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

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
A good idea, but then you take away a primary motivation for adventuring - acquiring and using epic magic items.

VS

It is for some folks, which I one reason I don't like stomping on items to the extent that the 5E designers did, but if you have a good story or other motivations, that helps. Also, items of legend don't necessarily show up in one fell swoop. For instance, an item like the Rod of Law is ordinarily found in pieces and the Hammer of Thunderbolts is cool on its own but truly awesome only when you've managed to assemble the panoply.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
To a point. My experience is that no matter what gets dropped the PCs are liable to miss some of it...

...or somehow destroy it before they know it's there.

I guess it depends on how you handle it. If you've planned out the items to sit in a particular spot and the PCs just don't go there, sure. I suppose I do that to some degree and I know some folks I play with do tend to say "well you just never went there...." I suspect not as much as you or the folks you play with may, though. I tend to make sure that most interesting treasure actually does show up.
 

Richards

Legend
There's no I in party.

That's a common misconception. It's actually right there, hiding inside the "T".

There it is, in red below:

*******++*****++*******+*******+***+***
+*++++*++*+++*+++*++++*+*++*++*++*+++*
+*++++*++*+++*+++*++++*++++*+++++**+**
+******++*+++*+++******++++*++++++***
+*+++++++*****+++*++*++++++*+++++++*
+*+++++++*+++*+++*++*++++++*+++++++*
***+++++***+***+***+***+++***+++++***

:)

Johnathan
 


Eltab

Lord of the Hidden Layer
In my Tiamat campaign, when the PCs entered a new Tier, I usually found an in-world excuse why their primary magic item would become +1more. I let each player pick the item (armor, weapon, implement, other) and added 'flavor' based on how they had been using it.

As an example, after max'ing out a Staff of Healing and turning around the fight against Arauthator, I added some Staff of Frost abilities to it. Our barbarian's 2-Handed Sword was replaced with a 2-Handed Sword of Dragonslaying +1.
 




ccs

41st lv DM
Why do you have two fighters in the same party who both use swords?

Because neither fighters nor swords are particularly rare?
Hell, you don't even have to be a fighter to use a sword....

Because that's what players A & B chose to make?
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
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.

This assumes that the magic item pricing actually reflects the item's utility value - 3e's system tried to do this but had some pretty notable failures (mainly every Big 6 item vs any situational item).

The way things generally run in the games I play in is we go by consensus. Someone proposes a few magic item assignments and we discuss what makes the most sense for the party as a whole. We eyeball things to make sure that nobody is being neglected, but if there are occasional imbalances because there are only items that make sense for one of the PCs, we're generally OK with it and work on balancing things in the long run. It helps that we've been playing together for years and trust each other as players, but, frankly, I have no desire to play with groups that take a more rigid or competitive approach.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top