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

[Piratecat]

Okay, so a third party believes that someone who isn't a part of the conversation would disagree with me.

Unless I miss my guess, the third party is Angelsboi, an EN Worlder who died two or three years ago. So Diaglo, in any response, please separate emotion from the discussion -- right?

Right.

Back on track, I love the idea of legacy-style items because I want items to grow with the heroes. It's a shame when the +1 sword penalizes good storytelling and backstory, just because it doesn't get any better.

 

[jdrakeh]

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...

Yep, that's about the size of it. And. . . wait for it. . . I think that making magic items available for retail purchase at the local Magic Mart (TM) works toward that end

 

[diaglo]

Unless I miss my guess, the third party is Angelsboi, an EN Worlder who died two or three years ago. So Diaglo, in any response, please separate emotion from the discussion -- right?

Right.

Back on track, I love the idea of legacy-style items because I want items to grow with the heroes. It's a shame when the +1 sword penalizes good storytelling and backstory, just because it doesn't get any better.

no emotion on my part. i was trying to explain what it meant for the "spirit" of D&D from a perspective outside of what the others are saying about +1 swords. :shrug:

edit: it wasn't Ryan. David Harwood played in my group from 1979 until 1989.

edit2: and he lived down the street. we were friends from 1974 on when i moved into the neighborhood.

 

[S'mon]

I always see +1 swords as being like the scads of magic weapons acquired by the hobbits in LOTR -nice, and you can kill a wight with them, but not generally plot-centric. In fact I tend to feel most +1 weapons are created by dwarven armourers labouring on their masterworks, or by priests who bless the paladins' weapons in the name of their god, not by wizards at all.

Edit: The sword forged by Conan's dad in CtB would be a fair example of a +1 sword; maybe +2 if you're generous; whereas the one Conan finds in the Atlantean cairn might be +3.

 

[molonel]

Back on track, I love the idea of legacy-style items because I want items to grow with the heroes. It's a shame when the +1 sword penalizes good storytelling and backstory, just because it doesn't get any better.

I actually like the legacy-style items very much, and used a similar but much less mechanically developed means of improving items that grew as the user grew in one of my longterm campaigns. I think the idea both builds on and surpasses the 3rd Edition mechanic of further enchanting items.

 

[Vocenoctum]

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.

You might not have seen it as you penalizing him, but the player (who didn't care, due to Cool Factor) was indeed penalized because the sword was worse than other swords. He chose to take the penalty for roleplaying purposes, but he was still mechanically penalized, IMO. The player may have been perfectly happy using that sword, but I'm sure he wouldn't have minded if he could have found ways to make the sword better as well.

 

[diaglo]

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.

i was still relating my experience with my group. i was the referee. David was the player. how is that 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.

yes and no. as the referee i provided the group (David being part of the group) with the chance to improve his weaponry. either thru "legacy" type ways if you want to call it that. or thru choosing another weapon.
that is my job as the referee.

 

[diaglo]

You might not have seen it as you penalizing him, but the player (who didn't care, due to Cool Factor) was indeed penalized because the sword was worse than other swords. He chose to take the penalty for roleplaying purposes, but he was still mechanically penalized, IMO. The player may have been perfectly happy using that sword, but I'm sure he wouldn't have minded if he could have found ways to make the sword better as well.

you should have heard the rest of the group (14 players).

edit: i think he did it b/c it was fun. and to rib the rest of the group.

 

[scriven]

The practice revealed in published adventures dating back to 1e days makes magic items as common as horseshoes. Sure, the DMG would say something like "a magic item is a benison beyond price", but that was clearly not supported by the actual rules of the game, or the prectice revealed by published works. Especially since they were given an actual price (listed next to the item in the DMG no less).

Sure, the early modules contained lots of magic items. But when you found, say, a serpentine owl (there's one in The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth), there was a good chance that it would be the only one you'd ever see. To me, that's just inexpressibly cool.

If anyone with the funds could go out and buy another, the experience wouldn't be the same.

 

[molonel]

i was still relating my experience with my group. i was the referee. David was the player. how is that proxy?

Because you're not him?