D&D General The limiting drawback of character customization

[The Crimson Binome]

Why is that so hard to believe? Last treasure I gave out was from the PCs robbing a rangers grave from which there was a +1 bow, bracers of archery and a ring of animal friendship. I gave way more consideration to what would logically be in a rangers grave rather than if Im making sure that my players can use or want the items.

Of course, the logical possessions of an NPC ranger would also correspond strongly to the types of possessions that a PC ranger would want. There is no variable within the chain of logic that cares whether someone is a PC or NPC.

It does raise the question of why there are so few enchanted hand crossbows and rapiers, though, if NPCs have the same priorities that PCs have. My running theory is that most magic weapons are very old, while these weapon types represent newer technology.

 

[MoonSong]

And don't forget that sometimes the character ends up being customized to the item rather than the other way around: some spectacular item is found and a character decides to do whatever has to be done in order to use it. (e.g. change alignment, change proficiency, even change class)

Well, if I found a holy avenger, of course I would do everything to be able to use it. No problem with this. My only issue would be if the DM expected me to change my character just to fit the loot by depriving me of the loot I need to keep my character viable.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, if I found a holy avenger, of course I would do everything to be able to use it. No problem with this. My only issue would be if the DM expected me to change my character just to fit the loot by depriving me of the loot I need to keep my character viable.

That implies a lot more specific intent than I suspect many DMs would have.

For my part, if you found yourself being deprived of useable loot it'd be through no other reason than one or both of a) you've made your requirements so esoteric that no random table is ever likely to hit 'em, or b) sheer bad luck. And of these 'b' is by far the more likely.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Well, if I found a holy avenger, of course I would do everything to be able to use it. No problem with this. My only issue would be if the DM expected me to change my character just to fit the loot by depriving me of the loot I need to keep my character viable.

I'm not sure that "viable" is the right word to use here. I can't imagine what kind of escalation would require you to have a Holy Avenger in order to keep up.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm sure nothing I post will change your mind; I know how internet forums work . But it's not all that unusual. Look at many of the replies here? And for my table and group, we like finding the unknown treasure and finding out what it is. It gives more mystery to the game, and reinforces the living world concept we all prefer. If we knew we'd get magic items we all wanted, it would make the game feel just like an exercise in optimization, and we don't like that.

So we're either all lying here, or we do in fact don't customize

It's not binary, and pretending it is, is well, a terribly naughty straw man.

The reality is, I would suggest, that almost all DMs customize treasure, including magic items, for their group. But how much they do it varies wildly. It's this false claim of "purity" I object to. Claims of purity are not only almost never true, they're toxic to honest discussion.

Your post here is a good example of that kind of toxicity (though I accept this is likely accidental and not malicious on your part). You present a totally false binary. You say either it's all totally random, or "we get all the magic items we all want". Neither is the truth. DMs who customize what they give out obviously do not give players "all the magic items they want", do they? Come on. You know that. I know that. We all know that. DMs who rarely "customize" loot, do, in fact, re-roll hoards they think are too generous, or too boring, or inappropriate to any number of things - including the group. I know because I've been at both ends of this spectrum, and I've seen many other DMs who were all over the spectrum, in the last thirty years.

What you also seem to be doing is conflating two different things:

1) Wish lists.

2) Customizing loot.

You seem to think these are the same thing? You talk about "unknown loot", and like that's the only explanation I can see for you saying that - you think these two things are the same thing. They aren't.

Wish lists are a 3.XE/4E phenomenon from when the game hard-expected a certain amount of magic items at a certain level (in 4E it was easy to remove this expectation - they even had optional rules for it - in 3.XE you just had to work around it, and it didn't work well because all the numbers expected certain items at certain levels, particularly the infamous Cloak of Resistance). They lead to customizing loot, but customizing loot does not lead to them. I customize loot, these days, to ensure the PCs get items I know funny naughty word is going to happen with, or that's going to be really cool, or that's going to cause some sort of amazing crisis or the like (or a narrowly-dodged crisis, which players love). That doesn't mean a player goes "Gee golly Ruin, I sure as heck wish I had a Holy Avenger +5!" and lo and behold, a few sessions later, what should they find! It means I look at the group, and the players, and the characters, and whilst I randomly roll a lot of the loot, I might replace an item here, or add an item there, to make it more fun for everyone involved.

But you're equating this directly with giving people exactly every item they want, and that is simply not how it has ever worked.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

We all know that. DMs who rarely "customize" loot, do, in fact, re-roll hoards they think are too generous, or too boring, or inappropriate to any number of things - including the group. I know because I've been at both ends of this spectrum, and I've seen many other DMs who were all over the spectrum, in the last thirty years.

If you've only encountered DMs who customize their loot, with varying frequency, then you haven't actually been at both endpoints of the spectrum. You might have been to one endpoint (always customized), and spent a lot of time in the middle, but you admit that you've never been to the other endpoint (never customized). Just because you haven't personally encountered it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The same can be said of most dichotomies which are claimed to be false. It really is possible to draw a line, just on one side of "never", and claim that everyone on one side belongs to a different group than everyone on the other side.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If you've only encountered DMs who customize their loot, with varying frequency, then you haven't actually been at both endpoints of the spectrum. You might have been to one endpoint (always customized), and spent a lot of time in the middle, but you admit that you've never been to the other endpoint (never customized). Just because you haven't personally encountered it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The same can be said of most dichotomies which are claimed to be false. It really is possible to draw a line, just on one side of "never", and claim that everyone on one side belongs to a different group than everyone on the other side.

I see someone didn't actually read my posts, but ok.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I see someone didn't actually read my posts, but ok.

I read this one, at the very least:

The reality is, I would suggest, that almost all DMs customize treasure, including magic items, for their group. But how much they do it varies wildly. It's this false claim of "purity" I object to. Claims of purity are not only almost never true, they're toxic to honest discussion.

You're wrong here. Claims of purity are often true, and failure to believe such claims is what often dooms discussion.

Unless you're being sarcastic or something, and I'm not reading this as intended. If that's the case, then I'll apologize and move on.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Unless you're being sarcastic or something, and I'm not reading this as intended. If that's the case, then I'll apologize and move on.

Nah, still missing it, but it's not worth discussing.

I agree that claims of purity are very occasionally (i.e almost never, as I said) true, but when they are, the context around them is incredibly important, and typically completely excluded from the discussion, which leads to them being staggeringly disingenuous. Often the person making the claim is also the one hiding the context, too, in order to, they mistakenly believe, better make a point.

 

[MoonSong]

I'm not sure that "viable" is the right word to use here. I can't imagine what kind of escalation would require you to have a Holy Avenger in order to keep up.

Let me explain myself.

I used Holy Avenger as proxy for "Cool rare weapon not everybody can use and is worth customizing the character to." And I said it was ok, given the circumstances I would gladly customize my character to the loot in a case like that.

On the other hand, imagine I have a character that is defined as a glaive user from day 1. It is part of my character's story and a very important part of the identity. I likely went out of the way to gain proficiency with it. I also likely multiclassed or something in order to get the combat style that goes with it. Then we reach a level in which we need to start having magic weapons or in which every standard weapon user already has two attacks and I need a magic version of my weapon to keep contributing. Regardless, tons of magic daggers start showing up in treasure, but no magic glaive ever shows up. (This might sound contribbed, but remember, I hate pew-pew and find blasting extremely boring). At this point I need a magic glaive to at least keep contributing somewhat, that, or throw away an important part of my character and start dualwielding daggers in order to keep up.

Changing my character concept for a holy avenger? likely and very fun. Doing the same out of desperation for a pair of +1 daggers? There's no fun in it.