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

[IcyCool]

If you'd like to point to me where it says in the 3.5 DMG that the DM doesn't control the game, and it gives anything except guidelines and leaves the final choice up to the DM, I'd really LOVE to see that.

Otherwise, no, rule 0 is still VERY much in play.

If I'm not mistaken, Rule Zero is no longer defined in the 3.5 DMG. That's what I was referring to.

Bravo!

Then you are following what the rules tell you to do.

Not that anyone seems to have noticed, but in the majority of post #349 you incorrectly attributed howandwhy99's comments to me. I did not say these things. Your first two quotes in that post were correctly attributed to me.

 

[Reynard]

Your 4th level PC's fought an EL 9 encounter and aren't dead. You have far larger problems in your game than players whinging about lack of treasure. I'm sorry that's harsh, but, there's something seriously wrong with a party getting through an encounter that tough and no one dying.

No, I don't have "far larger problems". I have players who are good at tactics (they put themselves in a tight place to control how many attackers could hit them at once), teamwork (the clerics stayed behind the front liners, healing as was necessary -- and totally blowing through their spells/day doing so), and creative problem solving (the rogue put himself at great risk to hit the ettin and then avoid getting squashed by it to further control the battlefield). So no, I am not a poor DM as you so blantantly implied. I have good players who should be rewarded for their efforts. It is just that the rewards inherent in 3E are entirely too high, both in XP and in expected treasure.

Why? From their point of view, they did the work and didn't reap the benefits. What's the point of whacking the monsters if you have pocket lint to show for it afterwards. This sounds more like a lack of communication problem than anything else.

Or, it could be that they weren't satified with the 14K worth of treasure they did get from the trove, because when it is divided up between the PCs and compared to the "wealth by level" chart, they found it lacking.

However, that 30 k gp is probably more cash than he could spend in his lifetime.

Unless he had to pay 1500 gp per week per level to train, as is suggested.

In your experience. In my experience, it is far more Sword and Sorcery than 1e ever was where I had groups flogging dozens of magic swords at every opportunity.

I think we have very different definitions of sword and sorcery.

See, now this is something else I completely disagree with. Players are a dime a dozen. I know right now that I could boot my entire group (not that I would, it's taken me a while to build the group I have and I'm very, very happy with them) and have an entirely new group next week. I've become far more trigger happy booting players in the past few years because of this realization. I shopped around quite a bit and finally settled on six very golden players whose playstyles mesh nicely with mine.

I live in the north east, where finding players is not so easy.

 

[S'mon]

So, if I have the concept at 1st level, it's ok to pick and choose my magic goodies, but, if I change my mind and want to change concepts, I'm SOL?

I will work with a player whose initial character concept at 1st level involves a quest for their mentor’s staff of power (actual case in my C&C campaign). I may also be willing to work with a player who decides during the campaign that they want their PC to quest for their father's vorpal sword, now wielded by the demon overlord.
I also recall in one game starting an Elric-ish PC, a prince of a degenerate pre-human race, off with a powerful item resembling the Actorios Ring, able to summon and command elementals, demons et al. What I will never ever do is agree that a player is _entitled_ to a vorpal sword or a staff of power just because they decide in the middle of the campaign that they want one. Nor will I pay much heed to a player whose sole concept is “I’m totally bad-ass, dude” – if they can play a bad-ass and make it enjoyable for me to GM, that’s great. But there is no entitlement.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Quoted very, very much for troof! If the only source of mystery in your game comes from the opacity of the rules, then, perhaps a bit of brushing up on DMing skills is in order.

Agreed. However, it is equally true that the opacity of the rules, by definition, influence the degree of mystery of the game.

Umm, well, of course you are breaking RAW to do this. The aren't any doors, or even any substances in RAW that is immune to all kinds of force. So what? Rule 0 is your friend and it appears in the first pages of the DMG. You want an unbeatable door? The rules will back your play.

Sorry, but this confuses me. Do the rules back you (i.e., you are following the RAW)? Or are you breaking the RAW? I would say that the existence of Rule 0 (in any edition) implies that no matter what she does, the DM cannot break the RAW.

 

[Numion]

Obviously, not a student of logic.

To disprove the claim "All birds fly" requires that one can example a bird that does not fly. Once this is the case, the claim is disproven. It doesn't mean or imply the opposite (that all birds do not fly).

