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

[Hussar]

Really, the amount of magic in any given novel is exactly as much magic as they need. If they need an item to get past something, they will have it.

In novels, a character who receives a magical item will always use it. You never see a character pick up a magical bottle of water that glows in the dark and think, "Gee, I don't think he's EVER going to use THAT." And, lo, it gets used sometime before the final credits roll.

That's because magic items in novels are plot devices.

OTOH, it's not rare to see PC's hoarding potions and various other items, particularly single use ones, "for that rainy day". PC's frequently will have more than a few items that never get used, or, if they get used, it's not particularly relavent to the game at hand. A Deck of Many Things, for example, is never used to defeat the BBEG. It's there because it's fun, but, it doesn't really serve any purpose than to just be fun.

This is why novel comparisons always fall flat. We have no idea if Gimli had +5 armor. He could have. In a game, he likely did have. In the novel, it never comes up because it serves no purpose to come up. Gimli survives because the author has decreed so. There is no such protection for PC's. And, as there is no protection inherent in the game, players are going to want to make their characters live as long as possible. While it's very hard to "win" in an RPG, dying is a pretty easy way to lose.

That's where magic shops step in. Gimli's player decides that he wants to take the Dwarven Defender PrC and buff the heck out of his AC. Good tank build. Behind the scenes, without interrupting the flow of the game, he mentions this to his DM and at some point, perhaps in Rivendell or Lothlorien or Helm's Deep, he blows his accumulated wealth (also not mentioned in the book because it serves no plot purpose) on a juicy suit of +3 Armor of Fortification.

 

[scriven]

Based on your previous posts, your objections seem to run along the lines of:

1. The PCs should not be able to customize their magical gear.
My question is, why the arbitrary distinction between magical and non-magical gear? If you are prepared to allow the PCs to purchase full plate armor or a spyglass, why not low-level potions and scrolls, or +1 bracers or armor, or a +1 breastplate? I can understand limiting items on the basis of price, but that's what the rules on community gp limits do, anyway.

2. The PCs should not be able to buy certain magical items because certain items should be unique.
I can understand the sentiment although I wouldn't have a problem with the PCs buying unique items myself (unique works of art are regularly sold at auctions in the real world, after all). The question is where you draw the line. Perhaps there has only been one holy avenger in the history of the world, but what about a +1 longsword? Even if each individual +1 longsword in the world has a name and a history, if there are 100,000 of them, you should be able to find at least one owner who is willing to part with it for gold.

Why distinguish between magical and non-magical gear? Well, if you want an in-game justification, that's easy: magical gear is much, much harder to make than non-magical gear. (In 1E the rules for item creation were murky, but you had to be high-level to do it, and you stood a 5% chance of losing a point of constitution for each permanent item you made. 2E, I think, was similar. And in 3E, of course, you have to spend XP to make items.)

From a rules or campaign-design standpoint, the question isn't so much customization of magical vs. non-magical gear, as whether (or what proportion of) the fruits of adventuring should also be available for sale.

I'm saying that most of those fruits should not be available for sale -- that it makes the game more enjoyable for (admittedly subjective) reasons that I've stated. Since, in D&D, "fruits of adventuring" largely means "magic items," the magical vs. non-magical gear distinction and the effective uniqueness of most magic items fall out as consequences.

(And since I'm not saying that absolutely none of the fruits of adventuring should be available for sale, I do admit the possibility of shops with minor items such as the ones you list, or even with a few more significant ones.)

Finally, there's nothing to stop the DM from just making the item available. If he can put the exact magical item that the player wants in a pile of treasure, he can just as easily have the exact magical item that the player wants show up in the inventory of a dealer in rare and wondrous items.

I agree with this. I have no problem with the DM putting a limited selection of items in shops, and thoroughly agree that he should exercise the same care in doing so as he does when placing treasure.

Hence, to me, letting the players choose the magic items they'll find in shops would be like letting them choose what's in a monster's hoard after they've defeated it.

 

[Celebrim]

That's where magic shops step in. Gimli's player decides that he wants to take the Dwarven Defender PrC and buff the heck out of his AC. Good tank build. Behind the scenes, without interrupting the flow of the game, he mentions this to his DM and at some point, perhaps in Rivendell or Lothlorien or Helm's Deep, he blows his accumulated wealth (also not mentioned in the book because it serves no plot purpose) on a juicy suit of +3 Armor of Fortification.

The problem with this particular example is that we know in fact that he didn't.

Most of the characters in the LotR either start with the items that they have, or they acquire them after defeating a monster, or they recieve them as gifts from a powerful NPC.

In Gimli's case we know that he began with a chain shirt of dwarven make, and that no finer suit of mail could be found for him. There is no particular demarkation between 'magic' and things that are very finely made in LotR, but for D&D purposes it's fair to assume that Gimli's dwarven chain shirt was magical. After all, we know that the dwarves of the mountain made 'magical toys' and 'wrought mighty spells' and what sort of spell could be more dwarven than a charm of making or an enchantment on the thing made?

