Describing magic items?

[El Seso]

I don't know. Although I haven't DM'd a game yet, I'm looking to start soon.
Seems to me that it might be "fair" in a real-world sense to let a party take thier chances that that ring they bought may or may not be +3, but not in a game sense. What might be a good way to balance the two...
Stress maybe, that one of my players invest heavily in appraise?

 

[kengar]

Couple of things I've come up with that I will be using in our new campaign.

First off, I've told the player up front they should just ignore the DMG GP values, etc. There are several in-game reasons for this. Also, it would be very difficult for a PC to find anyone in the campaign to make items more powerful than a wand or potion for them.

Secondly, I also am using a "Flavor based" description for Identify spells. For instance,

Detect Magic & Identify:
Weapons = Evocation
Armor = Abjuration
Score/Skill affecting items = Transmutation
(pretty much out of DMG)

+1 = "Charmed" (Faint)
+2 = "Imbued" (Faint/Moderate)
+3 = "Sorcerous" (Moderate)
+4 = "Weirded" (Strong)
+5 = "Eldritch" (Strong)

Thus, if a wizard casts Detect Magic and Identify on a +1 Flaming Dagger, he can tell it radiates Faint-to-Moderate magic and is "Imbued with Evocation and Fire Spells." Whereas a +4 Keen Longsword is a blade "Filled with Eldritch Power to seek the vitals of the enemy."

Also, I recommend illustrations if you can. www.vshane.com does printable pdf cards of item pictures that are quite cool: weapons, potions, wands, etc. Show them the picture and let their imaginations do the rest.

 

[dcollins]

Similar to kengar above, but I skip the added step and just use the descriptions in detect magic as the in-game terminology. "Arh, sire, this here's a short sword with a moderate enchantment to bite deep into thy enemies...", stuff like that.

Usually I call "faint" magic "lesser" magic, as it has a slightly better ring to it.