Buying and Selling Magical Items

[Celebrim]

For fighter type characters, the main equipment they use is as important as their personality, and likely more important than their background.

This is a flaw in the 3.X fighter, and really a flaw that has been around since the introduction of the idea of specialization (which I've detested since 1e). I consider it practically a non-issue in my current house rules, but I do understand where you are coming from if you are using stock RAW.

Very Bad: You find an Elven crafted Warhammer with woodland scenes on it in delicate filigree. It's a +6 Flaming Burst, Undead Bane weapon. (Looks at the 6 Battlehammer feats that I'd no longer be able to use)(Item is never seen again)(Am a little bit annoyed that the GM want's me to be grateful for something that is so close to useful I can almost taste it, but it mostly feels like a knife twisting).

That you consider this very bad is to me proof of system disfunctionality, since it is to me a clear indication of better DMing than the things you consider 'good'. Sadly, not all good DMs are also good rulesmiths, although I'd generally expect a good DM to also make the awesome find a 'battlehammer' (whatever the heck that is) if he knew you were focused as a user of only one type of weapon.

That the Knight is stuck using studded leather and a dagger for levels (because he can't get magical knightly weapons and armor) is just screwing over the character.

Errr... seriously... does this ever happen?

 

[Troll Slayer]

Errr... seriously... does this ever happen?

I've had a few stingy DMs who love using magically damage resistant creatures and yet have only given the party a single +1 weapon. Running from monsters we couldn't hurt got real old, real fast. One such instance involved a +1 dagger, so yes, it does happen. Once in a while makes for interesting circumstances, an entire adventure makes for a crappy game night.

In the end magic item distribution is all a part of the delicate juggling act we do to ensure the game is actually fun. Some GMs suck at juggling.

I'm reminded of why I hate character traits that force you to pick one very specific category out of many you could possibly encounter. Way to be rigid game systems!

 

[Celebrim]

Really? They never sold these items? Hmm. In any case, it seems like if they've got a dozen magical swords in storage, and they go away adventuring, there's a source for an "acquisition specialist" who has customers looking for magical weapons.

Typically, these would have been carried around in a chest placed in a portable hole or a bag of holding or some similar magical container.

But the larger issue that raises is that kind of 'screw you' antagonistic stance from a DM is likely to quickly land the DM in a situation where he doesn't have any players. And even if it doesn't, what it will do is make for a disfunctional game where players spend whole sessions going into absurd detail over the precautions that they are making to prevent the DMing from screwing them in this fashion.

 

[Dausuul]

I've had a few stingy DMs who love using magically damage resistant creatures and yet have only given the party a single +1 weapon. Running from monsters we couldn't hurt got real old, real fast. One such instance involved a +1 dagger, so yes, it does happen. Once in a while makes for interesting circumstances, an entire adventure makes for a crappy game night.

In the end magic item distribution is all a part of the delicate juggling act we do to ensure the game is actually fun. Some GMs suck at juggling.

True dat. But of course this depends on how much reliance on magic items is built into the rules. One of the things I like about 4E is that there is very little that requires magical gear; for the most part, the only reason you need "plussed items" is to make the math come out right, and if you use inherent bonuses you don't even need that. You no longer need a lukewarm brass acid tonsils weapon +3.14 to take on certain monsters.

 

[Celebrim]

I've had a few stingy DMs who love using magically damage resistant creatures and yet have only given the party a single +1 weapon. Running from monsters we couldn't hurt got real old, real fast. One such instance involved a +1 dagger, so yes, it does happen. Once in a while makes for interesting circumstances, an entire adventure makes for a crappy game night.

While I agree with the general gist of that, it isn't really a counter example. The assertion was that a Knight went for several levels wearing only ring and wielding only a dagger. I have serious difficulty imagining a campaign where you had a Knight who couldn't afford at least mail and probably plate before getting to 3rd level, and likewise can't imagine a campaign were you could get to 3rd level without at least being able to scrounge some better weapon than a dagger from your defeated foes - club, battleaxe, scimitar, whatever. Granted, it might not be magical plate and a magical longsword, but you ought to at least be able to improve your mundane equipment to whatever is the local technological standard.

As for your story, I typically introduce my first DR/magic type creature just before I think the PC's will have adequate magic items to deal with it. I do this because I think it makes an interesting test of player creativity, since there are lots of ways to deal with a DR/magic creature even if you don't have magic weapons. I would expect your average party to be able to scrape through such a fight with a combination of torches, flaming oil, critical hits, power attacks, and spells or in some cases bullrushes, trips, grappling, the use rope skill, and a suitably high ledge or deep pool of water. In one case I did this when the magic item needed to beat the creature was in the room with it. If the party can't deal with this situation, it points to a lack of creativity and overly linear thinking that needs to be addressed.

