Magic Item Hate

What are the aspects of magic items that you hated the most in 3e or previous editions, and hope will not make it to 4e?

Good poll.

I voted Common, Glut and Entitlement, and almost voting Boring. Those are all interrelated of course, but I like that the options were there.

If WotC fixes the christmas tree effect, and podcast was accurate in saying that PC's could get to 10th level and not even miss magical weapons, I think we're in pretty good shape for 4E.

I agree - good poll.

My picks were Common, Glut, Need & Entitlement.

I said common, glut, trade, and need. In thinking about it, though, trade should be out for the same reason I skipped boring -- those are symptoms of the problem. I don't mind that the PCs can get gold for a magic sword; I mind that the default rules imply relative ease of finding a buyer.

I left off entitlement, because I think a PC fighter should expect to get a magic sword at some point. The rest of the glut, not so much, but a few, legendary trinkets are good.

I hate entitlement. Forcing characters to have a +X weapon just to continue playing your game is a load of +1 Crap.

DM: Damn, I want to use these monsters in my game... but this means I have to give all my PCs an apropriate +X item, so they can all feel useful... Grr!

PCs: Woot! Free +X items!

I voted boring, common, glut, trade, and need. Trade is kind of a subset of common, though.

I didn't vote entitlement, because I think getting magic items is a part of D&D and players should expect that. However, I don't think players should be expecting to get a specific kind of magic item, e.g., a magic weapon. Ideally a magic cape or magic ring or whatever would just as cool for a fighter to have as a magic sword. (This ties in with my vote for "need"...)

Lord Xtheth said:

I hate entitlement. Forcing characters to have a +X weapon just to continue playing your game is a load of +1 Crap.

DM: Damn, I want to use these monsters in my game... but this means I have to give all my PCs an apropriate +X item, so they can all feel useful... Grr!

PCs: Woot! Free +X items!

Click to expand...

That's need, not entitlement.

Entitlement:

PCs: Our guys are underequipped for our level. Give us more magic items or Bob will be the new DM.

The worst offender:

BOR-ING.

Which is related to a few others. But "+1" doesn't seem magical by itself.

"Forged by the dwarven priests of metal in far away lands" does, but then you'd expect it to have more qualities than "it's a slightly pointier stick."

What about "Expensive"? Not in terms of the literal cost, but the idea that your characters must be "X" level before they can reasonably have a Ring of Fire Resistance.

Otherwise the WotC Enforcement Division comes and kicks your doors in.

I'm running a 10th level game, and playing in a 12th level one - we spend an inordinate amount of time identifying, selling, trading, and swapping magic items. When everyone has got something nifty and valuable its tough to ignore it - even those non-magical masterwork chain shirts add up. I'd like it so the mooks can function with mundane items - non-masterwork, I mean - and the big bads should have more intersting stuff, but less of it. I liked the Magic Item Comendium take on items, although the organization is tough on my brain. Items that do a couple things, only a couple of times a day are the way to go.

In 1st and 2nd edition, I tended to give out fewer items, but they tended to be better than what the 3E guidelines call for. I figured you could divide a PC's level by 2 to get the bonus of weapon they probably should have, and didn't worry too much about things like flaming swords or cold tongues being more useful. We saw way less potions and wands, and almost no stat boosting magic (there were only a few items that did this anyway). Wizards had staves by 7th level or so, you might see a staff of power by 10th, a staff of the magi by 14th... With no hard and fast guidelines, I just eyeballed it and it worked out very well.