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

[Celebrim]

The discussion has already gone over the ground. Do you randomly throw items at the player and thus he'll never get Gauntlets of Dexterity, no matter HOW much the player would want some for his rogue? DO you tailor the magic items to what YOU think the pcs want?

I do neither. I put items in the game because I think that the player needs the item in order to have a good chance of success, or else because I think it is appropriate to the possessions or horde of a particular type being. 'Appropriate' here covers alot of ground, and can include things like the history and geography of the area, the profession or shtick of the NPC, or some story I've created as backstory.

I try my best to make items unique. I like items to have breadth rather than just depth, something that annoys me about the current crafting rules. I like items to be nearly unique, and I like powerful items to have some sort of drawback or weakness.
3e gives the players a say in the matter, though the DM can always override it. You can keep what you find, or sell it for half price and get what you want. There is still a great advantage to finding the Gauntlets of Dexterity rather than buying them.

The "mystery" of Gauntlets of Dexterity is a very subjective thing, and I doubt it was ever as strong as folks suggest in these kinds of threads. If every magic item in your campaign has a backstory, the odds are still likely that the players would focus on one or two objects and the rest would become "Gauntlets of Dexterity" rather than "Beltars Gloves of Dextrous Maneuvering".

I think you are entirely missing my point.

 

[FireLance]

The worst mistakle I ever made running a game was when I wanted to eliminate the ned to "loot" so the campaign was mission based and when each mission was complete, the archmage (eviul dragon in disguise) let the PCs "buy" items from his vault (hoard) based on what the expected treasure from the mission's encounters would be worth. Moreover, I gave them free reign over items in the DMG, so long as they could afford them.

My intent was to make sure the party stayed within the "suggested wealth by level" guidelines. The result was a huge, imbalanced mess. And, worse yet, since the PCs were much more powerful than their levels would indicate (because they cherry picked the perfect items for their characters and for their team tactics) I had to up the CR of encounters, which meant they got even bigger rewards, and so on...

On the other hand, my experience is completely different. My games also tend to be mission-based, and my standard convention is that the PCs work for a wealthy organization that provides them with equipment equal to the standard wealth level for characters of their level. Nonetheless, even though the PCs are completely free to customize their equipment between adventures (and replace gear that was used, lost, or destroyed), I'm able to provide appropriate and enjoyable challenges for the PCs. Of course, the PCs in my games level up quickly (generally once per session), but we like what some may consider to be an unnaturally fast pace of character advancement.

 

[Reynard]

Hence the word "sometimes". The statement has to do with the fact that not every item is some special piece of history, sometimes a magic item is just a piece of gear.

It doesn't have to be the case, though. There might only be one set of said gloves, thereby making them inherently special. There's a similar issue with monsters in the game. if every other orc the PCs come up against is also a half dragon, the half dragon is dull and rote. But if there is *a* Half Dragon, it is suddenly much cooler.

3E sets up a situation in which it is assumed that there are reasonably large numbers of "normal" magical gear, all for sale. That's not something the game designers should decide. That's something for the DM to decide. Unfortunately, it would be impossible to run a "1 of each" style campaign in 3rd Edition because ueful, fairly standardized magical gear is an expected part of the equation. You'd have to do a whole bunch of fiddling with an already uncertain CR/EL system to bring the uniqueness back to magic in 3E using just the Core. And that shouldn't be the case.

3E added a whole bunch of neatness to magic items -- both mechanically (quantifying prerequisties for their creation, standardizing bonuses, etc..) and flavor wise (love, love, LOVE weapon and armor special abilities). But built into that same system was an inherently high magic level and an actual need for things like magic shops. i mean, why they kept random treasure rolls, magic and otherwise, around is beyond me, since everything is supposed to be counted to the last bean in order to ensure balance.

I realize that there was aubiquity of magical items in previous editions as well, especially when you're talking about +1 swords and the like. However, adjusting that element of the game did not have the same balance breaking effect as it does in 3E.

EDIT: Tnagential, but related -- I got an email today from my players "reminding" me that they were well behind the "wealth by level" guidelines in the DMG. i mean, when would that have happened with 1E? WTF?

 

[Thirsty]

I will of course mention once again though that we ALWAYS sold items, and that it was standard procedure for every campaign I've ever been aware of locally.

We have too. The point I'm trying to make I guess is that we didn't generally as they were magical and we couldn't easily replace them. Where there is significant trade in magical items (even relatively low powered ones) it becomes far more likely that these "odd-ball" items will disappear from the party - to the detriment of the game IMO (but to the benefit of the characters and it is arguable that this outranks the game).

