Excerpt: You and Your Magic Items

[Charwoman Gene]

---

 

[Aria Silverhands]

Even if they put rule zero in big print, player's will continually whine and point to something in the book that says, "You can sell magic items for 20%..." and try to ignore the rest, because it says, "You can..." in the very first part. I've seen players try to pull that crap before and it sours a game immediately.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

It's my setting and I'm the DM. WotC should have written the rules to be a little less "THIS IS THE DEFAULT WAY" and more ambiguous, making sure people new to rp gaming learn that it's the DM's rules that matter.

It's not your game though. It's WOTC's game. You just play in it.

I consider "setting details" things like "you buy your magic items from Joe in my world, he lives in the city of Citysburg." and "The elves haven't been seen in a number of years due to some event lost to the past, they aren't allowed as player characters."

The physical properties of magic, the rules of classes and the like I've always considered part of the game itself.

If I had an idea for a campaign that went against the default assumptions of D&D, I likely wouldn't run it in D&D. And the default assumption that players have magic items and they get better ones as they go up levels has been part of D&D since the beginning. The designers realize this...which is why its still in.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I've seen players try to pull that crap before and it sours a game immediately.

The flaw is with the players playing a cooperative game competitively.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The flaw is with the players playing a cooperative game competitively.

No, the flaw is in the players AND the DM playing a cooperative game competitively. It works both ways.

Frankly, the statement "It's my game and I can do whatever I want and players HAVE to deal with it." is no better than a player trying to sell magic items no matter what the DM says because it says so in the book.

I should note that one of them is attempting to follow the rules and getting frustrated that they aren't playing the game they wanted to, the other one is setting himself up for problems by saying "We are playing D&D" and then changing the rules of the game.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

No, the flaw is in the players AND the DM playing a cooperative game competitively. It works both ways.

Frankly, the statement "It's my game and I can do whatever I want and players HAVE to deal with it." is no better than a player trying to sell magic items no matter what the DM says because it says so in the book.

I should note that one of them is attempting to follow the rules and getting frustrated that they aren't playing the game they wanted to, the other one is setting himself up for problems by saying "We are playing D&D" and then changing the rules of the game.

Which is why the D&D books should be more ambiguous about creating a default "D&D". It creates too many perceptions that this is the way things should be and will always be when players read the book. The economics article could have easily said something like,"If the DM allows it, magic items can be sold for 20% of their base value. Blah blah blah..."

Instead, it starts off with the presumption that every DM is going to allow magic items to be sold for X amount of value and then decides, well unless the DM says otherwise.

 

[pawsplay]

Special: A holy avenger can be used as a holy symbol. It adds its enhancement bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls and the extra damage granted by its property (if applicable) when used in this manner. You do not gain your weapon proficiency bonus to an attack roll when using a holy avenger as an implement.

I'm pretty sure someone just lost a best with me, but I can't remember who.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I really wanted to see what some example implements are. I assume the property of the Holy Avenger is similar to some implements, but that +1d10 to radiant powers might be a lower amount compared to a dedicated magical implement.

I assume we're back to Wands of Fire and Wands of Frost now, but if those magical implements add damage to fire or ice spells respectively I'm curious what the bonus is.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I still don't like the harsh and unusual 1/5 sale price on magic items. Unless there is a sidebar somewhere in the DMG that gives a very good justification for it, I will probably ignore that rule.

Other than that, though, I couldn't possibly be any happier with this article.

It really is looking like free combination of magical enhancements and freestanding +1 bonuses may be gone. I am fine with that, especially since in their place we have an amazingly condensed description of a flaming weapon that scales well across all levels of play, which happens to be far more interesting than any magical property from 3E.

I find it interesting that the Phasing increases the basic bonus to attack and damage one level faster than properties like Flaming, though it doesn't appear until Paragon level... I wonder how much that progression can diverge?

I really hope that plain +1 longswords really are a thing of the past...

 

[charlesatan]

Inserting "If the DM allows it" every other page or so can be redundant.

And no to ambiguous rules of playing the game. D&D isn't trying to be a generic roleplaying system. There is a specific, common ground to play it (i.e. kill monsters, get loot) and gaming groups transition from there (i.e. adding/subtracting more social encounters, combat encounters, magic, etc.). You can sandbox in D&D but D&D isn't designed to be the perfect sandbox game.

Which is why the D&D books should be more ambiguous about creating a default "D&D". It creates too many perceptions that this is the way things should be and will always be when players read the book. The economics article could have easily said something like,"If the DM allows it, magic items can be sold for 20% of their base value. Blah blah blah..."

Instead, it starts off with the presumption that every DM is going to allow magic items to be sold for X amount of value and then decides, well unless the DM says otherwise.