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

[Imaro]

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.

Where did I argue "WotC screwed up..." I can accept 4e for what it is and how it does things...but I also recognize when people are making false claims and statements as far as the way things were or how it does certain things just as well.

So I'll play my 4e when I am in the mood for a game with certain concepts and other games when I'm in the mood for something else. However I see no reason not to show evidence and correct people when they make untrue claims, such as the fact that older editions didn't make magic items more mysterious...yet there are actual rules in these lder editions that do just this.

And on a side note... the whole "Just don't play 4e then... argument." doesn't help your argument or support any of your points, so why throw it into the discussion?

 

[Imaro]

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.

Dude...again with value judgments, where am I claiming wrong or right as far as design? I do contend that 4e has made magic items less wondrous and mysterious than they were in previous editions...I have given proof to support this...if you're arguing the opposite, show something to support your argument and get off creating false arguments and imaginary statements I never made. Really, I'm not even understanding what it is you're actually disagreeing with me about.

 

[Thasmodious]

Nope, read what I actually posted...not what you inferred from my post, it was just one of many choices they made in 4e that added to it. Is that more clear? Or do you want to rephrase and misrepresent what I said some more??

NOTE: This is just one example of why a supposedly small change like that creates ripples. So in D&D 3e/3.5 my illiterate barbarian wasn't going to be able to identify a magical item (scroll, weapon, armor, wand) neither was my fighter who had never seen a spellbook or glyph in his life. In 3.5 this aspect is kept squarely in the hands of those who would know about it...mainly those involved with magic.

Yet for some reason in 4e everyone now understands exactly how to identify what is a magic item, and after looking at it for 2 to 3 minutes, knows exactly what it can do. I mean it seems like it would take someone at least a little studying of the arcane arts to do this...nope it's an innate PC race trait now (or can NPC's, etc. do this as well??)...I mean a feat isn't even necessary to do this...wth??

It's interesting that in the same post you manage to accuse someone else of drawing ridiculous inferences from your post and then go on to draw ridiculous inferences from your own reading of 4e. Of course, anyone who's seen a number of your posts knows to expect such things.

What you seem to have trouble grasping consistently throughout these edition war threads is that the DMG is mostly made up of guidelines, not rules. The DMG presents a baseline of play that emphasizes speed, simplicity, DM creativity, and suggests not focusing on distractions from the core gameplay of the adventure at hand. Spending an hour of game time running through Standard Magic Item Checklist #4: Rings (I put it on and wave it around. I jump up and down. I jump off a 10' drop. I try to fly. I run through a series of command words), the DMG suggests (SUGGESTS), is not the most fun way that said hour could be spent. These GUIDELINES do not grant PCs a new ability, they are just a suggestion to handwave magic item identification by using that same old school system, just behind the scenes. It is neither a requirement or demand. And it is easy to remedy if you want something more involved everytime a PC picks up a +1 dagger. A ritual is the easiest way. Playing out an hour of "wave it around" is fine if that's what your group likes. Again, the DMG is not demanding you play a certain way, it is merely providing a baseline. Future DMGs will undoubtedly be chok full of suggestions of how to add complexities to your game that fit your groups style of play.

 

[Imaro]

It's interesting that in the same post you manage to accuse someone else of drawing ridiculous inferences from your post and then go on to draw ridiculous inferences from your own reading of 4e. Of course, anyone who's seen a number of your posts knows to expect such things.

Thasmodius, instead of trying to make subtle jibs at my post history?? Why don't you state what it is you're trying to say as far as this discussion is concerned...I mean I'm not bringing up the fact that your history of posting shows that you will stretch and contort to defend 4e as the end all and be all game that does absolutely everything.

What you seem to have trouble grasping consistently throughout these edition war threads is that the DMG is mostly made up of guidelines, not rules. The DMG presents a baseline of play that emphasizes speed, simplicity, DM creativity, and suggests not focusing on distractions from the core gameplay of the adventure at hand. Spending an hour of game time running through Standard Magic Item Checklist #4: Rings (I put it on and wave it around. I jump up and down. I jump off a 10' drop. I try to fly. I run through a series of command words), the DMG suggests (SUGGESTS), is not the most fun way that said hour could be spent. These GUIDELINES do not grant PCs a new ability, they are just a suggestion to handwave magic item identification by using that same old school system, just behind the scenes. It is neither a requirement or demand. And it is easy to remedy if you want something more involved everytime a PC picks up a +1 dagger. A ritual is the easiest way. Playing out an hour of "wave it around" is fine if that's what your group likes. Again, the DMG is not demanding you play a certain way, it is merely providing a baseline. Future DMGs will undoubtedly be chok full of suggestions of how to add complexities to your game that fit your groups style of play.