Obviously, one flew over the cuckoos nest in your case

(1) Potion miscability,
(2) Random-effect items, such as wands of wonder and bags of beans,
(3) The variable (and otherwise unknown) elements involved in item creation (not a feature of 3.X),
(4) That magic items can, and do, exist that replicate otherwise unknown effects (without being artifacts),
(5) That the wording of the rules offers more room for interpretation, so that there can be variables in how magic works from casting to casting, based on circumstance,
(6) The inclusion of "unknown and unknowable" magic effects in many, many published modules -- where rivers might run through midair in one room and a giant crab might be kept alive inside a giant bubble in another.

3E adventures by Dungeon and WotC include new magic items with non-standard effects. It's clearly possible within 3E. That quashes #3, because the items are outside of the creation rules in 3E. So you're still left with your awesome display of mystery with just point #1, because the other numbers in your list are obviously present in 3E. (I'll give you a pointer: Rod of Wonder, for example, fits #4)

Even if the rule was that there was "only" a 1% chance of something truly bad happening to you when you used magic (say, because the item was cursed, or because the DM thought that a sword of wonder was a good idea, where it goes off, wand-like, whenever you roll a 1), that would tend to make it something other than a "predictable technology" in the way those words are generally used.

It would also make you think twice about the next glowing sword that you saw. A little unpredictability goes a long way.

The real-life equivilent would be that, every time you drove a car, there was a 1% (or higher) chance that the car might turn out to be Christine (from the Stephen King novel of the same name). I doubt that auto sales would skyrocket as a result. I doubt that this would be considered "predictable technology" by the average consumer.

There is a chance of "something truly bad happening to you" (your words from above quote) every time you drive a car. You might crash, for example. It doesn't make driving cars mysterious. It's still a predictable technology.

Bet, you are obviously also visiting Bizarro Land. Enjoy your stay.

Everytime I log onto ENWorld. You wouldn't believe the kind of bozos I encounter there

 

[diaglo]

If I'm not mistaken, Rule Zero is no longer defined in the 3.5 DMG. That's what I was referring to.

i think it is in the PHB for the revised edition.

 

[Raven Crowking]

He PROBABLY meant that there's no listed substance like that, not that it would be impossible to make...
Although, I must point something out in regards to this :

I'd like to just say something i read somewhere "The rules don't say I can't isn't good enough reason to state that chopping down a tree gives you five levels." I've never ANYWHERE seen it specifically listed that trees are NOT a CR 20 encounter.
ALSO, I've never seen a rule stating that there's no simple light weapon called the "Flanger" that has a threat range of 2-20/X10 and deals 5d8 damage with 20' reach.
And yes, I'm taking it to an obscene level to prove a point... the fact that no rule specifically negates something doesn't mean it automaticaly should be allowed.

Now I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, I'm just saying don't claim the rules back you up when they specifically don't. RAW means rules as WRITTEN.. if it's not WRITTEN, it's not RAW.

But surely something doesn't break the RAW unless it violates what is WRITTEN. Right?

 

[PallidPatience]

It's never spelled out, but changing the rules is addressed in the 3.5 DMG. Do you know what it says? Think carefully, pay attention to what the change implies about the resulting world, and never do it "just because". In other words, always have a reason, and make sure it won't break the system.

And as for "why not adventure for every single magic item..." Because I don't want to play Diablo 2 when I sit down to play D&D. I don't want to have to hunt down a simple magic weapon, or a piece of armor, or a pair of gloves. I want to get on with the story. I don't want the game to be about the equipment. Therefore, I want the equipment to just be there, so I can say, "Well, that's done. Now, let's deal with what's threatening the kingdom."

 

[Raven Crowking]

Rules always changed between groups, regardless of edition or game. But the 1E DMG is very clear: you don't change core rules because the assumption was that players would take their characters with them to new games and campaigns with different DMs. What was the province of each DM was everything else -- including making new stuff (items, monsters, etc...)

Quote that one for me, because that isn't what MY copy of the DMG says.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Life's far to short to cater to problem players.

QFT....also true that life's too short to play in a game where you're unhappy with the DM.

I've never understood why anyone would play in a game they were unhappy with, or DM for players they gained no pleasure from DMing.