoy the city/temple/guild building aspect of role playing.
__________________ "Democracy must be something more than two gnolls and an elf voting on what to have for dinner."
Heck... I can see it now, the Construct Fortress ritual... just add gold and you have a brand spankin' new fortress in an hour!
Seriously, I'd like to see the DMG-III have fortress and hireling guidelines. As a player, I enjoy the city/temple/guild building aspect of role playing.
I don't see what's not serious about that ritual. It seems like a great idea for an epic level ritual to go along with the Fey Liege, or Darklord, or Archmage, Winter Sovereign and other epic destinies. All you have to do is make the ritual as expensive as building the keep mundanely.
Foolish about what? I would think that statments like that would be plainly against the board rules.
I told you what it was I didn't know. You still haven't identified where this came from, or anything that lets someone who doesn't know the context make any sense of it in terms of game design.
The thing that's setting off my bs detector is that "sacred cow" is a perjorative term. It suggests to me that the designers included something that they knew wouldn't make for a good game. For what reason? Since when did the 4E people give two hoots about anything in prior editions? Why would they admit to comprimising on their principles without an explanation?
I'm being skeptical, not snarky. There are lots of people on this board making unsubstantiated pronouncements about what 4E should and shouldn't be. And like you, they may or may not be right but I think it's sensible to expect a little substance (I don't mean restating what you said and adding the word "indeed" to the end). I often suspect that these rememberances that people have are filtered through a layer of interpretation. Saying "I remember seeing it somewhere" is fine for your purposes I suppose, but I see no harm in asking for sources on things that you're claiming were said by someone else.
The other thing about context: I remember one instance of the devs not agreeing on an issue. The case I remember was character death and dying rules. So the opinion of a single dev about a certain rule that was kept in the game may not be the final word on what the other devs thought or what it all really means.
I doubt I was against any board rules, but if you think I am, I suggest you report me and let the mods decide. They are usually pretty good. When that is said, I apparently misread your post as snark. Sorry about that. I will see if I can dig up the quote (or rather, the article), but I must admit that it has been a while since I read it. Could be anywhere really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerWickett
My new theory is that the problem isn't the ruleset, but the internet.
Before 1999, I barely had any idea what other gaming groups did. Then I got on the Eric Noah message boards (later EN World), and people started all using the same gear and posting builds and stuff. I wonder if 2nd edition magic items would have fared any better.
I agree, the internet ruined D&D to an extend.
__________________
355 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 21th level Musings of an Epic Virgin
. The devs have indeed stated on two seperate occasions that the + items where left in the game for bovine reasons. One of the places was an online article, the other a post iirc.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
