Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 1773530" data-attributes="member: 5122">For what it's worth, I'm with you.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; But this is a function of D&amp;D's &quot;magic items as decorative Christmas ornaments;&quot; people that love D&amp;D as it is don't understand our objection.&nbsp; (Out of curiosity, how do you feel about psionics?&nbsp; Just testing an hypothesis.)Several people have mentioned the best solution: requiring an &quot;attunement&quot; period.&nbsp; It is, in fact, the solution usually chosen by the designers when they want to avoid this phenomenon (c.f., ring of sustenance.)&nbsp; The problem is that the solution doesn't lend itself much to a mid-stream change.&nbsp; (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.)&nbsp; 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 &quot;One Ring Effect,&quot; whereby the use of an item makes the user more and more possessive of it.&nbsp; It needn't be to the point of snarling Bilbo, but I could see it reaching nicodine-addiction levels.&nbsp; (So maybe it would be to the point of snarling Bilbo ... )</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Wilder, post: 1773530, member: 5122"] 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 [i]is[/i] 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., [i]ring of sustenance[/i].) 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 [i]would[/i] be to the point of snarling Bilbo ... ) [/QUOTE]

Verification