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

[Raven Crowking]

You asked about potion miscability. Which is an entirely predictable element.

Again, Bizarro.

Bizarro One: The question about potion miscability came up within the context of earlier edition AD&D magic, so the relevance of other magic is as germaine as that of, say, swinging swords.

Bizarro Two: Swinging a sword has a hit or miss chance, and a range of damage. It always either hits or misses, and it always does some amount of damage if it hits (even if the creature doesn't take that damage). Conversely, drinking two potions can do...anything to you.

Bizarro Three: You equate the procedure followed by the DM with the in-game effect on the PC.

Bizarro Four: You keep using the word "predictable". I do not think that word means what you think it means. The Potion Miscability Table is a starting point for what can happen. It is inclusive, not exclusive. Having a potion with instantaneous results doesn't necessarily mean that potion miscability isn't consulted, so you could indeed have a wierd effect from drinking a potion of healing and then a potion of gaseous form. Even two identical rolls with two identical sets of potions can have differing effects based upon the wording of the results. This is the opposite of predictability.

"If I use this item, the sun is likely to still rise tomorrow, therefore the item is predictable" doesn't connotate predictability to me. However, if this is what you mean by predictable, then it is probable that we agree about the predictability of magic in earlier editions, and merely disagree on what "predictability" is.

The vast majority of modules produced for AD&D include new magic items, the functions of which should not be known to the players at the time they are acquired. Tons of cursed items mimicked "good" items until certain conditions were met...heck, there are "good" items in the DMG that mimic other "good" items until certain conditions are met. The DM is encouraged to create new items, further adding to uncertainty, because these new items do not merely duplicate known effects or spells the way items made by Item Creation feats do as a matter of rules -- even the lowly potion could literally do anything depending upon the DM, the campaign, and the situation.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, 3E has about the same amount of random (unpredictable) magic items that 1E has, so I don't see your claim about 1E magic more unpredictable by nature as having much basis.

Ah, excepting that my claim is that magic has not always been a "predictable technology" in the game. If you want to say that it is not, now, a predictable technology, then more power to you.

I'd say, though, that things like Item Creation feats have increased the predictability of magic manyfold. In order to be a predictable technology, an item must be predictable in both its manufacture and use. 3e has gone a very long way toward the former, and by making most items effectively spell-holders, it has gone a very long way toward the later as well. Even the changes to spells such as identify exist for the purpose of making magic more predictable.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I still say there is a vast amount of room between this description and the stereotype of a supermarket style "magic shop".

I don't think anyone in this thread is in favour of supermarket-style magic shops. I'm not, it makes the exotic too commonplace for my taste.

The Magic Item Compendium has rather a strange sentence on the subject:

Large one-stop-shop "magic emporiums" are unrealistic and rare even in metropolis-sized cities.

It's peculiar to say that something is both unrealistic (which suggests it doesn't exist at all) and rare (which makes it clear that it does).

 

[Maggan]

It's peculiar to say that something is both unrealistic (which suggests it doesn't exist at all)

Nah. There's quite a lot of unrealistic things in D&D. A magic emporium would feel unrealistic, but hey, it could work.

/m

 

[wally]

I had a situation in my game where a player was browsing through the DMs guide and found the Dancing Shield, or something like that. Anyway, he was playing a fighter type that used a sword that required two hands, so the shield that he didn't have to wield sounded great to him.

In my game world, nobody had ever made such a magic item. Nobody had ever found such a magic item. They didn't exist in my gameworld.

The player had to ask why, as they were in the book and he said his character wanted one. It isn't that expensive or over powering. Why couldn't he get it? There isn't a general magic emporium, but if he went into the large metropolis and made some good gather info checks, then why shouldn't he get it? That last question is based on some of the opinions of posters in this thread. I don't ask this to argue specifics, I just wonder if you guys would say, let him have it.

-wally

 

[Raven Crowking]

I should also note that I am simply choosing the most obvious counter-examples. If one proposes that all birds fly, one doesn't have to itemize every non-flying bird to prove him wrong. One need only point to a penguin or an ostrich. Choosing a kakapo is simply more work for no extra reward.

 

[howandwhy99]

Let's quit calling magic items Magical. Let's just call them what they really are: Equipment. There's nothing mysterious or grand about them at all. Nothing awe inspiring. Nothing to play with. Nothing to make the game worth playing. Just another +# bonus. And of course they've always been this way, so let's cheer now, 30 years later, that we've finally got the name right.

Without magic, why bother even calling it Fantasy?

 

[Numion]

Ah, excepting that my claim is that magic has not always been a "predictable technology" in the game. If you want to say that it is not, now, a predictable technology, then more power to you.

You seem to have quoted me out of context. I know your claim, and addressed that in the second part of my post. You shouldn't claim magic to be unpredictable if only 1% of items (it's probably less than 1%, actually) are somewhat unpredictable.

I'd say, though, that things like Item Creation feats have increased the predictability of magic manyfold. In order to be a predictable technology, an item must be predictable in both its manufacture and use. 3e has gone a very long way toward the former, and by making most items effectively spell-holders, it has gone a very long way toward the later as well. Even the changes to spells such as identify exist for the purpose of making magic more predictable.

How does this claimed unpredictability of magic affect play? When the items are used during play. It doesn't matter how the item came into being when it's used in the game. Only its mechanics matter when it's used to do something. In that regard 99% of items are still utterly predictable in both editions.

You're still basing your claims on that 1%. Sounds a bit incredible that, for example, PCs were mixing and quaffing multiple potions like it was happy hour that often. 99% of the time they were swinging that +1 sword, firing magic missiles and wearing +2 armor - the predictable stuff.

Anyway, the point is pretty moot for me, since my players value xp more than crafting their own items (they've not even read the item creation rules). By your logic that's a big chunk of predictability of magic gone for them

 

[Numion]

Let's quit calling magic items Magical. Let's just call them what they really are: Equipment.

Now don't be silly. It's called magical because it doesn't work in an anti-magic field.

 

[drothgery]

In my game world, nobody had ever made such a magic item. Nobody had ever found such a magic item. They didn't exist in my gameworld.

The player had to ask why, as they were in the book and he said his character wanted one. It isn't that expensive or over powering. Why couldn't he get it? There isn't a general magic emporium, but if he went into the large metropolis and made some good gather info checks, then why shouldn't he get it? That last question is based on some of the opinions of posters in this thread. I don't ask this to argue specifics, I just wonder if you guys would say, let him have it.

Nope. There's a world of difference between saying 'this item doesn't exist in my campaign' -- no one has one, and there is no way to make one -- and saying that the only way to get an item that does exist (and by standard pricing would be within the means of a PC) is to hope it shows up in random treasure, or just maybe commission it (but don't count on it, because no one would ever trade XP for money).

It's perfectly reasonable to ban animated shields in your campaign because you think they're silly -- or for all magic shields to be animated, because of some strange property of enchanted shields in your world. Either is a house rule, and, were I to DM a game, I'd probably ban animated shields because I think they're silly.