But I agree that such a problem is really only intesting once, and loses much of its fun if repeated. Before I hit the party with a second DR/magic type creature I'd probably wait until magic items are more ubiquitous.

 

[prosfilaes]

But the larger issue that raises is that kind of 'screw you' antagonistic stance from a DM is likely to quickly land the DM in a situation where he doesn't have any players. And even if it doesn't, what it will do is make for a disfunctional game where players spend whole sessions going into absurd detail over the precautions that they are making to prevent the DMing from screwing them in this fashion.

I completely understand that DMs can always "defeat" any security the PCs can put up, and an arms escalation will be completely unfun for the players. (I've felt that way about some of the old-school wish interpretation.) But if you recovered the fabled treasure of the Caverns of Chaos and are storing it in town, someone's going to try to get it. Maybe if the DM made a point of pointing out to the players reasonable security precautions, and then not getting through them.

In any case, no matter how much you may not want to do this to the player's storehouse, NPCs are fair game. Does the only weapon capable of fighting Inco the Immortal reside in the treasure room of a noble with no intent of letting it leave his house? Are the PCs willing to earn the enmity of the mob/thieves guild by breaking into their storeroom for hard-to-acquire weapons? Do the PCs unknowingly acquire traceable stolen weapons? (Okay, so that could frustrate the players as well.) Do the PCs knowingly acquire stolen weapons, and have to worry about Joe the Paladin catching up with them?

 

[Dverge]

This is a flaw in the 3.X fighter, and really a flaw that has been around since the introduction of the idea of specialization (which I've detested since 1e). I consider it practically a non-issue in my current house rules, but I do understand where you are coming from if you are using stock RAW.

This isn't a mechanics issue. A Knight in Shining Armor and a Swashbuckler will and should have different equipment and fight differently. This is a core part of their character concept. The GM or the loot roll twisting this is as bad as alignment changes, and far more common.

I like specialization. The archer should be better with a bow than the knight, and the swordmaster should be better with a sword than the archer.

That you consider this very bad is to me proof of system disfunctionality, since it is to me a clear indication of better DMing than the things you consider 'good'. Sadly, not all good DMs are also good rulesmiths, although I'd generally expect a good DM to also make the awesome find a 'battlehammer' (whatever the heck that is) if he knew you were focused as a user of only one type of weapon.

It's 1/2 aesthetics and 1/2 mechanics. The pretty Elven weapon doesn't really fit with the rest of the Dwarven Tank. It's an exotic version of a warhammer (like a waraxe or bastard sword). Personally I think that anything with an exotic and regular version should be the same for feats (...), but that's something else. Having the GM make it relies on both the GM being good at it, and their knowledge of the character. This can go horribly wrong even with a good GM. They'll still have less knowledge than the player about the character.

The 3'rd 1/2 is Christmas syndrome. Getting loot, especially 'special' loot is like Christmas. Would you rather be told you're not getting a present, or get exited and in front of your expectant family open socks (as a child)?

Errr... seriously... does this ever happen?

2'nd Edition. Large, martial character heavy party (esp tank fighters). Random loot. A bit of bad luck. A couple rust monsters. At somewhere in the mid-levels, 1/2 the martial characters were using mundane weapons against anything that didn't require magic. This is with enough light armor, polearms, clubs, weird weapons to equip 3 parties our size. The GM gave the party mage a spell to transfer enchantments and we went from desperately avoiding death to slaughtering monsters overnight.

 

[Dverge]

While I agree with the general gist of that, it isn't really a counter example. The assertion was that a Knight went for several levels wearing only ring and wielding only a dagger. I have serious difficulty imagining a campaign where you had a Knight who couldn't afford at least mail and probably plate before getting to 3rd level, and likewise can't imagine a campaign were you could get to 3rd level without at least being able to scrounge some better weapon than a dagger from your defeated foes - club, battleaxe, scimitar, whatever. Granted, it might not be magical plate and a magical longsword, but you ought to at least be able to improve your mundane equipment to whatever is the local technological standard.

Mundane non-exotic weapons were easy. Everyone had them. With 1/2 the encounters being NO/+X monsters (2E), well you get the idea.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I don't have buying and selling magic armor or weapons. Mostly because I don't have magic armor or weapons at all. Inherent bonuses for the win.

Also I find it kinda silly that shops break a person's immersion in the game where castles exist alongside flying creatures (Boy those walls sure did you a lot of good), organized warfare exists alongside wizards (Cloudkill. Just... cloudkill), and medieval class systems appear alongside clerics (Gee I'm sure literally irradicating all disease could never have any social ramificatioons at all!)

This is ignoring that, at it's heart, it's a game where medieval knights in ren-era platemail (But no guns! Never any guns!) use greatclubs to fight flying magical lizards so they can steal more gold then literally exists from their cave.

Verisimilitude is more or less the practice of ignoring realism because realism isn't fun. If you have magical dragons and castles, you can fit magic shops in there, too.