Uhm, what you fail to grasp, is that I'm not talking about the DMG...where have you seen me make reference to that book. The rules for magic items are in the PHB in 4e...wait, let me guess...even the rules in the PHB are only guidelines...and not really real rules. So what exactly are considered actual rules and what are guidelines...I mean according to your philosophy rolling a d20 is only a suggestion, right? Well then how can we possibly have a logical discourse on "the game" if nothing in these books are considered rules?

In the end what does this have to do with whether 4e (as it is written right now, not in the future or how you can modify it) makes magic items less mysterious than previous editions? Or was this just a chance for you to be oh so witty and condescending and still manage to avoid addressing the real question.

 

[Thasmodious]

Thasmodius, instead of trying to make subtle jibs at my post history?? Why don't you state what it is you're trying to say as far as this discussion is concerned...I mean I'm not bringing up the fact that your history of posting shows that you will stretch and contort to defend 4e as the end all and be all game that does absolutely everything.

There was nothing subtle about my post. I even used CAPS. And I stated what I was "trying" to say quite clearly. I "defend" 4e when people are either incapable of understanding simplistic language or are being deliberately obtuse in an effort to express unreasoned nerd rage at change.

Uhm, what you fail to grasp, is that I'm not talking about the DMG...where have you seen me make reference to that book. The rules for magic items are in the PHB in 4e...wait, let me guess...even the rules in the PHB are only guidelines...and not really real rules. So what exactly are considered actual rules and what are guidelines...I mean according to your philosophy rolling a d20 is only a suggestion, right? Well then how can we possibly have a logical discourse on "the game" if nothing in these books are considered rules?

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were arguing about the guidelines in the DMG because if your position, your "proof" is based on the PHB, its outright silly. Just to be clear, this is the passage you are basing your position on:

"Most of the time, you can determine the properties and powers of a magic item during a short rest. In the course of handling the item for a few minutes, you discover what the item is and what it does. You can identify one magic item per short rest. Some magic items might be a bit harder to identify, such as cursed or nonstandard items, or powerful magical artifacts. Your DM might ask for an Arcana check to determine their properties, or you might even need to go on a special quest to find a ritual to identify or to unlock the powers of a unique item."

Since you are attempting an as literal as possible reading of the rules, should we go over the opening phrase here? Most of the time. I would assume since we share a language we don't actually need to do this.

The rules here do not define special abilities all characters have. It discusses all the things that you were earlier saying was responsible for the mysteriousness of magic items. The basic identification is done just like in the old days, you wave it around, tinker with it, pass it around the group and figure out what it does. This works for the "regular" items, your +1 daggers and potions and what not. Then it addresses other items - cursed, nonstandard, and powerful ones. These may require considerably more effort. Arcana checks (that would be the magical experts you mentioned earlier), quests, rituals, all the things you could want to make magic items mysterious are right there in the PHB. The RAW in the PHB say "its relatively easy to figure out what simple items do but more unique and powerful items might require considerably more effort." That pretty much covers it all and does what 4e does with a lot of things - puts it in the capable and creative hands of the players of the game, something that you seem very uncomfortable with.

I know, I know, you shouldn't HAVE to... determine your own method/employ creativity/ establish your own rules for item identification that suit your preferences...

In the end what does this have to do with whether 4e (as it is written right now, not in the future or how you can modify it) makes magic items less mysterious than previous editions? Or was this just a chance for you to be oh so witty and condescending and still manage to avoid addressing the real question.

