Item-swapping: what to do about it?

[Vertaxis]

There is another option you can go with.

You could make it mandatory in your game that a character has to possess an item for a specific period of time so that it "attunes" to the new user. Ioun Stones are like that.

There's just too many instant on use of items. Things that have to be worn should be made to be attuned to the wearer.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

Jonny Nexus has it right -- I agree it's not an issue in a magic-rich world, where items are just gear, but in a magic-poor world, where each item is unique, it's an issue.

Began Aragorn, "You'll have my sword."

Gimli stepped forward: "And my axe."

Added Legolas: "And my bow."

Frodo looked at the pile of weapons. "This isn't what I had in mind!" he said, but they just kept on walking.

Brilliant!

 

[Jonny Nexus]

Yes, but "legend and story" differ substantially than the baseline world of D&D presented in the Core Rules books. Magic items are much more common than in many fantasy novels and certainly moreso than in most of our legends and mythology.

That commonality would, in general, tend to make people view such items more as "tools" than "legendary artifacts".

Yes, that is a good point. I suppose though that I would feel that you have to draw a distinction between the rules and what I'd term "flavour/setting".

An example:

The rules say that to make an attack you roll a d20, add your attack bonus, and if it exceeds or equals your opponent's AC then you've successfully struck them. They then do the same to you.

However, if I was writing up an attack as a descriptive account (in a storyhour for example) I would not write: Thargar approached Haden - who merely stood motionless before him - lifted his axe, and then bought it crashing down upon Haden's armour. Haden staggered back a pace under the force of the blow, waited until Thargar had assumed a stationary stance, and then swung his axe at Haden's motionless form.

No, obviously, I'm not going to write that - because the D&D combat rules are not intended as a detailed or realistic description of what actually occurs in the game world during a combat. Instead, they are there simply to provide an abstract description of the results of a combat. The underlying assumption is that the imagination of both the GM and the players will be used to "fill in the gaps". (i.e. If a player rolls a good attack that still turns out to be a miss - just - because the opponent has a high AC, the GM might say, "You axe swings straight down upon his shoulders, but he dances nimbly to one side leaving you swiping at empty air").

The point:

I'd say that the magic item rules are (or perhaps should might be more correct, if a tad arrogant) merely an abstract representation of the effects of magical items. But that doesn't mean that you can't add the flavour on top.

Personally, I hate the idea of someone just saying, "Oh, this is a +2 vorpal sword" or "this is a +1 ring of protection" because it's just reducing magic items to the status of commodities (and I accept that it's probably me that's out of step here, because in typical D&D game worlds, magic items probably are commodities).

To me, a magic item should - "in-character" - have merely a name and a description ("This is the Ring of Elronna... it is said that it shall protect any who wear it from harm) with the actual rules description being very much "out of character".

But I guess this comes down to the level of magic you want in a game (ubiquitous versus exotic) and as is probably obvious, I'm in the "exotic" camp.

 

[Prism]

However you decide to deal with this make sure you involve the players. It sounds like your players enjoy this way of solving puzzles and encounters. Unless this is agreed upon before any changes you can end up with ongoing resentment, especially the next time the rogue gets in trouble because of what he/she feels is a lack of party support, through no fault of theirs.

I agree with some of the other posters that keeping things moving is a good way to stop people sharing items. If they know that a follow up encounter is likely or even possible they may not be as willing to share in the first place

 

[iblis]

My playing group has a longstanding habit of pooling resources. This is perhaps altruistic, but it's not realistic.
<SNIP>
It's not a huge unbalancing problem, but it just strikes me as aesthetically bad. What can be done about it?
<SNIP>

You could award their characters a bit of XP for working together...?

 

[Li Shenron]

It happens sometimes that our characters lend their gear to each other, but usually it's about lending single specific items for a job, not "piling up" everything protective and let the one PC open the way for the party.

There are too many surprises in adventures to choose to drop all your own protections even for a short time Keep in mind that putting back the rings, the cloaks, the amulets, the boots, etc. if action breaks up means to lose rounds worth of combat and provoke plenty of AoOs.

