Item-swapping: what to do about it?

[Jonny Nexus]

(Out of curiosity, how do you feel about psionics? Just testing an hypothesis.)

Well my general approach is to say that the rules are a toolbox of all the things that could conceivably exist in a setting, from which you as GM can then select to form a set of elements that actually do exist in your particular setting. I also think that a setting should have a strong theme (or "angle" if you will) that will serve to support and shape the storylines.

So if I was creating a fantasy setting for a D&D game (I generally create my own settings rather than use an existing one) I'd probably say that there was no psionics unless psionics were a key element (a "schtick") of the setting.

I'd also say that I would have either Wizards or Sorcerers (but not both) depending on how I decided magic worked in my world, but that's another subject...

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

Our group shared items, too, though not for "everyday" obstacles like traps and so on.

But you'd better believe that every time someone had been level-drained, whoever had the best resistance-granting items would pass them over to the drained character for the next day's saving throw, and in the hour around the time that the save was due we'd be casting whatever save-enhancing spells would stack with 'em. It was in no one's best interest to let someone in the party lose a level permanently.

Wands and potions were also passed around freely to characters who might be needing them.

And on one occasion the weapon that did the most damage against the things we were fighting was loaned out to the only character whose attack bonus was actually high enough to hit 'em.

I think if it had been less of a bookkeeping exercise to keep track of who was holding what (and if we'd made less effort to keep the party together), we might have swapped items around more often; as it was, we ended up only loaning out equipment when there was a great need.

But even if it's causing a real problem in the game, I still have to agree with wilder_jw: attunement's a bad solution when it's implemented in the middle of the game. It's a bad idea to change fundamental rules about how items work when they've worked the other way for most of the game.

So I'd go with the people who are advocating giving the party less time to plan out strategies and optimize their item loadouts, and forcing more full-party encounters on them. When the rogue gets loaded up for bear and sneaks off to disable a trap, there shouldn't be any time for him to pass that gear back to his friends before the horde of monsters and flurry of spells descends upon them. Force them to think further ahead than just the next trap, and don't let them approach these challenges so methodically. Give 'em deadlines to meet, and keep the pressure on.

It won't change the usefulness of trading items to the people with the greatest need, but it'll reduce their opportunities to actually DO it. So eventually they might just trade items only when it's absolutely critical that Bob makes that fortitude save.

--
also, if it's really bothering you, you need to tell the players about it
ryan

 

[Coredump]

Okay, you want magic items to be special...names, stories, etc.

So my question to you would be: What have you done to make the magic you let them find feel special? Have they been given names? Back stories? Is it rare to find a magic item? Is it hard to make them?

If not, I assert that you want players to act in ways that are incongrous to your DMing style.

You would hate our group. Not only do we share items if useful, but we don't give out equal shares of magic. We actually give out whatever someone can use. At one point, one character had magic armour, shield, weapon, earings...and all I had was two masterwork weapons and a continual light (not flame) stone. That is just how the magic was found, he could use it, I could not.

Here are 'negative' examples.
If the player has a 'special' magic item; like a ring given to him for luck by his mother; then he should be very very reluctant to give it out.
If the players are metagaming numbers and percentages when 'calculating' how much magic will help in a certain situation; that should be handled.

But even if I have a named, storied, magic item. If this guy that has been fighting next to me, and helping me stay alive, needs it for a short while. Why would I say no?? Now, if I was putting myself at large risk, maybe not. But why stop a group from cooperating? I get the rare magic angle...but that is for you to create. I don't get artificially stopping them from working together.

.

 

[coyote6]

Here are 'negative' examples.
If the player has a 'special' magic item; like a ring given to him for luck by his mother; then he should be very very reluctant to give it out.
[...]

But even if I have a named, storied, magic item. If this guy that has been fighting next to me, and helping me stay alive, needs it for a short while. Why would I say no??

Right. Using your example -- "Friend dwarf -- I do not doubt your skill, but against the danger ahead, you will need more than skill. Take this ring -- it was given to me as a wee bairn by my own mother, and has brought me nothing but luck. Mayhap it will aid you, as well!"

If you want to keep the PCs from passing the magic hat, you have to set it up so there's a reason why they either don't want to or can't. Limits like that are fine, flavorful things, IMO -- but they need to be established ahead of time (either for all items, or specific ones).

IIRC, Earthdawn had an interesting system that made it unlikely people would share litems. I don't remember the specifics, though.

 

[Dragonblade]

I don't see the problem. Try to avoid "frustrated novelist" syndrome. It can happen to the best DMs.

Basically, when the DM wants to force a certain play style or character control on a group that isn't behaving as he/she expects, they get frustrated and look for a "solution" when none is really required. They want everything to be more like some book they read.

That just isn't possible when dealing with a group of independent minded individuals. And frankly there usually isn't anything preventing characters in novels from sharing magic items other than author fiat. And oftentimes its very unrealistic and contrived author fiat.

The "items require attunement" is a decent solution but your campaign is already ongoing and implementing it now would be very heavy-handed.

Really, the best thing to do is work with your group and discuss why what they are doing doesn't feel like fantasy to you. See if they can understand where you are coming from.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Again, not a problem. As DM I encourage the idea of a prty pool of magic items.

The Auld Grump

 

[was]

What is their reaction when the thief sets off a trap, say explosive for example, and said wizard takes massive damage because he's not wearing his ring?

 

[Pbartender]

I think the trick is to realize the groups are going to do this, and if you can (it might be difficult in a well-establushed campaign) simply adjust the configuration of their magical inventory.

My group, for example, has three general categories of magic items... Personal goodies, communal trinkets and disposables.

Personal Goodies are the major magic items typically designed to benefit a specific player. They are usually the most powerful magic items, and grant large bonuses and benefits. Sometimes, other classes or races simply cannot (easily) use them. The Fighter's +1 Adamantine Full Plate of Light Fortification, the Wizard's Blessed Book of Boccob, the Cleric's +1 Holy Mace, the Rogue's Gloves of Storing are good examples. These types of items are rarely swapped between characters, and even then, only in the most dire emergencies.

Communal Trinkets are minor magic items or charms that typically bestow small bonuses to dice rolls. Rings of Protection, Cloaks of Resistance, Boots of Elvenkind, Gauntlets of Ogre Strength are all examples. Typically these items are 'assigned' to a particular character for whom it is most often useful. It is common, however, for these items to be exchanged, loaned or reassigned to another character when the need arises. The small bonuses, and un-uniqueness of these items makes the swap easy.

Disposables are simply one-use magic items. Scrolls, potions and wands are the most common. While a particular character may be charge of 'holding' the items, anyone who can is free to use them when they need them.

So, make the Personal Goodies special enough that the PCs don't want to share them, and don't worry about the other items... They are meant to be shared.

 

[dreaded_beast]

I don't see the problem. Try to avoid "frustrated novelist" syndrome. It can happen to the best DMs.

Basically, when the DM wants to force a certain play style or character control on a group that isn't behaving as he/she expects, they get frustrated and look for a "solution" when none is really required. They want everything to be more like some book they read.

Yes, the last game I played in was like this. My old DM would complain about how it didn't fit the story and how our characters wouldn't just "give away" items to others. While I didn't agree with him, I went along because he was the DM.

Personally, I see no real problems in sharing party resources.

 

[dreaded_beast]

What is their reaction when the thief sets off a trap, say explosive for example, and said wizard takes massive damage because he's not wearing his ring?

Wondering why the wizard was looking over the rogue's shoulder when the trap goes off.