Where Has All the Magic Gone?

Kid Charlemagne said:

I'm planning on junking the guidelines and going back to the way I did things in 2E and 1E for my next campaign. Fewer items overall, but more interesting ones when you get them. I also want to reintroduce magic with the occasional drawback into my games. This has been something I've noted since the early 3E days, and its always been one of my (relatively few) complaints about the 3E philosophy.

Click to expand...

As much as i'd LIKE to do this, it would totally screw up the player's 4e expectations and disrupt the game we've been running for months now. And it would be a lot of work for me. What i'll probably do is keeping playing as we have been, get as much enjoyment as i can from D&D 4e, and then switch to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and run it any way i want because magic is wild and crazy in that system. The way i like it!

Since I'm running both 1e and 4e games nowadays, I've definitely noticed this, to a large extent.

First off, although 4e streamlined magic items and put them in a dry, less-interesting-to-read block format, it took a page from the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium and made it so that items with effects other than simple plusses are the rule rather than the exception. I think this enriches magic items pretty significantly from 3.5's default assumptions.

Second, AD&D 1e magic items are awesome. I love reading through all the bizarre, organic descriptions that make it plain there were no simple formulae at work. No hint of balance, either, by and large - which is part of the charm. There's nothing quite like figuring out bizarre uses for crazy items you looted from a hill giant, and determining what that weird cloak does through trial and error.

What could happen in 1e/2e, though, was that magic item abilities could overshadow a character's own abilities. For example, elven cloaks make everyone better at hiding than a thief. Elven boots make everyone better at sneaking. Girdles of Giant Strength are the meanest stat-boosting items in history. And so on. I remember characters with pages of magic items in my B/X/AD&D/etc games, back in the day, since they were littered all around published modules like candy.

I had a point, but I lost it somewhere along the way. Uhm... Well, I love 1e magic items in 1e-style games. I like 4e (and, by extension, 3.5 MIC) magic items better in 3e/4e-style games.

-O

Nebulous said:

And that's what i'm shooting for, to bend the "safe" rules of 4e and interject a healthy dose of "WTF just happened?

Click to expand...

Same here. My groups 4e campaign is still quite new, we're still clearly in the "learning the system" phase. But once we get more comfortable, I'm sure the DM will begin deviating more from the written rules to produce the desired level of "WTF just happened?".

I mean, the seeds are already sown. My PC is running around his home city with an unbreakable wooden box containing a very small god stuffed into his codpiece.

I'm sure something odd will come of that, mechanically and otherwise.

Nebulous said:

I'm hoping that the "group magic item" will be something i can continue using, i just don't know who to balance it within the existing magic infrastructre. As much as i love adding new stuff, there's always the potential to give them too much of a good thing.

Click to expand...

Don't let the players know exactly how the thing works. For example, your Bag of Tricks pulls out a random critter - don't let the players see the chart (or if you do, make sure they know it's subject to change). If the thing starts disrupting the balance of your game, make the really good animals less likely (or even run out entirely!), or give a chance of the animal attacking the party. If the PCs never use it, beef it up a bit or reduce any drawbacks.

Alternatively, it's make something really, really good with the caveat that it might disappear after a while (like an Artifact). If you don't tell your players how many charges something has, they'll be careful about using it.

As long as you don't give out too many of these kinds of items until you have a pretty good handle on the ones you've already placed, I don't think there's much reason you can't just add these on top of the normal magic items your players are expecting within the system.

Nebulous said:

As much as i'd LIKE to do this, it would totally screw up the player's 4e expectations and disrupt the game we've been running for months now. And it would be a lot of work for me.

Click to expand...

Would it really be that hard? In the Preview for December Article there's already a example of drawbacks with the Von Zarovich Family Sword: vulnerable 10 radiant, no reflection and stunned a turn after defeating a living foe (as the sword feeds).

Seems fairly simple to add drawbacks such as these to 4E items, which would lower the items level as well. For inspiration, one only really need to look at the powers of existing items and think "what if that happened to the wielder instead of the target", or "how could that benefit for the wielder be flipped into a drawback?"

Sir Brennen said:

Would it really be that hard? In the Preview for December Article there's already a example of drawbacks with the Von Zarovich Family Sword: vulnerable 10 radiant, no reflection and stunned a turn after defeating a living foe (as the sword feeds).

Seems fairly simple to add drawbacks such as these to 4E items, which would lower the items level as well. For inspiration, one only really need to look at the powers of existing items and think "what if that happened to the wielder instead of the target", or "how could that benefit for the wielder be flipped into a drawback?"

Click to expand...

Well, that's a good idea, adding drawbacks to the magic items. I hadn't seen that example of the Family Sword. I might need to start doing that.

