Excerpt: You and Your Magic Items

[keterys]

While I'm reticent to bother with house rules initially, I highly suspect that two of my three starting 4e campaigns will effectively have no ability to purchase magic items.

One because it's an enclosed campaign with no ability to get out (until the end of the campaign).

One a magic item merchant who stocks +1 items and _rarely_ some other item who will offer 20ish% (she likes people who sign a charter with her) or offer to put items on commission for full value minus a commission, so like 80-100%, but she has to caravan them out, then ship them to another city, so it'll be a minimum of 3 months and more likely a year at least.

The last is a 1 hour a week 'beer and pretzel' game. I might let them buy/sell for that one, or I might not. The totally nonserious 'plot' for that game is that they're being teleported into hot spots that need aventurer attention and after 1 hour they get yanked back (alive or dead) to 'base'. I suspect I'll go with no sales for that game and use all equipment on adventuring cards (ie, like paizo's) so that they really appreciate everything they get.

So, inadvertently my first 3 campaigns are vastly changing those rules.

For identification, I think the first will use the standard rule, the second will require the party's mage use his 'identify ritual' (that he already has) on a short rest (but the lackwit paladin is out of luck for most items)... the third I think might just auto identify everything, even without a rest. Ie, I'll just hand them the item with the stats on the card.

I don't plan on almost any house rules for these games, but I do plan on doing a 'you auto get pluses' game at some point soon-ish into the system. Almost assuredly with the game I want to be about families and legacies, where I want someone to do things like inherit their family sword and use forever, etc.

 

[Boarstorm]

I see what people are saying about setting a more loose baseline, or more restrictive one, but as a player I like this baseline. The reason being that I tend to like this rule (and would like to see it used unless there was a specific reason not to) and there are a lot of DMs who will run the baseline and not consider using optional rules (or at least not consider them beyond shifts connected to a specific campaign vision). Its a lot harder to ask and get a DM to run things less restrictively than to do the opposite, and in general DMs control the rules, so if he wants to run the more restrictive game, he can.

And as a DM, I feel perfectly comfortable changing something like this. Then again, I never normally assume that I can buy magic items in a game (although I do assume that I can sell them). I'm generally willing to follow the DMs lead where he wants to go ruleswise, as I find that the game is more enjoyable if he is running what he wants to (and bad DM is probably going to be bad no matter what, so its rare that I wouldn't enjoy a game just because of one rules issue). There are very few things that I will really argue with a DM about, although they do exist.

Also, in regards to the identifying issue, I think they set the baseline there specifically so that most games would use that, rather than a more restrictive method. Restrictive identifying can be tempting, but in practice I've never gained enjoyment from it. And I'm guessing that they decided that in most situations most groups won't either. Thus the baseline.

Welcome to the boards. And hearty agreement.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

I like the article.

Magic swords probably just have a switch to turn them on. That would be a hell of a lot easier to make than some voice activated or [gasp] mentally telepathic command response mechanism. And that's just based on real life. I can only assume it would be more complicated to make with magic too.

Even Thug the Barbarian can learn how to flick the switch on the side of a sword. There's a reason why grenades are still manual - it works a lot better than some tricky radio signal or voice command, where more things can go wrong.

You mean like radio/timer detonated C4? Or bombs that are pre-programmed with specific altitudes to explode? Or what about cruise missiles with pre-plotted gps routes? May as well just give everyone lightsabers with buttons that say "On" / "Off" if you want to go that route with magic items.

Not all games. Our last campaign started with the words "1st level characters, all books allowed, 32 point buy, average plus 1 for hitpoints after first level, max gold for first level, no changes to the rules. If you want to be a race other than that in the PHB ask me. Bring characters to the session of Tuesday and we'll start." Due to the changes in 4e, and without breaking my NDA, that can be reduced to: "1st level characters, no changes to the rules. If you want to be a race other than that in the PHB ask me." in 4e.

That's still having a conversation with the DM about how the campaign is going to take place. You're just lucky enough to not have to houserule a half-dozen things to get the rules to match your crafted setting.

Someone once printed me out a 2 page document on changes to their game. I read the first half page before I decided this was too much work to play a game. I eventually just made up a character without reading them and managed to accidentally make a character that was legal. It wasn't for a couple of levels that I found out I had shortchanged myself a bunch of hitpoints as she had houseruled max hitpoints for levels 1-3.

Any player too lazy to read a page or two of important campaign and rules information doesn't belong in any game I plan to run.

Why are they too permissive? I'm not sure why saying "You can customize your character with the gear you want" is too permissive. It's been the default assumption in every RPG computer and video game I've EVER played. It's been a default assumption for ALMOST every edition of D&D(2nd being the lone hold out that I'm aware of). It's not like the rules causes players to become too powerful or the world to explode or anything like that. In fact, it creates a perfectly playable and fun game.

Even if the books said "No, Magic items are NEVER bought and sold", you'd STILL have players coming in from nearly every other game they've played with the assumption that they are.

