Viking Bastard
Adventurer
It's an Arcana roll. If it fails, they have to investigate.
Identifying Magic Items
- Thread starter the Jester
- Start date
Mercule
Adventurer
Again, I don't want to force the surprise (good or bad) on the players. I want it to be a case where they have the option of digging deeper if they want. It should come at a cost, though, and not be reasonably routine. So, two or three degrees of tests.
The 1e expensive and time consuming method is too much for most items. The 4e fiat method makes inclusion of special items feel like a "gotcha". Give me a bit of both and put some guidelines around it so the players have a working idea of how not to get shafted.
Maybe this is one of those areas that is begging for modularization. Core rules include only beneficial items and (maybe) minor, easily avoided curses. The only means of identification available to the PCs is the 4e fiat method. A module, maybe even something in the DMG, adds more traditional cursed items, intelligent weapons/items, artifacts and some extra rules for identifying these.
My end goal would be to bypass most of the routine (boring) testing while keeping the possibility of mystery.
TarionzCousin
Second Most Angelic Devil Ever
How about "If it fails by ten, something bad happens"?
Viking Bastard
Adventurer
How about "If it fails by ten, something bad happens"?
Your idea intrigues me. Do you have something in mind?
Kingreaper
Adventurer
The way I treat it in 4e is the following:
Any magic item will, as part of the basic magic, give you an instinctive idea what it does.
Some are faulty, and don't do what they say due to an error.
Some, which I only have as plot-points, are actively enchanted to give you the wrong answer.
But, if you actually actively make an arcana check you have a chance of seeing through the fault/bluff. Depending how obvious a fault/clever a curser you're dealing with.
SensoryThought
First Post
Personally I find experimentation tedious, and when I game once a week, I don't want to waste even 15 min a session on trying on a ring and sticking your hand in fire, wishing for something, trying to teleport etc.
And D&D is designed for players to get lots of magic items so unless you deliberately attempt a low magic game that is against the implied power curve and treasure drops of D&D you will be spending a significant proportion of your game playing identify that +1 dagger.
There are some exceptions for very powerful magic items, but these are very much the exception and not the rule.
And D&D is designed for players to get lots of magic items so unless you deliberately attempt a low magic game that is against the implied power curve and treasure drops of D&D you will be spending a significant proportion of your game playing identify that +1 dagger.
There are some exceptions for very powerful magic items, but these are very much the exception and not the rule.
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
Potions *should* be labeled. Only an idiot would carry around a handful of nearly identically colored, unlabeled potions - especially if one or more was a poison intended for a weapon...
Scrolls *should* be decipherable by spellcasters; they have to be read (and can we get back Protection scrolls for the non-casters?).
+X items should be easily identifiable, mostly due to their quality and for the metagame aspect of making the DM remember the bonuses for all the PCs unidentified stuff. However, if the item has other abilities besides granting +X bonus, that might not be so-easily-determined.
Items with command words (inscribed or stitched into them - I mean, look at all the people who can't remember computer passwords with the darn password taped to the monitor, under the keyboard or just inside a nearby drawer - are you going to trust your memory to five different items in the middle of a creature-infested dungeon?) might hint at their use - or not.
Everything else should require experimentation. In D&D, despite the standardized descriptions, every magic item is a individualized, hand-made item. They aren't stamped out a factory like iPods or whatnot, and the game should steer away from homogenized descriptions/depictions of magic items. One wand of fireballs might be made from crystal with a ruby tip, while another may be made from black-scorched ash with a tip that still smolders red.
While knowledge of Spellcraft should help in divining some traits of an item ("Hmm...a ruby? The magic in this wand is likely attuned to fire..."), I'd prefer the old method of learn-by-experimentation wherever possible. Magic determination should be a last resort sort of option.
And I'd really like to see items with drawbacks return to the game. Not necessarily "cursed" items, but items that provide some sort of detriment in return for it's power. Perhaps the above mentioned ashen wand of fireballs heats up when used, requiring the caster to make a Fort save or drop it (or use a heavily insulated glove, which might cause other issues with the item "not connecting" to the user). This is one area D&D has really fallen down on since 3E - everything has to be 100% in the player's advantage or its "crap not worth printing".
Scrolls *should* be decipherable by spellcasters; they have to be read (and can we get back Protection scrolls for the non-casters?).
+X items should be easily identifiable, mostly due to their quality and for the metagame aspect of making the DM remember the bonuses for all the PCs unidentified stuff. However, if the item has other abilities besides granting +X bonus, that might not be so-easily-determined.
Items with command words (inscribed or stitched into them - I mean, look at all the people who can't remember computer passwords with the darn password taped to the monitor, under the keyboard or just inside a nearby drawer - are you going to trust your memory to five different items in the middle of a creature-infested dungeon?) might hint at their use - or not.
Everything else should require experimentation. In D&D, despite the standardized descriptions, every magic item is a individualized, hand-made item. They aren't stamped out a factory like iPods or whatnot, and the game should steer away from homogenized descriptions/depictions of magic items. One wand of fireballs might be made from crystal with a ruby tip, while another may be made from black-scorched ash with a tip that still smolders red.
While knowledge of Spellcraft should help in divining some traits of an item ("Hmm...a ruby? The magic in this wand is likely attuned to fire..."), I'd prefer the old method of learn-by-experimentation wherever possible. Magic determination should be a last resort sort of option.
And I'd really like to see items with drawbacks return to the game. Not necessarily "cursed" items, but items that provide some sort of detriment in return for it's power. Perhaps the above mentioned ashen wand of fireballs heats up when used, requiring the caster to make a Fort save or drop it (or use a heavily insulated glove, which might cause other issues with the item "not connecting" to the user). This is one area D&D has really fallen down on since 3E - everything has to be 100% in the player's advantage or its "crap not worth printing".
Mishihari Lord
First Post
I like RPing item identification very much, but agree that it can get to be too much.
The approach I prefer is that if you want to find out what it is mid-adventure, you have to experiment. If you're willing to wait 'til between adventures, then an arcane knowledge check will get the job done. This way it's up to the players if they want to do an immediate ID. Stuff that looks cool tends to get ID's through RP this way, while boring stuff gets glossed over.
The approach I prefer is that if you want to find out what it is mid-adventure, you have to experiment. If you're willing to wait 'til between adventures, then an arcane knowledge check will get the job done. This way it's up to the players if they want to do an immediate ID. Stuff that looks cool tends to get ID's through RP this way, while boring stuff gets glossed over.
Mattachine
Adventurer
Return to the game? I can think of some items like this from AD&D modules, but I can't think of any common or well known items with drawbacks from AD&D or 2e.
