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

[jasin]

No, the problem with many items comes down to the slot it uses. Why wear an amulet of proof against poison when the amulet of natural armour is just far better in most circumstances? At this point, the gold cost of the amulet is irrelevant. To fix this, you need another solution. You can see one solution in the augment crystals: you augment the amulet of natural armour with a crystal that gives proof from poison. Another solution is to have a dual-amulet: it gives natural armour *and* proof from poison, and at a reasonable cost.

I think it might not be a bad idea to cut down on the number of slots available, but also waive (or at least significantly cut down on) the extra charge for multiple effects on a single item. It doesn't help the magic for sale problem for people who think it's a problem, but at least people would be putting more effects on fewer items, making at least somewhat original and personalized magic items the default.

Instead of a generic cloak of resistance, generic headband of intellect and a generic ring of protection, you'd have your own Cloak of Cunning Defense which grants +4 Int, +2 deflection to AC and +3 to saves.

But then, you might also call your generic cloak of resistance a Cloak of Cunning Defense, and that kind of thing goes a long way towards making it mysterious and quirky rather than a routine commodity, but the fact is that much of the time, it's just the DM who wants people to sigh in wonderment at cloaks of resistance, while players just want to treat it as a commodity and get on with killing dragons.

 

[Hussar]

I think people are also conflating "cool" ( = flavourful, quirky, original) with "useful" ( = gets used a lot, applicable in many situations). Gp value measures the latter. It really doesn't have much to do with the former.

((Somewhat ironic given the above. ))

This, I think, is really telling. The price of an item should have very little to do with how cool it is. I believe Ridley's Cohort was on the same track as well. For an item of a given price, it has to compete with other items of the same price. Sure, that ring of feather fall might be really useful, but, it's nowhere near as useful as a +1 lumpy metal thing.

Either the lumpy metal thing +1 has to go up in price, or the ring has to come down. Me, I figure the ring should come down. WAY down. We're talking about an item of very, very limited use that may very well never be used by the PC. A contingency spell costs what? A few hundred GP? A ring of feather fall should be on par with that. As should many of the very limited use items. Particularly items with a fixed slot.

 

[Bagpuss]

It doesn't really matter if the price of non-big six items come down, if there is still a market for them players will sell them in order to spend the money on the big six. I've seen it with pretty much every item, even currently cheap stuff. Lowering the cost will just mean more places to sell where they are able to sell them.

 

[jasin]

It doesn't really matter if the price of non-big six items come down, if there is still a market for them players will sell them in order to spend the money on the big six.

Players don't buy the big six because they want boring items and hate interesting ones. They buy them because that's the best bang for buck, and in a typical D&D game, you either have the bang, or you get banged by gangs of monsters you face in deadly combat day after day.

If the discounted price makes players say "hey, we could still get a +2 sword for this and it'd be much more useful" that just means the prices are still off, since the +2 sword is still much more useful for the same money.

If Daern's instant fortress cost 5,500 gp instead of 55,000, you can bet almost every party would have one, just like almost every party (IME) has a couple of Quaal's feather tokens and at least one hat of disguise, because Quaal's feather tokens and hats of disguise are about as useful as boring mechanical items that cost about the same.

 

[WayneLigon]

....right, because that's totally been what D&D has been about. Buying JEWELRY to look good at the QUEEN'S BALLROOM. So you can, you know, avoid going on adventures. Like a PANSY.

Because God knows nobody ever gets out of the dungeon and adventures in a city, or creates a campaign that deals with nobles and politics, or has better things to do with the the treasure they bled for than chunk it down the magic item creation rat-hole. I've had a few characters that accomplished more good, saved more lives, and won more honor over dinner than others accomplished by spending their lives plundering dark pits and ancient ruins and cutting down waves of orcs.

But then you get adventures and campaigns like that when you step back and consider a game world as you would a living, breathing setting rather than just a backdrop. I certainly don't want to go back to the days where The City or The Town was just a place to get healed up and buy some extra pitons.

 

[Hussar]

On the whole "Let's go to the ball" thing.

I don't have the link, but, a recent poll here on EnWorld placed most campaigns at about 70% combat. If combat outnumbers non-combat by more than 2:1, then you can bet that the players are going to spend their money in at least that ratio. Considering your PC doesn't die at the ball (usually), it's not hard to figure out why the players want utility items over "cool" stuff.

jasin has the right of it IMO. Given the choice, people are going to maximize their spending. That's perfectly natural. If your choice is a better weapon or a thing that makes you fall slower, it's not a big jump to think that people are going to take the better weapon.

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that the proliferation of utility items is perfectly mirrored in feats and in spells. Again, that makes sense. Sure, that skill bonus feat might be useful in the 30% of non-combat, but, again, twice as much time is spent in combat, so power attack becomes much, much more attractive.