We can pretty much track every item that the 'players' get because JRRT in the role of story teller makes a point of describing these 'gifting ceremonies' because they are so important to the culture he's drawing on. We know Aragorn gets a suit of chain mail from Theoden, and we know Legolas gets a bow from Galadriel, that Sam and Frodo get walking staves from Faramir, and so forth. We know that the hobbits get short swords of Numenorean make from the Barrow Wight's tomb, and that Gandalf's sword Glamdring came from the horde of some trolls, and Frodo's suit of mithril chain mail came from the horde of a dragon and was gifted to him by Biblo, and so forth. We know every single weapon that the party had because JRRT lists all the martial gear carried by the company when they depart Ravenloft.

What we don't know however, whether Aragorn had a magic ring, because we don't know for certain if he carried the ring mentioned in association with him, and we don't know if it had any value besides being a heirloom.

We pretty much can certainly know that they didn't buy anything in a shop, because we know that in the source material - things like Beowulf - the hero doesn't buy things from a shop either.

 

[DragonLancer]

The point of all that is, you shouldn't be forcing your views on the players. By completely shutting down any customization of magic items, you've basically told your players, "My imagination is better than yours. I know best for what your character needs." It's not really surprising that some people don't like that.

Forcing might not be the best way to put it, but the DM is in charge. He creates his homebrew with a certain theme/s in mind, or converts a published world to his vision. The players who want to partake must play to that vision.

It's not a case of saying that the DM's imagine or world/setting is better, it's that he has an idea what he wants for that world and his campaigns in it. It's hardly fair on the DM if after all this hard work making it work, that his players than turn around and demand they get treasure and wealth equal to the RAW. I class that as another form of powergaming.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Your argument though, doesn't track. Just because there might be a random outcome within a certain range to certain things does not mean that something is not a predictable technology. For example, when you drive a car, it might throw a rod and punch a hole in the engine block. It might not. This doesn't make cars an unpredictable technology. The same analysis holds true for potion miscability. When you mix potions, you get a range of possible results. This only happens when you mix potions, and only has certain defined possible outcomes. This is not unpredictable, any more than dumping water on your toaster having a range of possible outcomes indicates that toasters are not a predictable technology.

When I purchase a car, I know what it is. It might be a lemon; it might be a good vehicle. The operating principles by which it works are known, and in the event that it thows a rod I can simply go to a mechanic, pay, and have it repaired. Should I so choose, I can easily learn exactly how the car works, and, with somewhat more effort, build one from scratch. In fact, my older brother regularly machines his own parts. The odds of my throwing a rod, or having another mechanical failure, while driving is considerably less than 1%. If I crash the car, that is the result of user error. These things combine to make the automobile predictable technology.

In 3e, when I purchase a magic item, I know what it is within a finer range than in real life, because 3e assumes few (if any) "lemons". In the event that it is sundered, I can simply get it repaired. Should I choose, I can take classes and feats that allow me to build one from scratch (with the exception of artifacts). These things combine to make magic items in 3e a fairly predictable technology (although I would not say absolutely so in the sense that 3e artifacts are similar to 1e magic items).

In 1e, by RAW, I cannot generally purchase magic items. When I find one, I do not know what it is. My ability to determine what it is is severely curtailed by DM Fiat and the limitations of Identify and similar magics. There are far more "lemons" than in real life, and those "lemons" can leave you very dead very quickly. They may also violate the rules that are otherwise in place (i.e., magic items can kill you without a save, and create any effect at all). In the event that it is broken, it might explode or might do nothing, and I might be able to get it repaired or not, depending upon DM Fiat. Should the DM choose, I might learn how to make one, but the ability to learn is out of my hands, nor can I assume that what I must do to make one today is the same as what I must do to make one tomorrow. These things combine to make magic items, IMHO, something other than a "predictable technology".

Frankly, if automobiles worked this way, I doubt anyone would consider them a predictable technology in the real world. "I need a new car. I think I'm going to head out into the wilderness in order to find one. I sure hope I get a car that I can use for transportation, not one that makes you invisible or melts your face off. Oh, well."

You seem to think that "any amount of randomness at all" means that something is "not predictable". This is simply an untenable position.

Not at all. Shall I cut & paste for you?

The acknowledgement that some items X fall outside of category Y carries with it the inherent proposition that knowing that an item is in set X doesn't mean that you know it is in category Y. The degree to which category Y encomases set X partially determines how safe an assumption that X = Y is in any given case, as does the degree of potential consequences of being in error.

Magic in D&D (regardless of edition) can run in a spectrum from "X always equals Y" to "X sometimes equals Y". The DM can forbid spellcasting classes (easier in earlier editions!), and change the casting rules, but I would argue that D&D never includes the proposition "X never equals Y".​

(Though, of course, I was wrong there -- some people do run games wherein they say X never equals Y.)

In order for a technology to be predictable, it must fall within a certain range wherein X can be reliable equated with Y. You seem to think that "any amount of predictability at all" means that something is "predictable technology". This is as untenable a position as the one you (mistakenly) attribute to me.