 

[Reynard]

On the other hand, my experience is completely different. My games also tend to be mission-based, and my standard convention is that the PCs work for a wealthy organization that provides them with equipment equal to the standard wealth level for characters of their level. Nonetheless, even though the PCs are completely free to customize their equipment between adventures (and replace gear that was used, lost, or destroyed), I'm able to provide appropriate and enjoyable challenges for the PCs. Of course, the PCs in my games level up quickly (generally once per session), but we like what some may consider to be an unnaturally fast pace of character advancement.

Let me ask you this: are you using the CR/EL system, or are you choosing stuff based on what you know aout the players and their PCs? Do you run the game by the book, dice fall where they may, or do you wing it and handwave stuff? because if you do the latter in either or both situations, it is easy to have a game that provides appropriate challenges. If you do the former, I am impressed with your ability to manipulate an arcane and broken system of setting up challenges in the face of a completely unbalanced character dynamic.

 

[howandwhy99]

However, in the play of D&D 3E, even with all these known elements, my players still manage to surprise me with unexpected interactions of effects.

It's much like Magic: the Gathering: that's a game where all the elements are known (although there were plans for the card set to be mysterious, that went bye-bye about 1 week after the game came out. Love the internet!) However, it's the interactions between the various elements that make things really interesting.

Another factor is that one player is extremely unlikely to know all the elements of the game just due to the sheer number that exist. So there is unknown information there as well. It's potentially known, but realistically not.

The moment something appears in a rulebook, it's no longer automatically mysterious. However, such can be injected by the DM. (One reason I like Weapons of Legacy - the PCs know how they work, and what the penalties will be, but I don't tell them the bonuses until the achieve the levels - I can do that because the items are my own creation).

Cheers!

Oh yeah. Synergy is still a big part of the game. I think optimization forums are still having fun with that. It's just hardly the only fun magic items can offer. Heck, even 10' foot poles, towels, and other mundane equipment should allow new uses for the imaginative.

 

[FireLance]

Actually, I would assume neither is to be found. I would assume that either could be commissioned for a price, but noone makes an item like a 100,000 gp crown and then just hopes to find a buyer for it at some point. Find someone that can do the work and then wait a few months.

Granted, nobody makes a 100,000 gp crown or magical staff and hopes to find a buyer for it at some point, but you can always assume that at some point in the past, someone wanted the same crown or magical staff and had it made, and whoever owns it now is prepared to sell it for a price.

After all, if the PCs discovered that same 100,000 gp crown or magical staff in a treasure vault, someone must also have made it at some point in the past. If it seems reasonable for a 100,000 gp crown or magical staff to be lying around in a pile of treasure, why is it not equally reasonable that it might be in the hands of someone who is willing to sell it?

 

[MerricB]

3E sets up a situation in which it is assumed that there are reasonably large numbers of "normal" magical gear, all for sale. That's not something the game designers should decide. That's something for the DM to decide. Unfortunately, it would be impossible to run a "1 of each" style campaign in 3rd Edition because ueful, fairly standardized magical gear is an expected part of the equation. You'd have to do a whole bunch of fiddling with an already uncertain CR/EL system to bring the uniqueness back to magic in 3E using just the Core. And that shouldn't be the case.

Actually, it is absolutely something the designers should decide. With such a tool as CR/EL, they need to make a default assumption about what level of magic is in the campaign. You may not like the level they've set it at, but I know a lot of people do.

It would be quite valid for a version of 3E D&D that doesn't use the current standards of magic-item availability - perhaps one much lower. In that version, all the calculations for CR/EL are redone to fix things.

Cheers!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Because keeping magic in the game makes it better.

That was the off limits source.

...because irrational reverence for magic makes the game better?

Everyone who plays Eberron or Forgotten Realms would disagree with you.

The 'is magic mysterious' subthread is getting tiresome.

1) Magic was more mysterious in earlier editions than it is now.

2) Magic can never be completely mysterious in any game where the players contol it.

3) The rules of a game contribute to magic's flavor in the setting, but they don't define it.

You know what's getting tiresome? People pretending that items like this are matters of fact instead of matters of opinion and lively debate.

These are not safe assumptions by any sort of a long shot. So, I guess:

4) Wrong..

 

[Korgoth]

EDIT: Tnagential, but related -- I got an email today from my players "reminding" me that they were well behind the "wealth by level" guidelines in the DMG. i mean, when would that have happened with 1E? WTF?

Here's my response: "Dear players, as you have correctly pointed out, you are currently well behind the "wealth by level" guidelines in the DMG. However, you are so vastly ahead of the "whiny little crybaby" guidelines that everything balances out. Sincerely, the D-fn-M."

Oy. Sounds like somebody took the "Bloated Sense of Entitlement" feat.

I'm sure that if they were well ahead of the wealth guidelines you would not have gotten a reminder email.