The rules, as we know them, are too permissive because they, by default, assume that magic items can be sold for 20%, be bought for 100% to 140% or something like that, that they can be disenchanted, that players have access to enchantment rituals, and more. The rules, as I've read them from the excerpts, are all very player permissive orientated. The players can do this or that or those things unless the dm is a hardass and wants to change things to be more restrictive.

The default should have been middle of the road. Slightly restrictive, to give players some limitations and allow DM's to customize the rules for their setting. Ambiguity on campaign specific rules, like the availability of magic items, rituals, enchanting and more... should be restrictive by default. Middle of the road. Right now it's: Default, restrictive, more restrictive instead of permissive, default, restrictive.

 

[MindWanderer]

That is beyond lame. Fighters who've never had magical training whatsoever shouldn't be able to identify magical poop, let alone the properties and effects of a magical item. Sure, they can feel the balance of a sword is better and that it fits their hand perfectly, but anything beyond that should require a person trained in arcane knowledge.

Poor verisimilitude, probably. But more fun. I always hated the "magic item tax" of 100 gp (minimum) to identify stuff. I hated the fact that you needed a day + an hour to do it if you had a wizard or magic domain cleric in the party (since they have to prep it), or an hour + 25 gp for someone to use a scroll, or go back to town and pay +10 gp to have an NPC do it. A short rest might be a bit too lenient (and why make it one item per rest? They'll just rest twice 90% of the time), but making it automatic, free, and without taking extra time is a boon IMO.

I like the wording on the purchase price of PERMANENT magic items. Hopefully, this is referring to the possibility of rituals for temporary enchantments....

I think that's as opposed to expendables, not "temporary" items.

Okay.

Levels 1-5: +1
Levels 6-10: +2
Levels 11-15: +3
Levels 16-20: +4
Levels 21-25: +5
Levels 26-30: +6

I the DM can say "I don't want you to have to cart around a weapon/armor/neckslot item; you all get your magical item bonus for your appropriate level for free, as a typical bonus". This is an option if you want a low-magic game, or if you're like me, you don't want item dependency, and think wondrous items are the REAL "Magical Items"...

Then how would I handle weapon/armor/neckslot powers/stats? Because regardless of the necessity of a +x item, the abilities that they grant are cool and players are going to want those. But if you're giving them the bonus for free, what about the item abilities?

Should they be achieved via quests, granting a PC to just endow the weapon they have with those abilities? Should they manifest (i.e. the player keeps the same weapon he did when he was at 1st level, it just develops different abilities as he adventures)?

T

Depends on what kind of feel you're looking for.

If you want to avoid item dependency, make the +'s automatic, and each weapon/armor/amulet (hereafter "weapon") grants only its special ability. If you have a magic sword, then from levels 1-5 it's a +1 magic sword, and at level 6 it becomes +2. If it's a flaming sword, you can't get it at all until level 5, and it doesn't become +2 until level 10. You'll need to monkey around with money, though (but that's true for any game with a nonstandard economy).

If you want a low-magic game, the above works fairly well, as a player can tote around one weapon for nearly the whole game without needing an upgrade. Or they can get the abilities inherently in some manner, either through enhancing an existing weapon, or a weapon "spontaneously" developing new abilities, or a character granting an effect to any weapon they wield. It can operate like legacy weapons in 3e, needing quests to activate, or they can be triggered, voluntarily or involuntarily, by other events. You could even have a morphic weapon that changes abilities based on various things, like the monsters a character has slain with it (e.g. fire elemental), or the experiences of the character (e.g. survive a blizzard in the frostfell), or a quest (restore the Eternal Light to the Nebular City), or whatever.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, this is very much a good news-bad news batch of stuff to me.

I like the general reduction in magic from 3e. Remains to be seen, of course, how the specifics will play out, but the philosophy's going in the right direction. More powers and less basic '+' items are nice to see also, along with more variety in said powers. (here's hoping the DMG has a brief guide on designing new powers not already mentioned)

I'm not so keen on the buy-sell restrictions...and this is coming from someone who heartily disliked 3e's assumption that items could be bought and sold on a whim. I suspect the pendulum might have swung a bit too far the other way, and I smell lots of houserules in the air around this one. There's an inescapable logic around how these things would work in a world...ignore that at peril of believability.

And I'm highly disappointed and annoyed as well about the auto-identify idiocy. Field-testing magic items (sometimes with unfortunate consequences) is a time-honoured tradition that really didn't need to be messed with. Sure it takes some time the first few times through, but once the party's got a test routine down pat it's simple enough to handwave. But figuring specific plusses on any item should require either an Identify or a *long* period of use...at least an adventure's worth...and if a DM just tells me what it does as soon as I pick it up I feel cheated somehow.

And can I also assume this means the end of cursed items where there's a specific trigger for the curse? (if you automatically know what it does, you'll know it's cursed and what the trigger is...where's the fun in that?)