RC

 

[scriven]

Why can't I sell my used TV back to the store for what it was originally worth?
If you DID set up as a Magic-Item Merchant, then you WOULD have cause to sell stuff for full price, b/c that's what Merchants do, they sell stuff for more than they BUY it for.. Why would someone pay you 2300GP for a +1 sword? Either they're going to sell it again (in which case they'd want to make a profit), or they'd be using it, in which case unless you ARE a merchant, they'd probably go to the merchant b/c he's more liable, what with running a business... Unless you sell your item for a discount.

Sorry if I was unclear. I was just trying to point out that a rule like "NPCs sell for full price, PCs sell for half price" would be easy to circumvent via in-game means. Just have a loyal NPC, like a cohort, sell the items at full price and then give you the money (perhaps taking a cut, depending on how loyal he is).

The DM could of course say, "Nice try, wise guy. He was actually a spy for your arch-nemesis. He sells the stuff and runs off with your money!" How legitimate that would be is a matter of taste.

 

[Storm Raven]

Storm Raven, I think you are using some hyperbole here and I really disagree with you. Those Classic/LotR notes I wrote up took me 10 minutes while getting ready for work.

You outlined a collection of changes. You didn't actually do the legwork necessary to make them work. And the list was woefully incomplete.

That doesn't constitute a "host of changes". I could have the full guidelines for a playable and fun Classic D&D LotR campaign in 2 hours or less.

Given the list of changes you described, I doubt it would take only two hours to implement. Plus, as the list of changes you proposed wasn't anywhere near adequate to the task of making D&D LotR-like, I don't think it has much bearing either.

The game would certainly feel like LotR and would work fine. As far as "handwaving"... that's the best part about Classic! If you're a Northman Fighter of Arnor, you get to do Rangerish things if you want, etc. Men of Laketown know about boating, veterans of Ithilien are also Rangerish, men of Rohan are expert riders, etc. I don't need a spreadsheet and 15 full-color supplements to do that stuff. That stuff is Baby Easy.

Or, handwaving everything just causes people to do what they did in the days of "Classic" D&D - wonder what the heck their characters are able to do, and how to get more of what the other guys can do.

Elrond? Well he cast Read Magic on Bilbo's map, he cast Remove Curse (or Cure Disease) on Frodo as well as healing magic, and his control over the Anduin is a unique power. However, spells in general are problematic in Middle Earth because they draw the attention of Sauron. And we all know what that means: increased random encounters (or worse)!

On the other hand, Elrond's spells could just as easily been high levels of skill - the books imply much more that what he did was a "skill" rather than a "spell". But that leaves open the fact that unless you radically alter the spell list in D&D, the magic system just doesn't fit LotR - D&D has far too much flashy "on the spot" magic (it apparently took days for Elrond to cure Frodo, but the time casting the cure disease spell requires can be counted in seconds).

And you still haven't addressed the issue of magic items.

Anyway, all of that stuff is a cinch. That's the beauty of pre-3E D&D actually... it can be practically whatever you want it to be.

I played plenty of pre-3e D&D - and in every one of them at least one DM tried to make a middle-earth style campaign (in 1e days, it seemed that every other campaign was an attempt to do this). None of them worked. D&D just didn't mesh well with the feel of LotR. If it was as simple as you assert, at least one of the dozen or so DMs that I have seen try it would have succeeded.

 

[Celebrim]

In order for a technology to be predictable, it must fall within a certain range wherein X can be reliable equated with Y. You seem to think that "any amount of predictability at all" means that something is "predictable technology". This is as untenable a position as the one you (mistakenly) attribute to me.

There is no point. You are facing a problem of moving goal posts and shifting definitions. Since the people you are arguing with advance no definitions of what mysterious might be, they can say anything that they want and you can't call them on it because they aren't advancing any position or defend any position anything. You just are going to run around in circles listening continually to, "No, you're wrong. No, you're wrong."

You are also trying to prove a much stronger assertion than you really need to prove. You don't need to prove that magic meets some arbitrary standard for what is 'mysterious' in the past. All you have to prove is the relative assertion that it was more mysterious in the past than it is now. So any counter argument that it wasn't really 'mysterious' being advanced from someone with no firm or even open standard for what 'mysterious' is and who is just using the word as an emotional signifier ('It doesn't feel mysterious...') can together with a $1.98 buy you a coffee.

It should have been obvious that the thread was basically done when people were reduced to claiming, in defiance of the evidence of thier eyes and the text and the declaration in the text of the author's intent, that artifacts had been stated out in the 1st edition DMG.

 

[Storm Raven]

Don't forget the magical toys that Bilbo gives the hobbit children at his party.

I don't think the toys were actually magical. They were dwarven made, so probably better quality stuff than the hobbits in the Shire ever saw (and possibly better technology), but they aren't described as magical by anyone other than the children themselves, and I'm taking their opinions with a grain of salt.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I played plenty of pre-3e D&D - and in every one of them at least one DM tried to make a middle-earth style campaign (in 1e days, it seemed that every other campaign was an attempt to do this).

That may be the fault of the people involved as much as the system, you know. If a group of people wanted to make the game work, I am sure they could use M:tG cards to play a tabletop RPG.