In what way wasn't any of that clear? Is it unclear in the same way that many aspects of 4e seem to be unclear to you? No, 4e does not make items less mysterious than previous editions. It leaves the level of mystery up to the DM. Just like every other edition, it can be more or less mysterious as the DM presents it. I quickly lost the idea that jumping off a 10' ledge while flapping my arms and shouting "shield" in all the languages my character knows was in some way intriguing and mysterious. Nor do I accept that forcing PCs to carry around hundreds of gp worth of pearls and casting first level spells over and over makes magic items "mysterious and special". It just makes them annoying and a money sink. I've been houseruling identification since 1e, and pretty close to what 4e presents. I don't make players jump through hoops to identify a +1 dagger, I don't like having to keep notes on all items so I can add the plusses to PC attacks in secret. I don't like watching my players play out a bunch of silly actions trying to determine what an item does. Mysterious items stay mysterious by employing exactly what the DMG and PHB suggest the DM do to achieve that effect. You have room for research, consulting sages, special quests, rituals, adventure in other words. But all that is reserved for items that deserve that kind of attention, the really special stuff. However, if your PCs have to do all that everytime they pluck a magic knife off a dead orc then that is not a game I would want to play in.

4e makes items more special in comparison to 3e, where every 4th lvl NPC and monstrous humanoid warrior, fighter, or other meleeist in the world had a +1 weapon. In 4e, monsters and NPCs don't often have magic items and if they do, at any given level, they are likely not as powerful as what the PCs carry. Magic items are not just equipment you pluck off dead drow, but things you quest for, things you research and seek out. Opening a chest feels special again.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

4e makes items more special in comparison to 3e, where every 4th lvl NPC and monstrous humanoid warrior, fighter, or other meleeist in the world had a +1 weapon.

That doesn't sound like any campaign I've run in 20 years.

In 4e, monsters and NPCs don't often have magic items and if they do, at any given level, they are likely not as powerful as what the PCs carry. Magic items are not just equipment you pluck off dead drow, but things you quest for, things you research and seek out. Opening a chest feels special again.

OTOH, it actually makes sense that a dangerous foe- monster or otherwise- might have more powerful weaponry than a typical party member. Lesser beings couldn't wrest it from them, so it forms part of the basis for their power.

A weapons based variant of the old saying, "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king," if you will.

IMHO, whether a powerful magic item is unearthed from a deep, dangerous bog, a hidden and multiply trapped chest, or plucked from the cooling clutches of a vanquished foe feels more or less special has nothing to do with its actual qualities, but the path taken to get it, and where you go from there.

 

[Imaro]

There was nothing subtle about my post. I even used CAPS. And I stated what I was "trying" to say quite clearly. I "defend" 4e when people are either incapable of understanding simplistic language or are being deliberately obtuse in an effort to express unreasoned nerd rage at change.

Wow nice personal attacks...but I've seen you jump to the defense just because someone doesn't agree with your philosophy of 4e isn't really rules...it's all guidelines and thus it never actually tells you to do anything. Which IMHO is an absurd position to take and a cop out. In other words 4e does everything because it never really lays down real rules...bull

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were arguing about the guidelines in the DMG because if your position, your "proof" is based on the PHB, its outright silly. Just to be clear, this is the passage you are basing your position on:

"Most of the time, you can determine the properties and powers of a magic item during a short rest. In the course of handling the item for a few minutes, you discover what the item is and what it does. You can identify one magic item per short rest. Some magic items might be a bit harder to identify, such as cursed or nonstandard items, or powerful magical artifacts. Your DM might ask for an Arcana check to determine their properties, or you might even need to go on a special quest to find a ritual to identify or to unlock the powers of a unique item."

Since you are attempting an as literal as possible reading of the rules, should we go over the opening phrase here? Most of the time. I would assume since we share a language we don't actually need to do this.

You're right so most of the time you don't have to do anything to identify a magic item...it is in no way mysterious...is this or is this not different from older editions? Is it or is it not easier to identify the purpose and powers of most magic items in 4e than it was in earlier editions? These are easy yes or no questions...or are you arguing about what one could do when diverging from what is stated in the corebooks and making up one's own rules...Yeah, that's what I thought.

