Forked Thread: [Maybe this is where the magic went:] To the magic shop

[DEFCON 1]

But the minute he gives them something...they'll know everything about it. Wouldn't it be more mysterious if there was the chance he was a charlatan, perhaps an illusionist. Or the item they are buying is actually a cursed item, that he must get someone to willingly pay for in order to remove it from himself. Or better yet...he doesn't even know what the item does he's selling them. 4e's rules are problematic to say the least in this area is all I'm saying.

And why do you say this? Because the book tells you this is what happens? And if the book says they don't have to cast an Identify spell to know it, and that there isn't a Cursed Items chart, and that there isn't a percentage chance of not identifying the item, then none of these can actually happen? Is that it?

Heh. I think someone ought to find a more creative Dungeon Master to play with then.

 

[Imaro]

And why do you say this? Because the book tells you this is what happens? And if the book says they don't have to cast an Identify spell to know it, and that there isn't a Cursed Items chart, and that there isn't a percentage chance of not identifying the item, then none of these can actually happen? Is that it?

Heh. I think someone ought to find a more creative Dungeon Master to play with then.

I'm sorry I thought we were actually discussing rules...not every and anything you can add to them...love that "you no have no creativity" argument for the win with anything someone might feel is wrong with 4e...I mean it's the universal stop gap for anything someone may actually dislike about the system... Great argument there.

 

[Imaro]

You can't defend a silly argument by attaching it to other arguments in the hopes that the aggregate will be transformed into something non silly. Logic doesn't work that way. This isn't like baking a cake, where a package of yeast might taste bad on its own, but be delicious in a cake, or a well cooked fish might be delicious on its own yet ruin the cake. You expressed a clear preference for old systems of magic item identification over new ones. These old systems were mechanistic- cast a spell, get a result. My questions about how older mechanistic systems are more "mysterious" than newer mechanistic systems still stands.

This is the Identify spell from AD&D 2e...

Identify
(Divination)

Range: 0 Components: V, S, M
Duration: 1 rd./level Casting Time: Special
Area of Effect: 1 item/level Saving Throw: None

When an identify spell is cast, magical items subsequently touched by the wizard can be identified. The eight hours immediately preceding the casting of the spell must be spent purifying the items and removing influences that would corrupt and blur their magical auras. If this period is interrupted, it must be begun again. When the spell is cast, each item must be handled in turn by the wizard. Any consequences of this handling fall fully upon the wizard and may end the spell, although the wizard is allowed any applicable saving throw.
The chance of learning a piece of information about an item is equal to 10% per level of the caster, to a maximum of 90%, rolled by the DM. Any roll of 96-00 indicates a false reading (91-95 reveals nothing). Only one function of a multifunction item is discovered per handling (i.e., a 5th-level wizard could attempt to determine the nature of five different items, five different functions of a single item, or any combination of the two). If any attempt at reading fails, the caster cannot learn any more about that item until he advances a level. Note that some items, such as special magical tomes, cannot be identified with this spell.
The item never reveals its exact attack or damage bonuses, although the fact that it has few or many bonuses can be determined. If it has charges, only a general indication of the number of charges remaining is learned: powerful (81% - 100% of the total possible charges), strong (61% - 80%), moderate (41% - 60%), weak (6% - 40%), or faint (five charges or less). The faint result takes precedence, so a fully charged ring of three wishes always appears to be only faintly charged.
After casting the spell and determining what can be learned from it, the wizard loses 8 points of Constitution. He must rest for one hour to recover each point of Constitution. If the 8-point loss drops the spellcaster below a Constitution of 1, he falls unconscious. Consciousness is not regained until full Constitution is restored, which takes 24 hours (one point per three hours for an unconscious character).
The material components of this spell are a pearl (of at least 100 gp value) and an owl feather steeped in wine; the infusion must be drunk prior to spellcasting. If a luckstone is powdered and added to the infusion, the divination becomes much more potent: Exact bonuses or charges can be determined, and the functions of a multifunctional item can be learned from a single reading. At the DM's option, certain properties of an artifact or relic might also be learned.

Now, you REALLY don't see how this is different from both 3e, and to an even greater degree 4e's?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Uh no... I was never discussing rules. In fact my very first post in this thread said quite specifically that I thought that most of the people decrying the various things in 4e were because they couldn't see past what was written down for them. Whatever was written and published was the end-all-and-be-all, and that was as far as their minds would take them. And the thought that you could capture the spirit of 1E by the judicious use of creativity and deviation from what was written, seems to be lost on them.

And if any of you are bothered by these statements of mine then I quote Han Solo...

"Wow, I musta hit it pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like that, huh kid?"