No, when I said "screw up the player's expectations" I meant that some of the players really dig the balance scheme built into 4e and want me to hand out parcels and magic items "per the book." Scrapping the rules (as much as i would like to) might not settle well with them. I actually did give a player a new (homebrew) magic item and he talked amost immediately about selling it for something from the AV.

Or, when they see how fun the game can still be freeform, they might not care. Maybe i'll do it anyway.

On a related note, I'd like to see a poll on how close DMs follow the parcel rules.

Lacyon said:

Don't let the players know exactly how the thing works. For example, your Bag of Tricks pulls out a random critter - don't let the players see the chart (or if you do, make sure they know it's subject to change). If the thing starts disrupting the balance of your game, make the really good animals less likely (or even run out entirely!), or give a chance of the animal attacking the party. If the PCs never use it, beef it up a bit or reduce any drawbacks.

Click to expand...

I've briefly discussed it with one of them just to get some feedback on how it might work. It's already been established that the Bag can change the animals without warning, and the magical nature of the bag means it might function differently from time to time.

So basically, as we figure out the pros and cons we have a built in reason for it to behave differently. It's a wild and whacky bag.

Oh yeah, i can just see the Ornery Rhino turning on the guy who pulled it!

"Sorry, man. That rule was included in the 2.65 version of the Bag of Tricks. Didn't you get the memo?"

Nebulous said:

No, when I said "screw up the player's expectations" I meant that some of the players really dig the balance scheme built into 4e and want me to hand out parcels and magic items "per the book." Scrapping the rules (as much as i would like to) might not settle well with them. I actually did give a player a new (homebrew) magic item and he talked amost immediately about selling it for something from the AV.

Click to expand...

Eek.

As I mentioned above, I think you can give out the "balanced" treasure parcels and these wacky things without having a giant balance impact. But that doesn't help if the PCs want to sell off the wacky for more balance.

However, given that the thing is wacky, it might help to point out to them that people aren't as willing to buy the item as they would be to buy something predictable - so it's not worth much in the way of cash. (You may also have to reduce the amount of residuum it's worth when broken down). If you let them know that this is bonus instead of taking away from the treasure they'll get otherwise, they should accept that.

Lacyon said:

Eek.

(You may also have to reduce the amount of residuum it's worth when broken down). If you let them know that this is bonus instead of taking away from the treasure they'll get otherwise, they should accept that.

Click to expand...

Well, our Bag of Tricks cannot be broken down into residuum. I'd just have it vanish if they tried. But the balance issue is something i'm trying to work out. It's a pretty damn powerful bag. Potentially pulling a lion and bear to fight at your side (and they're not minions) in the same encounter is a pretty big deal (although they're not as powerful as a real lion or bear)

The drawbacks are fourfold:

1) That lion just cost you 3 healing surges.
2) You still use your minor actions to control it.
3) The bag has a weekly quota of animals that can be pulled.
4) Animals cannot be used to flank or opportunity attack. They're magical
conjurations that do just what it says on their card and nothing else (I
made a laminated card for each animal that details its abilities; they're
stuffed in Crown Royal bag)

So the bag is not tied to the 4e daily rules at all, but exists wholly outside of them as something above and beyond what the PCs would normally be able to do. To me, that feels like magic.

ProfessorCirno said:

Your really can't just pin it all on 4e. It was very much a problem in 3e as well, and they BOTH stem from the same idea of regulating things. 3e killed a lot with it's "Ever wand must have a spell, and every spell must have a wand" rule. I think part of that was due to the emphasis on quantity of magical items; instead of maybe one or two really awesome or creative items, you'd have your standard magic sword, your standard magic item, your Heal Stick, etc, etc. 4e is still very much regulated; a little less in some areas, a little more in others.

The problem with items actually being really mysterious and magical is that, as someone else said, it breaks the game balance wise. Good lord does it break the game balance wise. For some people, that really isn't a problem. For others, it can be.

Click to expand...

I disagree with the gist of what you're saying. It was never about quantity in 3e. That all came about because magic items suddenly became easy to make.

No, the changes in 3e items were to support a regular structure for making magic items. That's why the Wand of Wonder became a Rod of Wonder and all wands were reduced to single-spell varieties, and all multispell wands became staves. Ultimately, most of these were cosmetic changes alone, but they served to break down the structure into easily understandable chunks for the item creation feats.
Though I have to say that the realistic differences between a rod, a wondrous item, and a ring are minor and could all have been covered by a single feat with ease.
Other changes with 3e were made to foster an easier reference scheme. Hence all girdles became belts so they'd sort properly with other belts and so on.

But aside from the structural changes for item crafting, 3e worked pretty hard to preserve the general feel of the 1e-2e magic items. And largely succeeded in doing.