Andy Collins: "Most Magic Items in D&D Are Awful"

[jmucchiello]

Naw, this just shows how much they have the wrong end of the stick. The big problem is not pricing, but fungibility. If you can reliably sell the rarely-useful exotic item, and buy the routinely useful-at-staying alive item, that's what you'll do, because D&D players fear PC death. Most would sell a Helm of Underwater Action for a +1 sword, if they didn't already have such a sword. The only solution is not to have items regularly available to buy at all.

This is not true. I've played in 1e games with fully available magic items (usually on commission but cheap stuff was in the "adventurers' store"). The difference in 1e is there are less must have items. Want to improve your Con? Can't*. Int? Can't*. Dex? Well there's gauntlets of Dexterity that will raise a dex of 14 or higher by +1.

And they cost 10,000 gp. It's right there in the 1e DMG. Or that same 10,000 gp might yield the Wand of Orcus?!??!? Now granted the 1e DMG does not encourage free trade of magic items (or artifacts), but I can't imagine we were the only folks who saw the stuff had prices and made them available for sale in large cities.

Cloak of protection cost 10,000 gp per plus granted and it affected AC and saving throws. Sword +1 - +5 costs 2,000, 4,000, 7,000, 10,000, and 15,000 gp respectively. But a vorpal sword costs 50,000 gp. Armor is dependent on type chainmail +1 is 3,500 gp but platemail +1 is 5,000 gp. But unlike 3e, armor generally costs more than weapons.

* Oh yeah, Manual of Bodily Health. Read once, follow reginmen, gain +1 Con. Once. For all time. Costs 50,000 gp.

It isn't that the big six are available. It's that there are more than 3 must haves.

 

[el-remmen]

I don't think it's necessary to go that far...

What I should have said is ". . . any kind of codified economy."

 

[Mighty Halfling]

I'm beginning to think that all "plus" items should just scale up with a character automatically. Just say that they hop up every four levels or so.
A one-time buy in, and then focus the rest of the time on getting other more flavorful stuff. Or, alternatively, the PCs could seek to enhance them further to make weapons flaming, armor ethereal and add abilities to cloaks.

 

[BryonD]

What I should have said is ". . . any kind of codified economy."

I see this differently.

You are certainly correct that for a lot of games and considerations on this topic the idea that magic items are part of an "economy" is a central point. So I'm not disputing that.

BUT...
You can still use this data without getting hung up on that.
To me the idea of a benchmark level of gear that a PC of X level should have is a very useful tool. That is not at all to say that a good game requires you stick to the rule. But if you are running at 20% of design assupmtions, it is good to know that. And if one session you jump from 20% to 80% because of a windfall, then that is good to know as well.

So to me it is all very useful to give thought to "What % of a tenth level characters standard gear should a helm of underwater action represent in order to maximize fun?"
It isn't a question of how big a town do you need to go buy one.
And it isn't a question of how many helms are worth one +3 sword.
It is purely a matter of what fraction of standard gear makes this item useful and fun.
Nothing prevents one from tossing any of the guidelines aside when the game is better served by doing so. But that doesn't make it less useful as a reference point.

If the correct answer is 6% for default D&D then that answer is true regardless of if your character has the only one in the campagin world or if he bought it off the clearance rack.

 

[el-remmen]

So to me it is all very useful to give thought to "What % of a tenth level characters standard gear should a helm of underwater action represent in order to maximize fun?"

I guess for me the only important question is, "How much underwater action am I planning for their future adventures?" (or as a variation, "How much underwater action am Iwill to provide the group if they decide that the helm is a good reason to do some acquatic adventuring?")

That is what determines how valuable the helm is compared to anything else they might have for me - as that is determining how practically valuable it is to them.

 

[Celebrim]

My character uses a somewhat uncommon weapon. If I ever want to upgrade, say from masterwork to magical because we are starting to encounter those enemies with /magic DR, there are basically six options.

IMO, it is the responcibility of the GM to ensure that players have access to the resources that they need to accomplish the task. How a GM does that is a matter of personal style. I'd rather do it with foils/villains that wield the same weapon as your character, or by hiding the resources in dungeons to be discovered by the attentive party, or by allowing players to trade favors with high level crafters, or by making thier own tools. All of those seem far better solutions to me than treating magic items as commodities, because it robs magic items of thier mythic status, thier specialness, and the full measure of pride and satisfication that a player feels upon getting an item.

4) Butter up the artificer/wizard and convince him that I need this upgrade more than the others in the party. Possible too. Banning purchase but leaving easy crafting seems like a little oversight though.

Not at all. It is a deliberate decision. It means that that player than can do his own crafting obtains the full measure of reward for pursuing that path, and has a character that is 'special' in a way that he would not be if he lived in a world were magic items were mundane commodities.

5) Change my character concept. This one is very sad. A central tenet in the character concept is the fighting style, and the fighting style is only feasible with a small group of weapons...