For any given thing in the game, be it a feat, spell, or magic item, to be equal, it has to be as useful as other things of the same value. How many clerics memorize water breathing unless they absolutely know they need it today? How many clerics memorize Searing Light? IME, every cleric will take Searing Light before Water Breathing. If we want people to take Water Breathing, we should one of two things - make it easier to cast (ie. lower level) or make it more powerful (such as also granting a swim speed, perhaps freedom of movement while underwater).

Magic items are no different. If we want people to take a Ring of Chameleon Power (12 700 gp), we have to make it at least as useful as +1 Flaming Lumpy Metal Thing plus Gauntlets of Ogre Power. Add in a minor displacement ability perhaps, or a Hide In Plain Sight ability. Something like that.

Otherwise, players are going to take the bonus that best helps them. +2 to hit and damage as well as the extra benefits of a +2 strength is pretty hard to ignore.

 

[Schmoe]

If I may note, the problem with the escalation of AC isn't related directly to monsters. My problem comes with the larger gap between ACs as the levels rise. The AC keeps pace (or is slightly slower) than the attack bonus of the fighter, but unfortunately the attack bonus of the Clerics and Rogues begins to lag, and the Wizards don't even have a chance of hitting. A 20th level Fighter will have a +40 bonus to hit or so. A Wizard has a +10. That gap is problematic.

Cheers!

I don't think it's a very large problem, though. Fighters have enough options to put a high attack bonus to work (Power Attack, Combat Expertise, iterative attacks, etc), that even an opponent with an AC the rogues can hit will still be interesting for the fighter players.

 

[Mallus]

And perhaps we should add Talking Heads inspired Hero Cards, eh?

Definitely! That would give us Psycho Killer, Burning Down the House, Slippery People, and one that might become relevant soon; Life During Wartime.

You're denying Burne his Erebus-givien right to design Weapons of Mass Conflagration, by the way.

I wouldn't dream of doing that. But then again, I don't need to. The CITY campaign is already heady mix of utility and idiocy, besides, I should have mentioned that I'm currently trying a more additive approach; throwing strange items your way that can't really be sold, that exist outside of D&D 'power economics' --how much is Phillip worth?-- and player purchased/invented items.

Which, in fact, may be the best advice I can give; mix it up. Simply introduce items into the game that have no practical 'cost'. Rather than sweat the macroeconomics of magic, just un-monetize some of the less useful stuff/quirky stuff.

But I have a tendancy to see something neatish, or just plain silly, and base a sudden character concept around it.

I approve of this message.

You have a gift for that. Urbane Outfitters indeed!

I'm going to get hit one session, I just know it...

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It doesn't really matter if the price of non-big six items come down, if there is still a market for them players will sell them in order to spend the money on the big six. I've seen it with pretty much every item, even currently cheap stuff. Lowering the cost will just mean more places to sell where they are able to sell them.

No, they buy the Big Six because the Big Six are more useful than most other items that cost twice as much.

If they are selling a garbage bag full of items priced at 32000 gp total to buy a +4 Str item, it is because that +4 Str item is simply more useful overall, not because players prefer to be boring.

The 50% mark down for selling is not a sufficient disincentive to habitually cashing in. That should be telling us something about the price structure.

 

[Remathilis]

One that probably mirrors the real world. Look at even some of the prices in the real world, let alone the costs of past nobles and aristocracy. Nobles spend money.* If you want to hob nob with them, let alone be one, you'll have to spend money also. Show up at a gambling hall to try and meet some big with with an ale house hooker and your 'good' pair of adventuring clothes rather than a well paid cortesean who can hold her own in a conversation and make you the envy of other men and a 10,000 GP outfit made with spun gold and pearls, and you probably won't even get in the door. Of course, a real adventurer will be going there to make a deal or gain information that will make him money back, but I don't think the prices for quality items are something that really bears criticism if one is trying to be a high roller.

*Which in itself is a type of defense mechanism. If they spend money and require all those around them to spend money also, they not only have a judge of the persons wealth and abilty by how they spend their money, but they also weed out all those who can't and there fore have nothing to offer. Otherwise, they'd be constantly surrounded by people who want things of them while pretending to be equals.

I dunno, if the common commoner earns 2 sp/week (or 10 gp year) then 150 gp for personal grooming is outragous. Think; A PC goes into town for shave and a haircut and plops down 15 X the amount the barber would make in a year. In the real world, that's like going to Bo Rics and paying for an $11 haircut with a $100 bill and telling the cutter keep the change.

My point was, those prices Ratt posted were inflated for inflations sake. No PC would nor should pay the equivalents of +2 adamantine armor for STEAK AND FRUIT. Pretty soon, gold's value deflates in game so that GP is the lowest denomination and copper is worthless.

Expensive jewels? Sure. Throwing money around on clothes and women? Ok. 20 K worth on one evening? I don't think so...