One of these days I really should post the article I wrote 20-odd years ago (in character as Lanefan, during a retirement) on the fine art of field-testing magic items. I was going to send it in to Dragon, back in the day, but never did; and it's still languishing around here somewhere.

Oh, and the excuse for auto-identify meaning a party doesn't need a spellcaster to do it doesn't fly with me for one very simple reason: a party made up of all tanks (or all casters, or all thieves, etc.) is obviously going to - and should - have some holes in its abilities. This is...well, was...one.

Lanefan

 

[Eldorian]

Amulet of the Matrix: 55,000 gold pieces.

Plate Armor of the Iron Dragon: 115,000 gold pieces

+6 Vicious Greataxe: 225,000 gold pieces

Getting to tell the DM that you did an additional 108 points of damage: priceless.

Some things money can buy. For everything else, there's murder.



And btw, if your players whine when they can't buy and sell magic items, or whine that it takes an arcana check to identify items, you need new players. I suggest people over the age of 12. I remember gaming when I was 12. I wouldn't want to do it again =P

 

[JetstreamGW]

You mean like radio/timer detonated C4? Or bombs that are pre-programmed with specific altitudes to explode? Or what about cruise missiles with pre-plotted gps routes? May as well just give everyone lightsabers with buttons that say "On" / "Off" if you want to go that route with magic items.

(snip)

...


*raises hand*


May I have a lightsaber?

 

[Khaalis]

And if players don't want to play the type of game you want to run... perhaps a bit of compromise is called for, if you truly want to play.

QFT! This about sums up the entire argument in my mind. D&D is NOT a DM vs. the Players scenario. It is supposed to be a mutual experience. If you want to run a dirty, gritty, deny the PCs this-and-that style game, and find that the players don't like that, its a clue to change your base assumptions and DMing style and meet somewhere on middle ground. It should never be a situation where the DM says "Its My way or the highway".

To me personally, DMing is like a professional entertainment job. Its my JOB as DM to entertain the players, letting them enjoy their characters, trigger their imagination, inspire roleplaying and create an engaging environment for them. Its not the players' JOB to live out my story plotlines in my world the way I want. Yes I can set the basics of the world assumptions, but I am not doing my job if I specifically choose to make rules that none of the players like. Thats not fun for anyone. If you are not playing the Game to have fun, you shouldn't be wasting your or the players' time.

JMHO. YMMV.

 

[ryryguy]

The rules, as we know them, are too permissive because they, by default, assume that magic items can be sold for 20%, be bought for 100% to 140% or something like that, that they can be disenchanted, that players have access to enchantment rituals, and more. The rules, as I've read them from the excerpts, are all very player permissive orientated. The players can do this or that or those things unless the dm is a hardass and wants to change things to be more restrictive.

The default should have been middle of the road. Slightly restrictive, to give players some limitations and allow DM's to customize the rules for their setting. Ambiguity on campaign specific rules, like the availability of magic items, rituals, enchanting and more... should be restrictive by default. Middle of the road. Right now it's: Default, restrictive, more restrictive instead of permissive, default, restrictive.

Attempting to put this more succinctly than my previous post...

If the designers have good evidence that the more permissive approach leads to a more fun game for the majority of their audience, how can they choose anything else? Does saving a small number of DM's from suffering a possible "hardass penalty" really have more weight than that?

 

[Rechan]

Anyone think this whole pervasive rule thing is sort've a total derailment from the topic at hand?

However, to engage in it regardless...

QFT! This about sums up the entire argument in my mind. D&D is NOT a DM vs. the Players scenario. It is supposed to be a mutual experience. If you want to run a dirty, gritty, deny the PCs this-and-that style game, and find that the players don't like that, its a clue to change your base assumptions and DMing style and meet somewhere on middle ground. It should never be a situation where the DM says "Its My way or the highway".

To me personally, DMing is like a professional entertainment job. Its my JOB as DM to entertain the players, letting them enjoy their characters, trigger their imagination, inspire roleplaying and create an engaging environment for them. Its not the players' JOB to live out my story plotlines in my world the way I want. Yes I can set the basics of the world assumptions, but I am not doing my job if I specifically choose to make rules that none of the players like. Thats not fun for anyone. If you are not playing the Game to have fun, you shouldn't be wasting your or the players' time.

Yeah.

I've adapted my DMing style pretty much. It boils down to "Okay. I'm going to ask everyone here at the table what kind of campaign you want. The kind of campaign we can all agree on, I'll run. Now, I have a few ideas I'm excited about, (A B and C), and I'm somewhat prepared for those. But I'm willing to do anything except (X and Y). What do you guys like?"

I employed this method with people I didn't know, and discovered that my group was comprised of rules light (some new, some new to this edition), who liked more roleplay and talking, and less dungeoncrawling. Wound up with playing a light-hearted campaign with traveling con artists. And fun was had by all.