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

[Numion]

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.

Except that's not what you're doing. You're generalizing one instance to characterize the whole, and I'm pointing out that your one example is the exception (potion miscability table -> magic in 1E was unpredictable is your claim, I'm saying it's the exception compared to 99% of items / item use).

Now that we're into ornithology, your claim is the same as claiming "Penguings don't fly, so birds don't fly", a complete reversal of your intent in the quoted section.

 

[howandwhy99]

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

Good catch. Why don't we call that one anti-electrical field?

 

[Storm Raven]

Again, Bizarro.

Only if you torture the word.

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.

Other magic as in "most items in the 1e DMG"? I'd say that's pretty relevant.

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.

No, it can't. It can do a very small set of things to you, defined by a table that has exactly nine possible outcomes. And that only happens if you mix potions. If you don't, then there is never any potion miscability issues, and magic remains entirely predictable. Mixing potions is like trying to hit someone with a sword. It has a narrowly defined possible set of outcomes. This is not unpredictable.

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

Magic is not mysterious because it is defined in a predictable manner by the rules. Is chemisty mysterious? I mean, there are no DMs following procedure, but if you do X then you will get outcome Y. Hence, it is predictable based upon the observations of the experimenter - just as determining that mixing potions in a 1e defined world would be observable to inhabitants of that world. "If you mix potions, you get this range of possibilities occurring" would be pretty easy for experimenters to figure out - and they probably would given the benefits of figuring that out.

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.

First off, no, you couldn't. You need to reread the rules for using the table.

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.

There are nine possible outcomes that arise from mixing a pair of potions. If you don't mix potions, there is no consulting the table. Predictably. If you do mix potions, then you consult the table and get one of a limited set of outcomes. Predictably.

"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.

Predictability means knowing what will trigger certain sets of outcomes. If I pull the trigger on a loaded black powder rifle it will either (1) fire a bullet, (2) misfire and nothing will happen, or (3) misfire in a catastrophic way. Even though there is more than one possible outcome, the technology is still predictable, because I know pretty much the set that it will be drawn from, and have a good idea what the relative frequencies of these occurences will be. Potion miscability is exactly the same.

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.

Examples please. And also provide the frequencies of these items relative to the entirely ordinary run-of-the mill magic items provided.

 

[VirgilCaine]

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

Frankly, the idea that NO ONE would EVER want a floating shield strains believability to the breaking point.

How many thousands of years have humans been using shields and magic?
How long have the Elves been using shields and magic?
The Dwarves?
Magic items don't wear out. They get lost, yes, or stolen or taken away to enemy fortresses, but they don't stop working.
Probably there's quite a lot of them around, since they are pretty useful to warriors. Sure, some of them will be lost in dungeons or cave complexes or wars or in happy owner's hands, but it's possible there's one up for sale.

 

[Slife]

no one would ever trade XP for money

Yes they would. Experience is a river.

 

[Reynard]

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

Simple answer, regardless of edition, would be this: I would allow the PC to search high and low for some reference to such an item and, assuming the player made a good-faith effort (i.e. more than making an Gather Info roll), let them find a long lost tale of The One Armed Knight and His Dancing Shield, as well as a clue to where the OAK might be buried.

Then I would promptly thank the player for coming up with my next adventure for me.

 

[howandwhy99]

What is truly repulsive out of this all is magic items no longer being considered special. The DMG list is THE list of available technology. The items aren't suggestions anymore. They are the law of the land. To imagine anything else would be... against the rules.

A setting where magic isn't commoditized and mass produced is now considered against the RAW and unworkable under it.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Frankly, the idea that NO ONE would EVER want a floating shield strains believability to the breaking point.

How many thousands of years have humans been using shields and magic?
How long have the Elves been using shields and magic?
The Dwarves?
Magic items don't wear out. They get lost, yes, or stolen or taken away to enemy fortresses, but they don't stop working.

Magic shields can be sundered, however.
If the concept of floaty shields annoys you (and it does annoy me, since it makes sword-and-board irrelevant) then rule that it's a +5 equivalent bonus and rule that it requires a 15th-level caster to create. The DM is always free to modify ANYTHING in the DMG at a whim. Everything in the DMG is his domain, nothing in that book can be taken as a default assumption by the players.

 

[Storm Raven]

What is truly repulsive out of this all is magic items no longer being considered special.

I disagree with you on the "no longer" part.

The DMG list is THE list of available technology. The items aren't suggestions anymore. They are the law of the land. To imagine anything else would be... against the rules.

They are just as much subject to change as any other rule.

A setting where magic isn't commoditized and mass produced is now considered against the RAW and unworkable under it.

That has pretty much been the way every edition of D&D has treated magic items in practice. The rhetoric has been different, but the mechanics have always pointed towards the commoditization of magic items. The only difference now is that the rhetoric is finnaly being altered to match what the rules have always said.

 

[painandgreed]

How many thousands of years have humans been using shields and magic?
How long have the Elves been using shields and magic?
The Dwarves?
Magic items don't wear out. They get lost, yes, or stolen or taken away to enemy fortresses, but they don't stop working.
Probably there's quite a lot of them around, since they are pretty useful to warriors. Sure, some of them will be lost in dungeons or cave complexes or wars or in happy owner's hands, but it's possible there's one up for sale.

Ya, but I could easily see such shields requiring an exotic armor feat. Once found, somebody might spend the effort to use it. Probably fewer than everybody will be willing to get the item and then spend a feat. I don't really want to say that such items can't exist, but they do seem like an item that I'd want to restrict because otherwise, yes, everybody would get one, and I don't want a world where everybody is running around with them.