Worlds of Design: When There's Too Many Magic Items

If you’ve GMed a long-standing campaign where players reached fairly high levels, you may have run into problems of too much magic, or of too many low-powered magic items (such as +1 items) in the hands of the heroes. What to do?

If you’ve GMed a long-standing campaign where players reached fairly high levels, you may have run into problems of too much magic, or of too many low-powered magic items (such as +1 items) in the hands of the heroes. What to do?


While you could simply buy up the surplus, there are other ways that don’t put lots of gold in character’s hands. These methods can be built into a game’s rules (as in Pathfinder 2 “resonance”) or they can be added by the GM.
[h=3]Limit the Supply (i.e., limit ownership)[/h] The proper game design way is to severely limit supply, as could be done in a board game. No magic item sales. Middle-earth is an example of a world with very few magic items.

But what about joint campaigns, where several people GM in the same world? New GMs, especially, will tend to give away too much “to make people happy.”

But that’s a setting thing, not rules/mechanisms. An RPG designer doesn’t control the setting, not even his or her own.

In these days where “loot drops” are the norm, where every enemy in a computer RPG has loot, it’s really hard to get players accustomed to a severe shortage of stuff to find. So limit usage, or provide ways to use up the small stuff.
[h=3]Limit Usage[/h]
  • Tuning to just three (5e D&D)
  • Resonance
  • Easy to come up with other methods
5e D&D’s tuning of magic items to characters is one of the best rules in the game, at least from a designer’s point of view.

Pathfinder 2 beta was using resonance (level plus charisma), whereby use of a magic item uses up some of your resonance for the day, until you have no more and can use no more magic until the next day. It was more complex than that, with you “investing” in items that could then be used all day. There are lots of ways to use the idea.
[h=3]Destroy Them[/h] The D&D method was fireball or LB with failed saving throw. But that was so all-or-nothing that even I didn’t like it. Moreover, the tougher characters tend to end up with even more magic items, relative to others, because they fail their save less often; that may not be desirable.

Have everything (most, anyway) wear out. This is a hassle if you have to track something like charges or uses. I assign a dice chance (or use a standard one for a type of item), and the player rolls after each use (or I do, so the player won’t know until the next time they try to use the item). When the “1" comes up, the item is done, finis, kaput (unless you allow it to be “recharged”). For example, 1 in 20 failure rate is obvious; roll a 1 on a d20, that’s it. With two dice you can make 1 in 40, 1 in 50, whatever you want. If you want armor, shields, and other passive defensive items to wear out, rolling once per combat might do.
[h=3]Burn Them Up[/h]
  • My Skyrafts
  • Furnace Helms in Spelljammer
  • Rituals?
I devised something called Skyrafts, made of segments of Skystone (of course), that could slowly fly when powered by magic items. So you could sacrifice something like a +1 sword to get X miles of travel, X being whatever a GM wishes. The more segments (carrying capacity) in the Skyraft, the more magic it consumed. Yes, this could be expensive, but if your world has become infested with +1 items, this is a way to get rid of them.

Furnace Helms in SpellJammer accomplish the same thing, but only if you’re running a Spelljammer campaign.

You could also devise powerful ritual spells that consume magic items.
[h=3]“Enforcers”[/h] These are people who seek out wimpy characters with magic items much too powerful for them, and take them away. I don’t do this, as it doesn’t make much sense to me. But it could in some contexts.

I'm sure others have devised yet more ways to limit the influence of magic items.

This article was contributed by Lewis Pulsipher (lewpuls) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. You can follow Lew on his web site and his Udemy course landing page. If you enjoy the daily news and articles from EN World, please consider contributing to our Patreon!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
Tell that to the guy who doesn't have a magic sword. Actually, climb into a DM's seat and tell Player B his fighter doesn't get a magic sword even though Player A's fighter got one.
Why do you have two fighters in the same party who both use swords? If you're running a game where magic items are sufficiently rare that this is likely to happen, then you should probably let the players know before the game starts, so they can avoid creating such an obvious conflict.

Life isn't fair, but because this is a game, we can contrive that things will mostly not be fair toward villains and monsters. A mighty hero should be able to wade through hordes of evil opposition, at least partly in thanks to their superior equipment. Magic swords are important to the genre. Don't take that away from the players.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ed Laprade

First Post
I think resonance could work if tweaked. What about non-magic-users can only use, or bring forth, magical effects once per level. After that, there's only a 2 in 6 chance of success... the sword erupting in flame, the healing potion restoring you, or the ring turning you invisible?

