Excerpt: You and Your Magic Items

[UngeheuerLich]

For my part, it's not that I don't care about roleplaying, but that I do not want to engage in a tedious guessing game with my players. When a player gnashes his teeth and threatens one of my NPCs because he has cheated him out of thousands of gold, that's a potential roleplaying situation. Having my player tell me, in full detail, how he swings his axe 20 different ways so that he might stumble onto its magical properties is not.

You can do it with more complicated items, but start with telling, that swinging the weapon in every way you can imagine doesn´t reaveal its power.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

You know, if you really wanted to show too that the Fighter or whoever spent the whole rest practising and figuring out the weapon or item. Have a houserule where they cannot use more then one healing surge that rest.

This would show them spending almost the entire rest, practising and figuring out the weapons/device.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem with that, Lanefan, is that the DM must keep up with all that stuff. So he must remember what the sword does when the PC uses it in -10 C wihtout telling the player. Keeping track of everyone's equipment when they don't know what it is is increasingly annoying bookkeeping.

If it's something they use all the time, such as a Fighter's usual weapon, you remember pretty fast what it does. If it's something less commonly used, well, that's what the item number list is for. Look it up.

In other words, what I'm saying is "Of course the DM must keep up with all that stuff. It's part of the job."

Just telling the player '+2 Longsword, here's the stats for a flaming weapon, apply those on your character sheet' is fine. You don't have to tell him 'oh and it can be doused by water elementals', but leave all the mechanical mumbo jumbo to his character sheet and let him figure it up.

Except the character (and thus the player) has *no idea* whether it's a +1 or +2 or +3 or some combination of those e.g. +3 to hit, +1 damage, and so that information should not be given out.

Even worse is when the item's function is not immediately obvious. I mean, one usually uses a weapon to hit things...but what about a sword that radiates a strong enchantment but has no '+' at all...its magical function is to cut through stone walls! Or an amulet that allows one to walk through walls...that's something that shouldn't jsut be blurted out to the players. (4e is too limiting in what its items can do...footwear can only be enchanted for transport or movement functions indeed...bah! As far as I'm concerned, anything can be enchanted to do anything provided the person doing the enchanting wants it that way)

Lanefan

 

[theNater]

1. You did the right thing and actually had your Fighter *do* the test in character (some here see to think such things are a waste of time)

What do you think the characters were doing during the short rest in which they identified the item? Staring at it until the knowledge of what it does was imprinted in their brains?
I think we can assume this is going on without explicitly stating it every time the character aquires a new magic weapon. I assume most of my characters eat two or three meals every day, but it only occasionally comes up at the game table.

2. You still have no idea what the weapon's base "plus" is, if any, nor if it has any other neat and funky abilities, curses, etc.

The other neat and funky abilities, maybe not, but don't try to tell me the fighter doesn't know the weapon's base plus. He's tried out swords on trees before, he knows how big a gash he can make with a greatsword. A quick glance at how much larger these gashes are will give him a very good feel for how much the weapon augments his swings.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

The reason no one is agreeing with you even though you think you are making good arguments is because they are reading between the lines of what you write.

There's nothing between the lines.

Frankly, you seem to view the world through a very crabbed lens. You describe in your posts a situation where you, the DM, has put sweat, blood and tears into creating a campaign. And then along come these players, these snot nosed players, and insist that they are entitled to things that you did not include in your campaign.

It's happened. I've clearly laid out what is acceptable in campaigns online before, had players respond that they were interested... which to me says they read the information provided, and then they whine and cry when it comes time to make characters and they want to use all sorts of things I've already forbidden and they supposedly already read.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are experienced players and dungeon masters, and we've rarely encountered this problem. In general, if a dungeon master makes a restriction, players accept it. If the restriction turns out later to have been pointless or to have unbalancing effects, the players will lose confidence in the DM. A good DM avoids that problem by not making pointless or unbalancing restrictions. Its a path that many of us have tread, and not found to be a particularly difficult course.

The one thing I've never had a problem with, didn't have a reason other than the fact I dislike gnomes. I've never allowed gnomes in any of my campaign settings. For a pointless and aesthetic reason. I just didn't like them and funnily enough... that's the only restriction no one has ever had an issue with. I am a good dm and I tell damn good story that does involve the players and their backgrounds, as long as the players do their part and try to be part of the campaign instead of wresting control of it to make their own little version of it.

That's what you're encountering in this thread. You seem to harbor an awful lot of ill will towards your players. You seem to denigrate them, and attribute to them a sense of entitlement while simultaneously displaying the same sense of entitlement. People are picking up on this in your posts, and reacting to you accordingly.

No, I harbor a lot of ill will towards poorly written rulebooks and outright faulty design decisions.

Also, constantly banging your head against the forums about how miswritten the rules are is not going to change how they are written 3 weeks before the books hit shelves.

Yes, I already know that. Doesn't mean I'm not entitled to criticize what WotC did wrong.

I can't help but think from reading his posts that Aria's gaming group must likely consist of his enemies.

The groups I have had, where the players are reliable and show up on time each time a game is scheduled, have been great. Unfortunately, finding players like that doesn't always work out. You're wondering where are those players now? Lives change, time passes and you move on. I've been gaming online in various places for over ten years. Probably longer if I look back to 2nd edition and some games I ran in and played in on AOL chat rooms. Really sucked when AOL was charging by the hour.

