Excerpt: You and Your Magic Items

[keterys]

Why not make the default rule the arcana check ...

Because it makes the game worse for a majority of gamers and/or reduces the ability to run games without certain class types.

 

[jackston2]

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.
\

Nooo don't do this! The 1/5 does wonderful things for the Players. It really takes pressure off of them to "stay competitive" and makes magic items seem more like... gifts!

 

[ForbidenMaster]

The PrRC has three example implements in it - holy symbol, wand, and staff. Least, I think so. I might be wrong on the wand.

Implement: Many arcane spells are more effective when
used in conjunction with an implement—a wizard’s
staff, orb, or wand, or a warlock’s rod or wand. Many
divine prayers use holy symbols as implements. To
grant its benefit to a divine character, a holy symbol
must represent the character’s patron deity or one of a
group of deities the character serves. It’s not necessary
to have an implement in order to use a power that has
the implement keyword.

So you were right.

 

[Sojorn]

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.

It's there to make magic items of your level or higher special and not just hotswappable.

The more money you let items resale for with no challenge, the less having any particular powerful item means. It's perfectly acceptable to have a skill challenge be "find buyers for your stuff, get 100% of the sale price and some XP if you succeed". However, if you can just ride into town and trade your +3 flaming longsword for a +3 frost longsword, they both lose a bit of uniqueness in the transaction.

1/5th cost is just the point where you can trade a +3 flaming longsword for a +2 frost longsword without any actual effort besides asking the DM if you can just do that real quick while you're in the city. But there's obviously a price for doing it this way. So it encourages keeping what you find and using it, or going on quests to find/trade for better things.

Increasing the "quick" resale value serves to encourage swapping items more frequently and highlights what items can do for the characters as the important part, rather than highlighting that they're something that makes the character special.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

It allows a world-wide campaign like Living Greyhawk of Living Forgotten Realms to function by allowing people to show up to a convention or gamesday and sit down and play with no explanation given on what is different about THIS D&D.

:rofl: The living campaigns have more house rules than most custom campaigns.

If the books on the other hand said "Some DMs will allow selling of items, they will set the amount you will be given each time you sell an item, so ask them. Others will not allow selling of items. If you want to know what to do with an item once you no longer need it, consult with your DM. He'll explain how it works in his game." then it requires each and every person playing D&D to have a conversation with their DM about which version of the rules they are using and the details of their game.

They're going to have that kind of conversation anyway. Why not make it more positive instead of negative?

And I could see a 5 minute long explanation of the magic item economy being given out by some DMs(heck, I could see a 2 hour long explanation being given). And that's just ONE rule. If you write the entire book that way, you need to sit down for a good hour or 2 to learn which rules this game is using EACH time you play with a different DM.

So print out the list of house rules and their explanations. I know we did back when we started houseruling 3rd edition crap. Each dm would print out their campaign introduction, what kind of campaign it was going to be, what kind of characters they expected, their character creation rules, and such.

Having the assumptions in makes the game easy for new people to learn, easier to switch DMs, makes the game go quicker in actual play(when some of these issues tend to come up). It also provides a shared experience. That way, when players of D&D gather on message boards or at conventions or at local gaming stores and they tell stories about their games(which they always do), there isn't a disconnect.

The problem is that all the assumptions are too permissive to players. It requires the DM to say no far too much for DM's that want control over magic and the like in their campaign.

 

[shadowlance]

Because it makes the game worse for a majority of gamers and/or reduces the ability to run games without certain class types.

Well, I would certainly debate your proclamation that it makes the game worse for the majority of gamers (the majority of gamers won't have someone with the arcana skill in their group?). As for reducing the ability to run game without certain class types...the suggestion would still be right there in the very same paragraph to drop the requirement.

Of course, none of that was my point anyway. I'm not sure if I didn't communicate it clearly or if you are just being argumentative. Either way, I said my piece....feel free to ignore it.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Shadowlance has it right. The default "mode" in D&D should be somewhat restrictive but not terribly so. This allows DM's to tailor their game in a way that players will perceive more positively. If I have a list of six house rules that decrease restrictions, players are going to view that more favourably than say someone else's game that lists two reduced restrictions and five increased restrictions.

But how do you decrease restrictions?

Let's say the game just lists a bunch of optional rules.

a) magic items can be sold
b) they can't
c) they are only sold in the planes and you need to be high level to do it

As a DM you say "I'm choosing option b" then you are choosing the most restrictive option and you are running into the situation where you are the downer, restricting people to a lower option than the rules assume are possible.

The only other option is that the rules don't list any options other than the most restrictive. If the book says "Magic items are never bought and sold. We didn't include prices for buying or selling them in this book since it never happens."(like the 2nd Edition books did) then you run into the problem...say you WANT to allow magic items to be bought and sold...now you have to come up with all of the prices for every item. Which might be unbalanced and ruin your game since you might not be good at math or game design.

Whereas the worst thing that happens if you REALLY don't like magic item selling in 4e is that you need to apply some built in bonuses to all the players to make up for it and you have to tell the players to ignore the prices and that it works differently in your game. Maybe you have to be a downer because you have to dash the hopes of your players. But, then you always have the option to NOT be a downer and simply allow buying and selling of magic items. I'm telling you, it's not addictive. Just try it once...I promise, if you don't like it, you don't have to ever do it again...

 

[jackston2]

Well done, Sojorn. I'll have to keep your response handy.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

Because it makes the game worse for a majority of gamers and/or reduces the ability to run games without certain class types.

Oh butterflies and daisies. It makes the game better for the "majority", which you are claiming to represent despite not having anything but anecdotal evidence to back it up. Instead of the DM's having to say, "No you can't do what the rules say you can do (default everyone can id after a short rest)." The DM can instead say, "Hey, I don't like the arcana check, so for most items, you can do this instead. Some items might require a check or something more."

That paints that dm in a more positive light than the dm that has to keep saying, no.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

Nooo don't do this! The 1/5 does wonderful things for the Players. It really takes pressure off of them to "stay competitive" and makes magic items seem more like... gifts!

Given that selling or disenchanting an item essentially drops it by 5 levels, magic items are essentially gifts. Adventuring and getting higher level items that the DM gives you is the most effective way to get high powered items. Not keeping those items and selling by default would mean that you are getting an item that is worse then your level, even if you were to sell an item which is 4 above yours. So essentially they want the items you quest for to be gifts from the DM and seem to have this system in place to enforce that.