 

[DEFCON 1]

Now, you REALLY don't see how this is different from both 3e, and to an even greater degree 4e's?

Funny... all I see is a whole bunch of rigamarole that does nothing but require the Dungeon Master to have to do a lot of invisible math.

Yeah, the PC is left in the dark (and thus I guess the item is "more mysterious" as a result)... but the DM now has to do a whole bunch of silent crap in his head every time the player uses the stupid thing.

There was a reason why they changed this spell and let the player know what it was he was holding. Because the old way was more trouble for the DM that it was worth.

But that also doesn't change the fact that even in 4e, your DM doesn't have to tell you everything about a magic item just because the book says the PC should know it after handling it for five minutes. Your DM can make his own rules. He's allowed. And if parcelling out one small fragment of item identification every third week floats his and the player's boat... then go nuts! Have fun with that! But don't think that it's "poor design" that they don't explicitly write down rules for it in 4e. There were much better uses of their page count than that.

 

[Imaro]

Uh no... I was never discussing rules. In fact my very first post in this thread said quite specifically that I thought that most of the people decrying the various things in 4e were because they couldn't see past what was written down for them. Whatever was written and published was the end-all-and-be-all, and that was as far as their minds would take them. And the thought that you could capture the spirit of 1E by the judicious use of creativity and deviation from what was written, seems to be lost on them.

And if any of you are bothered by these statements of mine then I quote Han Solo...

"Wow, I musta hit it pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like that, huh kid?"

Or maybe it really isn't a question of creativity or imagination, but the whole question of "why am I playing this game when I have to change so much??" Didn't I choose to play 4e because prep time was significantly reduced...yet here I am with a notebook full of mods, houserules, etc. Wasted time spent trying to explain all the changes I've made to the PHB to my players and I just dropped $100+ on these books.

I mean if you're the type who buys D&D just because it's D&D then you probably have no problem putting in all that extra work to actually get the game you really want to play...but for others they may be exploring exactly why they would want to pay to do this...when there may be other games that do it better.

 

[SHARK]

This is the Identify spell from AD&D 2e...

Identify
(Divination)

Range: 0 Components: V, S, M
Duration: 1 rd./level Casting Time: Special
Area of Effect: 1 item/level Saving Throw: None

When an identify spell is cast, magical items subsequently touched by the wizard can be identified. The eight hours immediately preceding the casting of the spell must be spent purifying the items and removing influences that would corrupt and blur their magical auras. If this period is interrupted, it must be begun again. When the spell is cast, each item must be handled in turn by the wizard. Any consequences of this handling fall fully upon the wizard and may end the spell, although the wizard is allowed any applicable saving throw.
The chance of learning a piece of information about an item is equal to 10% per level of the caster, to a maximum of 90%, rolled by the DM. Any roll of 96-00 indicates a false reading (91-95 reveals nothing). Only one function of a multifunction item is discovered per handling (i.e., a 5th-level wizard could attempt to determine the nature of five different items, five different functions of a single item, or any combination of the two). If any attempt at reading fails, the caster cannot learn any more about that item until he advances a level. Note that some items, such as special magical tomes, cannot be identified with this spell.
The item never reveals its exact attack or damage bonuses, although the fact that it has few or many bonuses can be determined. If it has charges, only a general indication of the number of charges remaining is learned: powerful (81% - 100% of the total possible charges), strong (61% - 80%), moderate (41% - 60%), weak (6% - 40%), or faint (five charges or less). The faint result takes precedence, so a fully charged ring of three wishes always appears to be only faintly charged.
After casting the spell and determining what can be learned from it, the wizard loses 8 points of Constitution. He must rest for one hour to recover each point of Constitution. If the 8-point loss drops the spellcaster below a Constitution of 1, he falls unconscious. Consciousness is not regained until full Constitution is restored, which takes 24 hours (one point per three hours for an unconscious character).
The material components of this spell are a pearl (of at least 100 gp value) and an owl feather steeped in wine; the infusion must be drunk prior to spellcasting. If a luckstone is powdered and added to the infusion, the divination becomes much more potent: Exact bonuses or charges can be determined, and the functions of a multifunctional item can be learned from a single reading. At the DM's option, certain properties of an artifact or relic might also be learned.

Now, you REALLY don't see how this is different from both 3e, and to an even greater degree 4e's?

Greetings!

WOOT! I love this! Great stuff there.

But ok, like Def mentioned though--even if 3E and 4E *DON'T* provide such evocative description and subsytem, is it really so difficult to make up your own?