But the "default settings" of rules should not be chosen to be "middle of the road". The default settings should be chosen to provide the best game possible when run by a new-ish and mediocre GM. Those are the people who need guidance, and that's why the "default" settings for the game is a fast-paced, quick-leveling, high-magic game.

I disagree. A normal setting where magic is somewhat rare and mysterious would be far more easier for a new dm to run. They have less to deal with when it comes to higher level player abilities. And once they get settled in, they can ramp up the magic in their campaign setting with epic events that span the world. It's far easier to give things to players than it is to try and take them away, which is why I keep arguing that WotC should have went with middle of the road. It provides two settings which will cover the majority of the campaigns out there.

I understand very low to no magic settings aren't all that popular for whatever stupid reason (I blame computer games), and people just don't give them a chance. So of course that should not be the default setting. Middle of the road however is just the best because common sense says players are happier when they get more options instead of having options taken away.

Wait, what?
1. WotC releases books.
2. Your players like the content in those books and think they would enjoy playing in a game that supports them.
3. You don't like the content in those books and would prefer not to use them.
4. You get mad at WotC for creating products that people like, and mad at your players for wanting to play a game they'd enjoy.

1. Yes, they're releasing books.
2. I kinda figured players would like the stuff in the books.
3. It's not the content I don't like, it's the method in which it's presented.
4. No, I am pissed at WotC for releasing content that creates an atmosphere of player entitlement.

Let me give you a head's up: although the DM is certainly supposed to have fun, you're ultimately a public servant. And you're only one person at the table. If your players like something, then give it to them! I'm sure you can still come up with a campaign which, though it's not your beloved brainchild, will still be fun for all involved.

When people start paying me to run a game for them, then I'll run exactly what they want. Until they pay me, I will take their ideas under advisement but ultimately, the theme of the campaign setting that I am spending my free time creating, aside from actual game time, will be done by my standards and preferences for that setting, regardless of what it may be.

You exhort your players to give a low-magic game a chance. Why don't you give a normal-magic game a chance? In fact, I bet you've done so in the past, and enjoyed it. You're probably looking for a change, bot because you disliked normal magic campaigns, but because you want to try something new. If that's correct, then change something else--something that will allow your players to have as much fun as you do.

I have a binder with over a hundred different world maps, a few with a page of rough notes for various campaign ideas. They're not all low magic either. I even have a high magic setting that if I ever ran, would end up traveling the stars. It's not the low magic or magic rich games that I have an issue with. It's how the book is written. I'm criticizing WotC for making a bad decision. Certainly I'm not the only one on any forums criticizing, even though it will do no good.

Agreed. I've also noticed this "confrontational" stance in the thread regarding the possible power source of the Monk, and your rather brutal denouncement of Psionics. Perhaps you should try being a bit more "flexible"? Or perhaps "compromising"?

I will never compromise on psionics. That crap doesn't belong in D&D period. If it wouldn't ruin the book, I'd cut it out of the PHB2 when it's released.

 

[drjones]

Yes, I already know that. Doesn't mean I'm not entitled to criticize what WotC did wrong.

Thank god for the internet, 20 years ago you would have been limited to ranting at the guy at the hobby shoppe, now we all get to hear!

 

[Aria Silverhands]

..

Please. Flaming weapons (and it appears, many others) do something neat and very visible on a crit. My fighter, in his 2 minutes of short rest, walks over to the nearest tree stump, and swings the well balanced sword at the stump 20 times (essentially taking 20). One of those times, it crits and bursts into fire.

Huh. This must be a flaming sword.

Ta-da!

One problem. The sword requires an action to be activated. Simply swinging it around does nothing to activate the flaming property. It requires a conscious action on the part of the wielder via some mental or verbal command or physical switch to activate. Thus, the sword never flares into flame, even on a crit. Not that a tree stump could be crit until 4th edition.

 

[Kishin]

I will never compromise on psionics. That crap doesn't belong in D&D period. If it wouldn't ruin the book, I'd cut it out of the PHB2 when it's released.

30 years of history and the creator of D&D himself would disagree with you.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

You can do it with more complicated items, but start with telling, that swinging the weapon in every way you can imagine doesn´t reaveal its power.

I'm not saying this kind of situation can never be used to roleplay, just that it hasn't worked in my experience. It's not usually interesting for the player (who just wants to know what the item does), it's not that interesting for the other players (who want the opportunity to know what their items do) and it's not that interesting for me (who wants to get to the meatier encounters, roleplaying or otherwise, that are fun for everyone).

As a DM my goal is for everyone to have fun at the table, and while I want nothing more than a high level of player enthusiasm, I don't want any one player to steal the spotlight to the point of boredom for everyone else

Someone mentioned used a Skill Challenge to identify magic items. I like this, but I would probably do one challenge for the whole batch, rather than one skill challenge per item. Otherwise I think the skill challenge system would start to get pretty tedious.

 

[Counterspin]

As a GM, I just want to say that I find the current tone to be just fine, and that books written the way Aria wants would not be as interesting or useful to me.