The rules here do not define special abilities all characters have. It discusses all the things that you were earlier saying was responsible for the mysteriousness of magic items. The basic identification is done just like in the old days, you wave it around, tinker with it, pass it around the group and figure out what it does. This works for the "regular" items, your +1 daggers and potions and what not. Then it addresses other items - cursed, nonstandard, and powerful ones. These may require considerably more effort. Arcana checks (that would be the magical experts you mentioned earlier), quests, rituals, all the things you could want to make magic items mysterious are right there in the PHB. The RAW in the PHB say "its relatively easy to figure out what simple items do but more unique and powerful items might require considerably more effort." That pretty much covers it all and does what 4e does with a lot of things - puts it in the capable and creative hands of the players of the game, something that you seem very uncomfortable with.

I know, I know, you shouldn't HAVE to... determine your own method/employ creativity/ establish your own rules for item identification that suit your preferences...

Huh, is it or is it not easier...it's a simple question, yet you're writing paragraphs to avoid answering it. Now who is being obtuse. Yeah now let's swing the argument to how I feel about my players...again what does this have to do with what I am talking about. I have not made a value judgment on whether how 4e does it or earlier editions did it is better...stay with me here. What I am talking about is how 4ew assumes you will auto-know everything about an item after "handling" it for a few minutes.

You and Defcon seem intent on a "better argument, and that's not what I'm talking about.

In what way wasn't any of that clear? Is it unclear in the same way that many aspects of 4e seem to be unclear to you? No, 4e does not make items less mysterious than previous editions. It leaves the level of mystery up to the DM. Just like every other edition, it can be more or less mysterious as the DM presents it. I quickly lost the idea that jumping off a 10' ledge while flapping my arms and shouting "shield" in all the languages my character knows was in some way intriguing and mysterious. Nor do I accept that forcing PCs to carry around hundreds of gp worth of pearls and casting first level spells over and over makes magic items "mysterious and special". It just makes them annoying and a money sink. I've been houseruling identification since 1e, and pretty close to what 4e presents. I don't make players jump through hoops to identify a +1 dagger, I don't like having to keep notes on all items so I can add the plusses to PC attacks in secret. I don't like watching my players play out a bunch of silly actions trying to determine what an item does. Mysterious items stay mysterious by employing exactly what the DMG and PHB suggest the DM do to achieve that effect. You have room for research, consulting sages, special quests, rituals, adventure in other words. But all that is reserved for items that deserve that kind of attention, the really special stuff. However, if your PCs have to do all that everytime they pluck a magic knife off a dead orc then that is not a game I would want to play in.

So Again this isn't about whether the rules as stated and given support a certain thing...it's about generating hyperbole and arguing about whether you like it or not. Frankly I could care less what you like, and I don't need to defend whether I like one or the other more...Let me try this again...This isn't what I am arguing. I already gave some proof of actual rules support in AD&D 2e that actually supports items being more unknown and mysterious than they are by the stated rules and assumptions in 4e...your proof amounts to, "A DM can change anything..." Yeah, great argument for 4e...in fact great argument for any game.

4e makes items more special in comparison to 3e, where every 4th lvl NPC and monstrous humanoid warrior, fighter, or other meleeist in the world had a +1 weapon. In 4e, monsters and NPCs don't often have magic items and if they do, at any given level, they are likely not as powerful as what the PCs carry. Magic items are not just equipment you pluck off dead drow, but things you quest for, things you research and seek out. Opening a chest feels special again.

What...is this how you ran 3e? Really? In 4e every magic item your PC's get is centered around a quest? Uhm, ok...whatever.

 

[AllisterH]

Hmm?

How is the current method of identifying MOST items in 4E not basically the same thing as in previous editions?

Really, I think the 4E method works given the number of magic items you recover in a typical D&D session.

If you run a low magic item game (no pc over the course of 30 levels gains more than 4-5 items), I can see where an argument for "extensive research to determine magic items" rules might be appropriate.

But in standard D&D from the days of OD&D to now? Nope....

I mean, take a look at the standard module from pre 2E. Are you REALLY going to force your players to have to go through the identify spell for every item?

There's a hell of a lot of items there...

 

[Imaro]

Here's another excerpt from AD&D 2e I thought was interesting as far as this discussion goes...from the DMG...