These sorts of statements irritate me. I would hope that there is alot more to your character than what fighting style he adopts which to me is a tertairy trait of characterization at best. The notion of 'weapon choice' = 'character concept' strikes me as CRPG lite at best. As a DM if I asked you to submit a character concept for approval, I'd probably be irritated if any sort mechical issue like what weapon you wielded was mentioned, must less central to the character. For one thing, the best and maybe only case I can think of for mentioning a weapon in your character concept is the 'legacy weapon inherited from family member' and that plot device is so well used now as to be hackneyed at best, and only slightly better than 'two scimitar wielding drow ranger' (which again, notice the irritating idea that weapon choice equal character concept).

 

[hong]

Not at all. It is a deliberate decision. It means that that player than can do his own crafting obtains the full measure of reward for pursuing that path, and has a character that is 'special' in a way that he would not be if he lived in a world were magic items were mundane commodities.

Yes. He gets items at half price!

These sorts of statements irritate me.

Oh well.

I would hope that there is alot more to your character than what fighting style he adopts which to me is a tertairy trait of characterization at best. The notion of 'weapon choice' = 'character concept' strikes me as CRPG lite at best.

You say this like it's a negative thing.

 

[satori01]

I am ultimately opposed to to Wealth by Level definitions in the DMG. Wulf hit the nail on the head...if you power up the base classes the need for the DM to calculate detailed wealth spread sheets to determine if the group has enough cash to operate. For me as a DM this is the most tedious part of adventure construction.

If you boost up the power level of players, than magic items are gravy and can be quirky, fewer in number and potentially more powerful.

People in general on this board do not like the idea of players just buying their magic items...I actually doubt most people actually play the Wallmart Magic Item way...but more a combination of the the two. Realistically pricing has to be adjusted for some items because players do take Crafting Feats.

I would say that sadly games like Diablo and NWN 1&2 do a better job of making interesting magic items, with constant and situational powers than D&D.

The other thing I would say is that situational and quirking magic items can really change the outcome of an encounter. I've seen a well placed Philter of Love or a judiciously used dollop of Sovereign glue totally alter the expected course of an encounter.

Frankly those moments are what I play for, so I do almost freely give out quirky magic items, especially w/ limited charges.

I would also say that staves are overpriced...maybe not for what they do, but for the simple fact that staves cost so much to give one to a wizard character you are talking a minimum of around 8th -10th level. It strikes me their should be some 'discount' staves for 5 level + use.

 

[thedungeondelver]

With all due respect to Andy Collins, this is a dumb argument. Magic items are as wondrous or dull as a Dungeon Master makes them and it's up to the players to suss out just how much significance an item has. So they "only" affect rules in any one given way: so what! Injecting some color and some thought in to what they do or how they do it really isn't that hard to do.

If he's that concerned, perhaps he should consult D&D (the 1974 rules) and apply intelligence to his magic items as swords are in that august edition of the game and really give his players something to have fun with.

Frankly, I think this is another case of someone forgetting how to have fun with DUNGEONS & DRAGONS and wholly overthinking one tiny aspect of the game.

 

[Celebrim]

This is just one of those bizarre D&Disms: even fairly low-level characters with a few hundred gold pieces to their names are wealthy by the standards of those living around them.

Actually, absurdly wealthy by the standards of those living around them. If we assume the 1st edition wealth scale, then a gold peice ought to be worth about $1000 equivalent. That means starting characters have managed to accumulate an inheritance of some $100,000.

PC's will eventually become as rich as the richest noble (those elite ones that invariably seem to be semi-retired adventurers themselves notwithstanding). If you're a trillionaire, you will find few doors get slammed in your face.

Well, that was pretty much exactly my point. Wealthy characters can use thier wealth to obtain status, influence, political power, contacts, and resources other than stuff than hang on thier weapons belt. They can build castles, hire hirelings, manage lands and merchantile companies. Having established themselves in this way, I'd be much more willing to assume that the PC's have become legitimate brokers of power as well, and thus could make contacts with whoever it is that sells magic items. But even then, it wouldn't be a Wal-Mart situation. It would be more like me rolling up a few random items a month and allowing them to bid on them.

For the model you describe to work, every item-hoarding organization has to exist in a perpetual state of financially solvency.

Not so much. All you have to assume is that every item-hoarding organization liquidates last the instruments of its own power and security. Again, assume that NPC act alot like PC's. If the PC's hold lots of resources, and then run into problem and need liquidate resources to pay debts, I can promise you that the last thing that they'll get rid of is thier magic items. If it comes to it, the PC's will scarf up their magic items and run rather than do that. My assumption is that NPC's act in basically the same manner, and furthermore that when a brower broker falls, it's resources are invariably absorbed by one of its rivals, usually directly by some act of force. Again, the assumption is not that there isn't a market, but rather that it is a closed market. Even if there were an auction of magic resources, and this is unlikely except when several rival power brokers were forced to divy up the spoils, it wouldn't be one open to 'the public'.