As to why 3E/4E doesn't provide such--I answered that as well in one of my posts in this series of threads, somewhere. Essentially--

(1) Different writers. Not all writers are good writers; even good writers can have different strengths in what areas they imagine and write.

(2) The wonderful Gary Gygax is some pretty large shoes to fill, in any regard.

(3) Don't WAIT for WOTC to *do it for you* If they have, in your view, done a poor job of handling these matters, then, like even with 1E, GARY GYGAX told us all--let your imagination wander, ponder these things, and CREATE YOUR OWN.

Honestly, there's binders full of stuff I did back in the day for 1E--and I loved just about everything that Gary Gygax provided for us in the DMG--however, there was still, *intentionally*--lots of things left unsaid, undone, not detailed, not figured out. WE, THE DM HAD THE WONDROUS PLEASURE, JOY, AND RESPONSIBILITY of doing all of that! I, personally, am glad that Gygax explicitly told us we were not chained to merely what the rulebooks had written down, for virtually anything.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Imaro]

Funny... all I see is a whole bunch of rigamarole that does nothing but require the Dungeon Master to have to do a lot of invisible math.

So is it that you don't understand the differences... or is this the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and hollering "La...La....La"?

Yeah, the PC is left in the dark (and thus I guess the item is "more mysterious" as a result)... but the DM now has to do a whole bunch of silent crap in his head every time the player uses the stupid thing.

So you do understand it...even agree that it accomplishes making magic items more mysterrious...but don't like it because the DM has to do work? Uhm...ok

There was a reason why they changed this spell and let the player know what it was he was holding. Because the old way was more trouble for the DM that it was worth.

So now we're on value judgements...not argguing whether past editions accomplished the magic items are mysterious thing better...ok, but I wasn't discussing what was "better" or worse. IMHO, they could have gave you your simplistic, touch an item and know what it does rule along with one or two options on rules like the spell I posted above...oh yeah, but it can only be one or the other.

But that also doesn't change the fact that even in 4e, your DM doesn't have to tell you everything about a magic item just because the book says the PC should know it after handling it for five minutes. Your DM can make his own rules. He's allowed. And if parcelling out one small fragment of item identification every third week floats his and the player's boat... then go nuts! Have fun with that! But don't think that it's "poor design" that they don't explicitly write down rules for it in 4e. There were much better uses of their page count than that.

MAKE IT UP YOURSELF...even though you payed over $100 for some rules, and your players will have totally different expectations, oh, and it might not be balanced since you're not a professional game designer, andyou have all the time in the world to build rules systems, etc.....FOR THE WIN!!

 

[DEFCON 1]

Or maybe it really isn't a question of creativity or imagination, but the whole question of "why am I playing this game when I have to change so much??" Didn't I choose to play 4e because prep time was significantly reduced...yet here I am with a notebook full of mods, houserules, etc. Wasted time spent trying to explain all the changes I've made to the PHB to my players and I just dropped $100+ on these books.

I mean if you're the type who buys D&D just because it's D&D then you probably have no problem putting in all that extra work to actually get the game you really want to play...but for others they may be exploring exactly why they would want to pay to do this...when there may be other games that do it better.

Well considering that you're the one arguing that WotC screwed up by not including stuff like parcelling out magic item information and instead made it a "five minutes holding the item and you know what it does" method... then I'd say it's YOU who need to wonder why you are still bothering with 4e when apparently 1e is where you'll find all your "mysterious" stuff that you seem to crave.

 

[DEFCON 1]

MAKE IT UP YOURSELF...even though you payed over $100 for some rules, and your players will have totally different expectations, oh, and it might not be balanced since you're not a professional game designer, andyou have all the time in the world to build rules systems, etc.....FOR THE WIN!!

Uh... yeah. You hit the nail right on the head.

Yes you paid $100 for new rules, but did you really expect every rule was going to be to your liking? And if one wasn't, were you just going to deal with it... or were you planning to houserule it?

And your players will have the expectations you set up for them as a DM. Just like any new campaign. What... do you think that if you create a new campaign where everyone is a tiefling, that your players are going to QQ because the PH has elves in it and they can't play an elf in this new campaign? You need to set some parameters then.

And if something you do as DM doesn't appear balanced after you try it one time or two times... then you change it for next time. But as a DM, you have to do that ANYWAY... based upon what choices your players have made during character creation and the like.

And finally... if you are a DM... and you don't have the time to make up houserules for the parts of the game that aren't to your liking... THAT'S NOT THE WOTC DESIGNERS' FAULT! It does not in any way indicate that they screwed up in their game design because YOU can't have a game that plays exactly the way you want with little to no time spent on it. And if you truly believe that it is... then I'd wonder if you have any hobbies you actually enjoy.