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

[S'mon]

The DMG recommends that items of X value can only be found in a Y-sized town or city. I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that *all* items of X value can be found in that settlement. That is up to DM judgement.

No, the 3e DMG I have recommends that all items up to the gp limit be available, not an interesting selection of items etc.

 

[MerricB]

No, the 3e DMG I have recommends that all items up to the gp limit be available, not an interesting selection of items etc.

I'll check mine; I may just be using Rule 0.

Cheers!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

(Skipping to the end of this discussion...)

I think that the basic problem is that the formula for spell effects in items is too expensive relative to the price for simple, always on numeric boosts.

1st level spells: 2000 (or 1800)
2nd level spells: 12000
3rd level spells: 30000
4th level spells: 56000
etc.

+1 item 1000
+2 item 4000
+3 item 9000
+4 item 16000
etc.

That has to be a pretty impressive 3rd level spell effect at 30000 gp to compete with a +4 or +5 item. Of the top of my head, I can only think of the Ring of Blinking (27000 gp) that is even in the same league -- that it as pretty extreme example as it is both a 1rd/lvl duration spell and a spell normally not available in potions.

Already potions and scrolls and wands are looking really, really, really attractive. I could get 10-20 very useful emergency scrolls for the price of a 2nd level effect. I better use that effect practically every day or it looks like a dud.

Even discounted down to 7500 gp, Boots of Levitation look pretty weak.

Interesting multifunction items require at least one 3rd level of higher effect to be interesting, practically by definition. Unless you are throwing down a tedious number of 1st level effects, the official cost is simply astronomical no matter how aggressively you discount.

 

[Celebrim]

(Skipping to the end of this discussion...)

I think you are basically on the right track. I think the problem with the current pricing system is its based to much on absolutes, when the spells that it is based on aren't absolute but have varying durations.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I think we could come up a better formula with curves that will less easily break (but never can be expected to be perfect). Plus some additional fudge factors.

 

[prosfilaes]

If you want to hob nob with them, let alone be one, you'll have to spend money also.

At any serious level, though, it's pretty exclusive of being an adventurer. People like that, and people who hang out with them, don't hang out with people who show up in town wearing adventurer's clothes carrying the body parts of a dragon like a common butcher. It may be cool for a short period, but it won't be long before it's retro.

It's a side note, and probably not what you meant to imply, but that was not the behavior pattern of a lot of nobles historically.

 

[VirgilCaine]

At any serious level, though, it's pretty exclusive of being an adventurer. People like that, and people who hang out with them, don't hang out with people who show up in town wearing adventurer's clothes carrying the body parts of a dragon like a common butcher..

I don't carry the body parts, those go in the bag of holding on my flying carpet.

 

[Agamemnon]

....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.

Nah, the game's about killing monsters and taking their stuff...and their stuff is used to kill MORE monsters. And sometimes there's a cool story attached, and sometimes the bard has such a high Diplomacy it doesn't matter if he shows up in his underpants with a ferret tied to his rumpus, he will win them over and start a new trend in the city.

Even a noble's outfit doesn't cost more than a few hundred gp. So whatever game you're talking about, I'm glad it ain't D&D.

What the hell is it with sanctimonious twits like you defining what is and isn't "allowed" in games? The point of RPGs is that they let the player decide what he wants to do. If you take away that freedom, you might as well be playing chess, Risk or go.

Maybe not all of us are half-brained troglodytes who like slaughtering monsters and taking their stuff? I'm sorry, but you lack the right to unilaterally exclude us from doing what we like, and calling it D&D.

This isn't the 1970's. There's more to the game than what's lurking in the next dungeon. Maybe your limited mindset just can't grasp it?

 

[Stalker0]

Oh. That. Well, there really nothing to be done about that. It's a feature of every system that it begins to break down as bonuses near its numerical range.

This isn't just a problem with roleplaying games, its a problem with every model in existance. Take any math equation or any scientific model that works well, and then stretch it to encompass some new things. Now stretch it again, again....again. The more you push the model, the more the results break down.

Dnd does a remarkable job of modeling characters through a huge range in power levels. It can model commoners and epic gods with the same basic numbers. However, pushing the model towards those high levels and you start to see the system break down. And you cannot help this. There's no one model that will be perfect. The only real way to do it "well" is to create several models. In essence, the game resets at 10th level or 20th level, and completely new numbers and rules are put in. Basically you create a brand new game for different levels. However, I don't many people would want this, so we are stuck creating the best single model we can.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You know, when I said to learn from others' misfortune, I was talking to hong as well... listen next time.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)