Essentials: Magic Item Rarity Explained, it's actually good!

[Falstaff]

This is my favorite part of the article, and speaks directly to the way I want my D&D campaigns to be:

In a world where magic is rare and wondrous, the characters can’t buy anything, while the only items they uncover are rare ones. Even then, a character can expect to find only two or three such items over the course of an entire campaign.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The article opens up with the observation that "there will always be better and worse items within a specific level. Sometimes that difference comes down to a character’s needs. Other times, players simply value one type of item over another, like one that deals extra damage." The better items will be more rare.

But I fail to see how they will avoid having better and worse items, within a specific level and rarity class.

You just don´t have to worry, as long as the selling price is appropriate... You can´t say: before i buy item xxx, I can take item xxx for the same price...

You have a feather of a phoenix... you better take the flaming sword, or i make a simple potion of healing from it...

 

[Vael]

I wonder how this will translate into generating high level PCs. I suppose the base rule (One Level+1, one at Level and one Level-1 item, plus GP equal to Level-1) is same, but you may only draw Common Items, and maybe a few Uncommons.

 

[MrMyth]

I think it is a shame the economics discussion has overwhelmed this thread. Especially since it is a largely meaningless point. It sounds like Eamon would be fine with "Rare items sell for only 10% of their value, but are worth 10x the normal value of an item of their level", but finds "Rare items sell for 100%" to be completely unreasonable.

Anyway, I like the new system in general. I've got two real concerns.

For one... common items will probably remain the most desirable things for PCs. I've seen plenty of PCs turn down awesome Epic belts because it would mean giving up the +2 Fort from a Paragon level belt. I've seen level 30 Bracers turned down because they are better off with Paragon level Iron Armbands of Power.

It's frustrating, and this system doesn't really fix it. At least, not without making uncommon items even more powerful, and I'm not so sure we'll see that. (And if they become good enough that they do outclass the current defaults, that could be a problem in its own right.)

I'd really love to see some of the static bonuses toned down (Iron Armbands adjusted to +1/2/3, for example), or even just worked into the system. We've already got Masterwork Armor. I'd love if all existing items with +Fort/Ref/Will lost it... and instead, all Belts/Boots/Headbands gave +1 Fort/Ref/Will at Heroic, +2 at Paragon, and +3 at Epic. Or something like that - and ditch all the annoying feat-taxes that boost defenses at the same time, now that you've worked some more bonuses into the system.

My other concern is just that the removal of the daily item power limit is one I'm a fan of, but also one that is a bit harder to adjust for current games where the DM hasn't had rigid control over items. I kinda wished there was still some limit, just a more reasonable one. You get one item use for each item slot per day, for example. So you can still use a bunch of items, but much less chance of any real abuse overall.

 

[JohnnyO]

First off, I really like the new setup, I always disliked how when rolling new characters, you can cherry pick the 3 best possible items for your character and level, I plan on implementing these rules when I start up a new campaign.

However, I've noticed that most of the players in my campaign almost always choose items with static properties or encounter powers associated with them. Almost no one wants an item with a daily power unless it also comes with a general property.

So, I'm guessing that the list of common items will be more restrictive than just "things that lack a daily power"

 

[Baron Opal]

Or, perhaps you're right and the market for simple magic items is so fluid that merchants have no margin - and sell these things at cost, making money on additional services or luxury items...

Put it this way - if you find a rare level 5 item is offered by a merchant (by coincidence since some other adventurer's sold it to him, not because the shopkeep stocks all rare items or even consistently stocks any at all) then would the shopkeep sell it to you for 100% of the nominal level 5 cost? And could you then sell that item back to him for again 100% of the cost? It doesn't make sense. If rarity raises the cost, then the item isn't a level 5 item by cost, it's more.

The system proposed is not consistent.

It is consistant with the understanding that:

a) The PCs are adventurers, not merchants.
b) How the merchants do business isn't really relevant to gameplay.
c) What the PCs can buy and sell are two different things.

Looking at magic item transactions from the PC PoV as I understand it:

Common
Sell: 20% of book.
Buy: 100% of book.

Uncommon
Sell: 50% of book.
Buy: Unavailable by default, possibly at 100% or more depending on DM.

Rare
Sell: 100% of book.
Buy: Unavailable.

This seems very workable given that my game is about adventure and not economics. The merchant is still buying low and selling high. I don't particularly care what the merchant does with the rare items that he buys. In my particular game you wouldn't sell them to begin with. Rather, you would trade them to a wizard or lord in exchange for an item or favor that you needed more.

 

[Baron Opal]

re: Artifacts

Does anyone see this rule encouraging the devlaluation of artifacts. Going forward, I fear designers aren't going to use the great artifact rules since apparently, people couldn't be bothered to use them.

Seriously, to this day, I still don't understand why people want powerful items but don't use the artifact rules...

I love the artifact rules, but extrapolating what the "rules" are from existing artifacts and coming up with the stages of attunement can be a pain.

 

[Scribble]

I don't think much will really help change the fact that a + whatever item will be generally liked (especially when the rules promote it and assume players have them.)

But they've already given us the tools to deal with that- and this only enhances it.

Cut common items out, and use inherent bonuses instead.

The new list gives you further info on how to divvy out magic from that point on.

 

[Prism]

However, I've noticed that most of the players in my campaign almost always choose items with static properties or encounter powers associated with them. Almost no one wants an item with a daily power unless it also comes with a general property.

Thats possibly because up until now you couldn't really use your daily power items fully because of the limits per day. It was fustrating to know you couldn't use an item when needed because you had use another a few rounds earlier. Maybe with the relaxing of this limit you players will be more open to them. Or maybe they simply like static items better, so this won't change anything. I wouldn't say thats something that needs a fix

 

[Rex Blunder]

So, I'm guessing that the list of common items will be more restrictive than just "things that lack a daily power"

Agreed. I think we can assume that Staff of Ruin will NOT be a Common item, despite the fact that it it adds static damage. It has a property. I'd bet that most Common weapons, implements, armors, and neck slot items have no properties.