Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?

[Vocenoctum]

I'm sure I'm not the only one, but we've had magic item shops of one form or another in our games practically started playing, back when we used the Red Box Basic set. One of the earliest inspirations for such came from a scene in Saga of Old City (by EGG) where Gord purchased a magical dagger from a dwarf in Greyhawk.

We used to have magic item shops run by retired PC's in our games, in all but our earliest games.

 

[molonel]

i've played chainmail, 0 , 1, becm, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.11, 4 etc...

you are right. it isn't the edition that makes any character swoon and fall in love with his weapon or magic item.

it is the group you are playing with and the campaign.

i gave my example. V tried to tell me they dropped. and i told him. no they didn't. and i ain't talking about any players. i'm talking about my players in my OD&D campaign that ran 10+ years.

I didn't say "his weapon or magic items." I said a +1 sword. There simply comes a point where you can paint the lily however you like it. But a +1 sword is a +1 sword is a +1 sword. The Hammer of Thunderbolts is a special, magical, mystical weapon. I've had a character who wielded it in 1st Edition AD&D. I found it in the Against the Giants series of modules. That's a special weapon.

A +1 sword is kinda sorta cool. But in ANY edition of the game, it is nothing particularly special.

And that hasn't changed.

 

[jdrakeh]

As Mr. Gygax noted in the original AD&D 1e DMG, the "give away" campaign is not in the intended spirit of the game. I'm of the opinion that magic item retail outlets work toward that same end, so. . . yes. I think retail magic outlets have a tendency to wreck the spirit of the game as it was originally envisioned. That said. . .

The game has changed quite a bit in scope since those days and I don't think that the spirit has remained unchanged. In the modern incarnation of D&D, I think that retail magic items are not only approrpriate but, in many cases, necessary (given the mechanical import of magic items in the current edition of the system).

 

[MerricB]

Just a tangent:
Identify has changed markedly over the years. In 1e, you first had to wear the item in the proper way, then cast the identify spell. For each segment you had it on (1 segment/level), you had a 15%+5%/level chance of learning one property of the item. If you were trying to identify a cursed item, bad luck! The + modifier of a sword/armour was never learnt.

In 2e, you could learn 1 property/level (10%/level chance of success) of several items - a 10th level caster could learn 10 properties, split between up to 10 items (so 1 property of each, or 10 properties of 1, etc.) Again, you couldn't learn the attack/damage bonuses of the item.

In 3e, identify actually got worse! 1 item/level, but you only could learn the most basic property of an item... a +2 vorpal sword registered as a +2 sword.

In 3.5e, identify became 1 item, but you learnt everything about it.

In the MIC, it's stated that a detect magic spell with a Spellcraft check of 10 or more over the result needed to determine the school of magic will identify an item fully. I like this, if only because keeping track of what items are can be a real challenge to me as a DM, especially if a session or two passes before identify can be cast.

Cheers!

 

[Vocenoctum]

A +1 sword is kinda sorta cool. But in ANY edition of the game, it is nothing particularly special.

And that hasn't changed.

You can take a +1 sword and weave a rich history and plot element into it, and make the PC want to use it for as long as possible. He can enjoy wielding his grandpa's sword that struck down Oligarth the Ogre Barbarian and was used to pry open the gates to hell back in the days before the crowbar was invented.


In previous editions though, what you were doing was penalizing the player for immersing himself in that story. Even in 3e, DR made that hard. In 3.5 you can at least still count it as "magic" and hit things. In 1st edition that guy had no real canonical way to improve on the sword. "awakening" the powers was a common house-rule-system, but was unsupported in the rules.

3.5 rules greatly aid such backstoried items. Even if they're not Weapons of Legacy, you can further enhance them. Grandpa's sword can stay with you forever (or at least until it gets sundered, but even then you can "reforge" it, and it's a good excuse to sneak in Flaming while you do).

 

[diaglo]

I didn't say "his weapon or magic items." I said a +1 sword. There simply comes a point where you can paint the lily however you like it. But a +1 sword is a +1 sword is a +1 sword. The Hammer of Thunderbolts is a special, magical, mystical weapon. I've had a character who wielded it in 1st Edition AD&D. I found it in the Against the Giants series of modules. That's a special weapon.

A +1 sword is kinda sorta cool. But in ANY edition of the game, it is nothing particularly special.

And that hasn't changed.

i guess David(the player whose PC had the +1 sword) would disagree with you. there were other swords in the campaign the party found. some they could have kept (not owned by some other noble's family or somesuch) that mechanically were better. but the story of the sword and Sir Handor (David's Character) would not be the same. the Sword of Handor was laid to rest with the remains of that PC.

edit: the +1 sword on my 3X5 index card. became something in the campaign. first it was named for the field of battle where they won the sword.

 

[diaglo]

You can take a +1 sword and weave a rich history and plot element into it, and make the PC want to use it for as long as possible. He can enjoy wielding his grandpa's sword that struck down Oligarth the Ogre Barbarian and was used to pry open the gates to hell back in the days before the crowbar was invented.

i agree.

but.

In previous editions though, what you were doing was penalizing the player for immersing himself in that story.

i disagree here.

it isn't my job as a referee to play the PC. that is what players do.

i provide them options. and they build the story or take the challenges.

 

[molonel]

i guess David(the player whose PC had the +1 sword) would disagree with you. there were other swords in the campaign the party found. some they could have kept (not owned by some other noble's family or somesuch) that mechanically were better. but the story of the sword and Sir Handor (David's Character) would not be the same. the Sword of Handor was laid to rest with the remains of that PC.

edit: the +1 sword on my 3X5 index card. became something in the campaign. first it was named for the field of battle where they won the sword.

Okay, so a third party believes that someone who isn't a part of the conversation would disagree with me. It's kind of a moot point since he's not here to say one way or the other, and I dislike arguing through proxy.

But when you use the phrase, "that mechanically were better" you are agreeing with me. In all odds, the sword was not particularly special, nor did the game reward it as such.

 

[MerricB]

As Mr. Gygax noted in the original AD&D 1e DMG, the "give away" campaign is not in the intended spirit of the game. I'm of the opinion that magic item retail outlets work toward that same end, so. . . yes. I think retail magic outlets have a tendency to wreck the spirit of the game as it was originally envisioned. That said. .

Hmm. My reading of Gary's comments on the "give-away" campaign is where treasure outstrips where wealth should be, and so the PCs become ever-more-powerful, and the DM must throw sillier and sillier threats at them because everyone is wielding Vorpal swords and the like...

Because of the wealth guidelines in 3e, you have far more correlation between the power of the items the PCs get, and the PCs power due to their level. That a PC could possibly buy a vorpal sword (heh!) is balanced by the fact that the PC won't have the money to do so until very high levels.

Cheers!

 

[diaglo]

Yup, a lot of gametime. In that time, the fighter never found it a drawback that he couldn't affect anything hit by +2 or better weapons though?

yes and no. this is a group game. yes, he fought things that were not harmed by the sword. but no he was not alone and some one else in the party stepped up in their role to shine.

I've always liked personalizing major gear, but that doesn't mean keeping an inferior item in main use just because it has an interesting story. About half of my PC's have either Craft Weapons & Armor or Ancestral Relic so I can customize the weaponry. I also like intelligent items, so I've had a fair amount of those too.

i like research too. i like the ability of the pcs to make or find things. go hunting for material components or to do some sage chat to find hidden treasures. these lead to adventures.

in the campaign it was the PC who was most important. he was the hero. detracting from that with his bling was not always what the players wanted.