Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7189112" data-attributes="member: 29398">Agreed, with a further broken factor being the cheap g.p./x.p. cost of some of those constantly-seen items (again looking at Wand of CLW).Sounds rather hideous, but whatever.I don't understand, though, how this has anything to do with the sentences following:I've never had that problem, at least not enough to notice it, and the whole point is that magic is intentionally supposed to be mysterious, quirky, and sometimes downright risky.&nbsp; The idea is that when you find a magic item in the field you have no real clue what it does unless you happen to have seen it in use.&nbsp; You have to field-test.&nbsp; You have to experiment.&nbsp; Maybe you have to burn a 100+ g.p. pearl and drop an ID on it.&nbsp; You have to take the risks.And you have to take the time.Both the players and the DM have to take the time to record what's found (an item-numbering system is useful here; can't recommend it highly enough!) and then on the player side track your discoveries about it.&nbsp; And if that's &quot;shifting too much mechanical burden onto the DM&quot;, I certainly don't see it as such.&nbsp; If anything, it shifts some burden on to the player who takes on the role of party treasurer (which is usually me in any game I play in, if only so I don't end up as mapper).Other than minor things like scrolls and potions, I don't mind having item creation be something that simply isn't done by adventuring PCs at all; as I'd rather they focus on field work (in other words, adventuring).&nbsp; That said, I've no objection to having (most) items be commissionable at significant cost from an NPC artificer, with such construction taking months or even years depending what is being crafted and enchanted.Lan-&quot;and yes, our parties do map the dungeons they explore&quot;-efan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7189112, member: 29398"] Agreed, with a further broken factor being the cheap g.p./x.p. cost of some of those constantly-seen items (again looking at Wand of CLW). Sounds rather hideous, but whatever. I don't understand, though, how this has anything to do with the sentences following: I've never had that problem, at least not enough to notice it, and the whole point is that magic is intentionally supposed to be mysterious, quirky, and sometimes downright risky. The idea is that when you find a magic item in the field you have no real clue what it does unless you happen to have seen it in use. You have to field-test. You have to experiment. Maybe you have to burn a 100+ g.p. pearl and drop an ID on it. You have to take the risks. And you have to take the time. Both the players and the DM have to take the time to record what's found (an item-numbering system is useful here; can't recommend it highly enough!) and then on the player side track your discoveries about it. And if that's "shifting too much mechanical burden onto the DM", I certainly don't see it as such. If anything, it shifts some burden on to the player who takes on the role of party treasurer (which is usually me in any game I play in, if only so I don't end up as mapper). Other than minor things like scrolls and potions, I don't mind having item creation be something that simply isn't done by adventuring PCs at all; as I'd rather they focus on field work (in other words, adventuring). That said, I've no objection to having (most) items be commissionable at significant cost from an NPC artificer, with such construction taking months or even years depending what is being crafted and enchanted. Lan-"and yes, our parties do map the dungeons they explore"-efan [/QUOTE]

Verification