"It's not a question of where it grips it..."

[mythusmage]

I'd have to agree that the stuff should be readiliy available, not because its in the DMG but becuause those things are not neccesarily thieves tools and used for larceny. I think someone made a point of invisibile guards or for that matter security. It's the same reason the NRA uses to keep guns around, the thieves are going to get them we need to get them too.

As I recall, the location in question was the city of Thay. A bunch of hardcore control freaks who gained power using sneaky tricks and treachery are going to let just about anybody purchase items that make using sneaky tricks and treachery easy?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I do not think that "There are magic shops and this is what they charge for items" even qualifies as a RULE. It is a default campaign setting feature. Same for all of those stupid DMG demographics about how every town has a paladin. Changing the features of a campaign setting is the DM's perogative and should not (IMO) be described as a House Rule.

"Moradin does not exist" is not a house rule. It is a campaign setting feature.
"Clerics of Moradin gain martial weapon proficiency (warhammer)" is a house rule.

*shrug* whether we like it or not (and I don't particularly like it, but thats another subject) magic items and the power you can gain from them is part of the mechanics of D&D. Assumptions about power level and character abilities are tied into assumptions about what magical items will be available to different characters at different levels. IMHO changing the availablity of an entire set of common magic items (many of which are assumed in the core books to be owned by default npcs regardless of background or allignment) is a rules change. Describing it in flavor terms doesn't change that, and describing it in insulting "of course it will be this way" flavor terms is a bit arrogent.

If I want to change default item availability, either in big or small ways, I let players know that in advance. The DM in question had a logical reason for his house rule, but I still consider it a house rule and think that insulting a player for not liking its sudden apearance was worth calling him on.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

*shrug* whether we like it or not (and I don't particularly like it, but thats another subject) magic items and the power you can gain from them is part of the mechanics of D&D. Assumptions about power level and character abilities are tied into assumptions about what magical items will be available to different characters at different levels. IMHO changing the availablity of an entire set of common magic items (many of which are assumed in the core books to be owned by default npcs regardless of background or allignment) is a rules change. Describing it in flavor terms doesn't change that, and describing it in insulting "of course it will be this way" flavor terms is a bit arrogent.

If I want to change default item availability, either in big or small ways, I let players know that in advance. The DM in question had a logical reason for his house rule, but I still consider it a house rule and think that insulting a player for not liking its sudden apearance was worth calling him on.

First of all, I think there's a vast difference between "A PC should have about this much GP value in useful magic items at this level" and "A PC should have about this much GP value in magic items, and he can choose which ones they are." The wealth-by-level guidelines do not necessarily assume that the PC gets exactly the items he wants.

Second, in my opinion, the only game elements the players have a right to assume are the same unless otherwise noted are the rules in the PHB. The DM wants to change demographics or the properties or availability of magic items? No need to warn the players. The DM wants to change the vulnerability of trolls or vampires? No need to warn the players unless the PC in question makes the requisite Knowledge check (and, in fact, this is a very good way to keep them from meta-gaming). A PC shouldn't even know that rings of invisibility exist unless he has seen one in use or has made the requisite Knowledge check or bardic knowledge check. All of that stuff in the DMG and MM - players should entirely forget it when they play. The DM doesn't have to warn you that he's changing it. Just my opinion - a bit old school, from back when players weren't even supposed to look at the DMG.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

<accidental double-post ....>

 

[The Thayan Menace]

A Good Discussion

I had no idea my original post in this thread would generate so much discourse. I'm kind of flattered.

Anyway, I actually managed to solve the matter creatively and keep my player happy.

Feel free to check out my solution in the FISTS of the LONG DEATH thread (start at response #78).

 

[KenM]

With regaurds to napalm. If it was a standard DnD game. How would the character know what nalpalm was to try to make it in the first place?

 

[SineTheGuy]

So should the availability of every magic item in the game be discussed before-hand as a house rule? How about the availability of exotic items? How about every item?

Shall you discuss monster populations and distributions? How about the attitudes of town's people?

Personally, as a player, I prefer to know exactly what monsters and traps I'll encounter in a dungeon beforehand. That way, the DM can't suddenly change his plans without my knowledge in order to add another challenge, that, as a player, I would rather not have to overcome. I like having everything handed to me. It wouldn't be fun if I didn't know every detail beforehand.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Well Played Sir ... Well Played ....

Personally, as a player, I prefer to know exactly what monsters and traps I'll encounter in a dungeon beforehand. That way, the DM can't suddenly change his plans without my knowledge in order to add another challenge, that, as a player, I would rather not have to overcome. I like having everything handed to me. It wouldn't be fun if I didn't know every detail beforehand.

Good Sir, I applaud your sarcasm.

 

[wingsandsword]

In a d20 Modern campaign I had once, one player went out of his way to bludgeon us with his knowledge of hospitals. He worked as a computer technician in a very large hospital, and in two different adventures they went into a hospital. Not being an expert on the subject, and it being a fairly cinematic game, I went with the way hospitals are always portrayed in action movies and TV shows. When the PC's went to look at the charts on a person they were there to see, he pipes up on how recent legislation into medical privacy made it illegal to have those charts in the open, so they couldn't just walk up and view his charts. I told him that it was my game, and this isn't the real world, it's like an action movie or a TV show, and you see it in the movies and TV all the time, he got really upset by that saying that if it's unrealistic there is no way he can play his character. In a second adventure, the PC's decided to break into a doctors computer to steal some records. He took this opportunity to nitpick everything I said and he did, since he worked on computers and medical records. Everything the PC's did, he said wasn't possible because he knew how computers like that were set up, and every ruling I made he said I was wrong because he knew the subject better than me.

As a sort of reverse to the whole issue:

In D&D, my friends and I had always interpreted Fireball as being just that, a big dang ball of fire that burns everything in it's path. It sets buildings on fire, and has lots of collateral damage potential. A new player joined our game, and when he tried to cast fireball at a wagon full of hay to get the archers on top of the haystack, and I told him that not only were the archers dead, but the wagon was singed and smoking, and the hay was practically ashes. He then threw a fit, saying that a fireball is a flash-fire that doesn't hurt objects, it only hurts creatures, and the rules were very clear that a Fireball doesn't set things on fire since it lasts too short a time. I told him that any fire hot enough to do 10d6 damage, 35 on average, which can reduce practically any townsfolk to instantly dead even if they make their saving throw is going to ignite hay and leave scorch marks on the wood at least. He then started to pull out his PHB and sift through to cite the rule to me. I told him that he was new to this game, we've been playing like this for years, and I'm just as likely to pull out the old 2e Spells & Magic which encouraged DM's to use collateral damage for spells. He was very upset that I wasn't following the RAW, but the rest of the group really liked the idea of spells causing damage to their environments, since it seemed silly to most of us that throwing around a fireball in an urban environment would only kill creatures with HP and ignore all the inanimate objects in the area.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Your Player Doesn't Know the Rules Either

I believe that, as an energy spell, fireball does indeed damage inanimate objects ... and that is written within the core rules.