Yes, I'm thinking of this through an OSR lens, not Pathfinder.

VS

Ugh. A healing potion that only may, or may not work? No thank you, such a rule would make consumable items nearly useless. They are 'bad' enough in that many people hoard them, waiting for 'just the right time' to use them, which may never come. (Or, if it does, they might not realize it.)
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
Limit Usage


  • Tuning to just three (5e D&D)
  • Resonance
  • Easy to come up with other methods
5e D&D’s tuning of magic items to characters is one of the best rules in the game, at least from a designer’s point of view.

Pathfinder 2 beta was using resonance (level plus charisma), whereby use of a magic item uses up some of your resonance for the day, until you have no more and can use no more magic until the next day. It was more complex than that, with you “investing” in items that could then be used all day. There are lots of ways to use the idea.

I think the 5e treatment of magical items was the main reason it failed for me. Likewise the Resonance system for Pathfinder would have been an absolute hard nope as well.

Its really hard to write anything on this topic without going into full rant mode.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


I ran into a similar problem in 4th Edition D&D. I was using the inherent bonus rules (and so was at least one other GM), so a +1 sword wasn't giving you a larger bonus to hit and damage than you were getting already. However, PCs had lots of cheap low-level items that they didn't give up over several levels. Some of these items gave + bonuses, and some didn't, but in either case the PCs ironically ended up being more powerful than PCs not using inherent bonuses. (To give an example, suppose I was wearing leather armor of teleporting +3. This is far cheaper than leather armor of teleporting +6, but at high epic I'm getting a +6 inherent bonus to AC anyway, so why should I pay to upgrade? This is a much smaller gold sink. Incidentally, I just made up that magic item, as I've lost that old character sheet.)

D&D has a problem with separating magic items from other aspects of the economy. There aren't money sinks. I generally find, as a player, that I'm not interested in money sinks. Perhaps my high-level fighter would like to buy a barony with a stronghold and become a "gold giver" to low-level allied characters, but that only happens when my character is ready to retire. I know the domain stuff is part of the game, but it's generally my least favorite part of the game, especially since it essentially "breaks the team". So instead I'll just spend that money on magic items that keep me alive.
 

Tell that to the guy who doesn't have a magic sword. Actually, climb into a DM's seat and tell Player B his fighter doesn't get a magic sword even though Player A's fighter got one.

I've never had a problem with this. The other player shining bright does not diminish my light. A +1 sword will mean the other player hits 5% more often doing +1 hp of damage. If that really unbalances his effectiveness to the point that I feel useless, there is something else wrong and magic sword won't help it.

There's no I in party.
 

Celebrim

Legend
In my experience, "too many" magic items leads to the "problem" of "too many" henchmen.

That's mainly a problem if the PC's insist every henchmen accompany them, in that it slows down combat. But in my experience, henchmen are much more valuable as camp guards than they are trying to help out in situations that actually challenge the PC's. If the henchmen do go down "in the dungeon", you quickly solve the problem of too many henchmen.
 

pogre

Legend
I will give Mr. Pulsipher credit: I never agree with his column, but he knows how to generate conversation.

OT - I largely agree that action economy alleviates the problem. Magical armor is more of a problem in 5e than magic weapons or other items IMO.
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
In my experience, "too many" magic items leads to the "problem" of "too many" henchmen.

That's mainly a problem if the PC's insist every henchmen accompany them, in that it slows down combat. But in my experience, henchmen are much more valuable as camp guards than they are trying to help out in situations that actually challenge the PC's. If the henchmen do go down "in the dungeon", you quickly solve the problem of too many henchmen.

One way I deal with that particular issue is to institute a "one henchmen on screen at a time" rule. I will flex with it a bit, but in general I want only a few henchmen around. The others can be doing something productive but it will be off screen.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Tell that to the guy who doesn't have a magic sword. Actually, climb into a DM's seat and tell Player B his fighter doesn't get a magic sword even though Player A's fighter got one.
Who made that decision, though? Yeah, that's right - Player A and Player B (and probably the rest of the players were involved too).

Treasure division is purely a player/PC-driven thing, and thus the DM has nothing to do with telling Player B his fighter doesn't get a magic sword other than only putting one* in the adventure to be found.

* - and even then the DM might not be to blame, if she had in fact placed two swords and the PCs missed one...

Where it becomes a problem is when magic items have no pre-determined or game-state monetary value, thus providing no viable way to equalize Player B's PC treasury share for not getting the sword. This alone is enough reason for any system to incorporate magic item pricing.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top