 

[Particle_Man]

1) I think it is great that a party is that coordinated. I don't think you should disturb this happy baby. Heck, I want to BE in this party.
2) You might have an easier time selling the idea of magic items being exotic if player characters with the appropriate feats couldn't easily make dozens of the damned things. It's a bit like that "BlackAdder I" joke about Lord Percy making a big deal out of having a fingerbone of Christ. Baldric: "That's really amazing!" Percy: "You think so?" Baldric: "Yeah, they usually come in sets of ten!" (Pulls out his set of 10 Christ fingerbones). I mean, come on! Who is going to care about a +1 ring of protection, no matter what name it has? In game terms, it is a placeholder ring, to be given away or thrown away, without regret, when one finds two better rings. And since characters continually progress, ALL magic items are like that until about level 16 or so (When one finally gets an "Excalibur-class" weapon or other magic item). Until then, there are always better magic items to be found or made, so there is no reason to get emotionally attached to one's current set of items.
3) If you really want magic items to be special, then make them special. Make them intelligent, and give them personalities. Ring of Fire Resistance: "I don't want to work for that thief! I refuse to protect him from fire!" sort of thing. Also, make them gain in power as one levels up, so that there is less incentive to replace the item.
4) Note that there is one item, the "ring of sustenance" that already takes a week to attune to a new character. There may be others...

 

[hong]

Or to put it another way: "it's not keeping to genre or especially in-character."

I would think that the best judge of what's in-character is that character's player.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Personally, I hate the idea of someone just saying, "Oh, this is a +2 vorpal sword" or "this is a +1 ring of protection" because it's just reducing magic items to the status of commodities (and I accept that it's probably me that's out of step here, because in typical D&D game worlds, magic items probably are commodities).

To me, a magic item should - "in-character" - have merely a name and a description ("This is the Ring of Elronna... it is said that it shall protect any who wear it from harm) with the actual rules description being very much "out of character".

For what it's worth, I'm with you. As you've observed, this is an area in which behavior that could be considered expedient, or even clever, is just plain disconnected from genre sensibilities.

It's not a big problem in my group, but it's still a little annoying, for all the reasons you've mentioned. But this is a function of D&D's "magic items as decorative Christmas ornaments;" people that love D&D as it is don't understand our objection. (Out of curiosity, how do you feel about psionics? Just testing an hypothesis.)

Several people have mentioned the best solution: requiring an "attunement" period. It is, in fact, the solution usually chosen by the designers when they want to avoid this phenomenon (c.f., ring of sustenance.) The problem is that the solution doesn't lend itself much to a mid-stream change. (Not only is it unfair to the players, but such a major paradigm shift is, in itself, as cheesy as the problem it's solving.) I have every intention of addressing this in my house rules for the next campaign.

Oh, one other possibility I'm considering, especially if I limit the number of items but up the average power, is creating a "One Ring Effect," whereby the use of an item makes the user more and more possessive of it. It needn't be to the point of snarling Bilbo, but I could see it reaching nicodine-addiction levels. (So maybe it would be to the point of snarling Bilbo ... )

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

One tactic I've used is a sort of 'reverse-attunment'. I describe it as a rush of magic when a ring or other worn item is first put on (eg. 'You feel a sudden chill sweep over your body, and the air seems several degrees cooler than it did moments ago' for a Ring of Fire Resistance). The catch is that the item temporarily drains itself of its magical battery when doing so, so that if you then pass it to someone else, it won't work. Set a recharge time (hours, days, whatever) before it will work on a new target.

This way, an item that a character typically wears can be loaned out to another in an emergency, but it denies the party the old 'I put on the ring, walk through the inferno unharmed, and then throw the ring back to the next person' routine.

I also tend to be a little freer handing out charged items than permanent ones, so that the party has to judge whether or not its worth blowing through all their potions of fire protection in one encounter, etc.