Buying Magical Items

As player characters earn more money and begin facing greater dangers, some of them will begin wondering where they can buy magical items. Using 20th-century, real-world economics, they will figure there must be stores that buy and sell such goods. Naturally they will want to find and patronize such stores. However, no magical stores exist.
Before the DM goes rushing off to create magical item shops, consider the player characters and their behavior. Just how often do player characters sell those potions and scrolls they find? Cast in a sword +1? Unload a horn of blasting or a ring of free action?
More often than not, player characters save such items. Certainly they don't give away one-use items. One can never have too many potions of healing or scrolls with extra spells. Sooner or later the character might run out. Already have a sword +1? Maybe a henchman or hireling could use such a weapon (and develop a greater respect for his master). Give up the only horn of blasting the party has? Not very likely at all.
It is reasonable to assume that if the player characters aren't giving up their goods, neither are any non-player characters. And if adventurers aren't selling their finds, then there isn't enough trade in magical items to sustain such a business.
Even if the characters do occasionally sell a magical item, setting up a magic shop is not a good idea. Where is the sense of adventure in going into a store and buying a sword +1? Haggling over the price of a wand? Player characters should feel like adventurers, not merchants or greengrocers.
Consider this as well: If a wizard or priest can buy any item he needs, why should he waste time attempting to make the item himself? Magical item research is an important role-playing element in the game, and opening a magic emporium kills it. There is a far different sense of pride on the player's part when using a wand his character has made, or found after perilous adventure, as opposed to one he just bought.
Finally, buying and trading magic presumes a large number of magical items in the society. This lessens the DM's control over the whole business. Logically-minded players will point out the inconsistency of a well-stocked magic shop in a campaign otherwise sparse in such rewards.

 

[AllisterH]

I remember this passage but it has a couple of assumptions that don't actually work...

Here's another excerpt from AD&D 2e I thought was interesting as far as this discussion goes...from the DMG...

Before the DM goes rushing off to create magical item shops, consider the player characters and their behavior. Just how often do player characters sell those potions and scrolls they find? Cast in a sword +1? Unload a horn of blasting or a ring of free action?
More often than not, player characters save such items. Certainly they don't give away one-use items. One can never have too many potions of healing or scrolls with extra spells. Sooner or later the character might run out. Already have a sword +1? Maybe a henchman or hireling could use such a weapon (and develop a greater respect for his master). Give up the only horn of blasting the party has? Not very likely at all.
.

Right here is the 1st problem. The only reason the players don't trade in those items isn't because they don't want to, it's the fact that there's no magic shoppe to trade it in to begin with...

Basically, it's saying, "don't create a magic shop since players don't have a magic shop to trade in their iitems"

Now, while one shot items might be saved (in both 3e and 4e, potions et al tend to be kept by the party members as it usually not worth the effort to trade it in for cash as you get so little trade in value for them.

Now, the only reason people kept permanent magical items like a +1 sword when everyone was outfitted with +3 swords and already had +1 swords as backups was because you could sell it but you couldn't use the proceeds to buy anything..

Even if the characters do occasionally sell a magical item, setting up a magic shop is not a good idea. Where is the sense of adventure in going into a store and buying a sword +1? Haggling over the price of a wand? Player characters should feel like adventurers, not merchants or greengrocers..

Now this part I personally find hilarious....A few months earlier I was in a somewhat heated/friendly discussion about the loss of the "profession" skill in 4E. There is a segment of gamers that a passage such as this is textbook example of badwrongfun.

Personally, the magic shop is something that actually cuts out the haggling as you don't really haggle that much in a respected shop as compared to trading magic items among non-shop owners.

Consider this as well: If a wizard or priest can buy any item he needs, why should he waste time attempting to make the item himself? Magical item research is an important role-playing element in the game, and opening a magic emporium kills it. There is a far different sense of pride on the player's part when using a wand his character has made, or found after perilous adventure, as opposed to one he just bought.
Finally, buying and trading magic presumes a large number of magical items in the society. This lessens the DM's control over the whole business. Logically-minded players will point out the inconsistency of a well-stocked magic shop in a campaign otherwise sparse in such rewards.

The first assumption only works in 1e/2e where magical item creation was crazy level hard. Contrast with the 2E's DMG's example of creating a "simple" +5 sword with the equivalent in 3e/4e. Of course, trying to reconcile that with the treasure you found in standard adventures was also one of those Schrodinger Cat type situations...

Secondly, the fact that magic items don't lose their potency over time means that any world with an extensive history, Greyhawk for example, there should be lots of magic items laying around