Magic Item Compendium and DMG Only for Magic Items?

[Kristian Serrano]

From what I understood from the latest article on the MIC, if they haven't updated it, it was either fine as it was or it just sucked so badly that it wasn't worth including in a MIC.

Olaf the Stout

This reminds me of the same position WotC took in regards to 3.0 material in 3.5 games. Players and Dungeon Masters are left wondering if something just hadn't been updated yet, didn't need updating, or was so bad that it shouldn't be updated.

As I understand it, items not included in Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium weren't worth mentioning since not all spells or magic items included were necessarily altered.

 

[delericho]

As I understand it, items not included in Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium weren't worth mentioning since not all spells or magic items included were necessarily altered.

IIRC, when compiling the Spell Compendium, WotC developed a list of sources to be included, and then included all the spells from that source. So, all of the Complete Arcane spells are reprinted in SC, but none of the Sandstorm ones. Presumably, this says nothing about the quality of the individual spells in either book.

By contrast, the MIC has taken the 'best' of the items from the entire D&D catalogue.

To be honest, I think I preferred the Spell Compendium approach.

 

[Mercule]

To be honest, I think I preferred the Spell Compendium approach.

By miles. The only reason I'm interested in Compendiums is so I can ditch the other books I'm using. If they aren't comprehensive, they aren't worth it.

I think MIC falls within an acceptable level of comprehensiveness (mine hasn't arrived, yet -- I ordered it based on being pleased w/ SC). I'm pretty concerned about the RC, though.

 

[Umbran]

Does that mean that, in WotC's opinion, such an item from a previously published source that is NOT reprinted in the MIC should NOT be used in a standard campaign for some reason (like its being unbalanced or something)?

I don't think the folks at WotC are under the impression that "standard campaign" is (or should be) a particularly meaningful thing. I expect they're quite aware that few games conform to the core rules standard completely, given how many of the bits that became 3.x started as common house rules...

 

[Kristian Serrano]

IIRC, when compiling the Spell Compendium, WotC developed a list of sources to be included, and then included all the spells from that source. So, all of the Complete Arcane spells are reprinted in SC, but none of the Sandstorm ones. Presumably, this says nothing about the quality of the individual spells in either book.

By contrast, the MIC has taken the 'best' of the items from the entire D&D catalogue.

IIRC, Spell Compendium is a "best of" approach, too, meaning not all the spells from the included sources are present.

Even if it were a deliberate exclusion of good spells for the sake of keeping a simpler list, it's a perfect example of how WotC doesn't clearly state if some material is left well enough alone, is not worthy of inclusion, or is to be included in future volumes such as Spell Compendium II. Some of us remember the initial title of Spell Compendium being followed by a roman numeral I.

 

[Atavar]

I guess my initial question should be worded differently. Basically, I see a number of reasons for something to be included in the MIC:

1. It was in another book (DMG or other), but something needed correcting/updating (price, errata, whatever).
2. It was in a book other than the DMG, nothing needed to be corrected, and it was good/cool/best enough to be included in the MIC, even if it may have been a campaign-specific (e.g. Eberron) or optional-rules-specific (e.g. Magic of Incarnum) item.

as well as a number of reasons for something NOT to be included in the MIC:

1. It was in the DMG and needed no correcting/updating.
2. It was in a book other than the DMG, nothing needed to be corrected, it was NOT good/cool/best enough to be included in the MIC, but the item itself is still a sound item to use.
3. The item was fine enough in its original source book, but something about it made it too campaign-specific (e.g. Eberron) or optional-rules-specific (e.g. Magic of Incarnum) to be included in the MIC, which is presumably a book of items usable in most any D&D campaign.
4. It was in another book (DMG or other), but it was SO bad that it was decided that scrapping it from the game entirely was better than trying to correct/update it to be included in the MIC.

So, when I (mistakenly) thought that sonic burst (now screaming burst) was not in the MIC, I had no way of knowing which of the above reasons (or another I didn't think of) was WHY it was not included.

Even though my original example is moot since it IS in the MIC as screaming burst, I think the question is relevant for any item not found in either the DMG or the MIC.

Thanks,

Atavar

 

[delericho]

IIRC, Spell Compendium is a "best of" approach, too, meaning not all the spells from the included sources are present.

The text on the back of the book says it includes over 1,000 of the best spells. However, in this Design & Devlopment column, we find:

When we took a spell from a source, we took all the spells from that source, with a few exceptions

So, I guess it's not quite all the spells from every included source, but very close to it. I still prefer that approach to the MIC one... although I'm still going to buy the MIC, so I guess it doesn't matter.

(Sorry if this seems overly pedantic - I was sure I'd read about spells from sources somewhere, and it bothered me enough to Google for it. Having done that, I figured I might as well post.)