D&D 5E Magic Item Creation: Which book should contain rules for magic item creation?

[pemerton]

the older editions had numbers, but they most of the time stayed in the background and-or were the purview of the DM only.

This isn't at all true in my experience. The relevant abilities included THACO/attack matrix, saving throws, AC, hp and stats. And the official TSR character sheets, which we used, had boxes for all of these on them. And the players had a very good knowledged of the numbers written in those boxes!

There are also posters who push for the game to be based where characters are built around their magic items.

For me, at least, this was most prominent for fighters in classic D&D - because they have no abilities other than those gained from their items.

For example, in the first long-running AD&D game that I GMed, the fighter was distinctive because of his flametongue sword and his cloak of the manta ray.

This is more of the attitude where it's the mathematical build of the character that's more important than anything else.

<snip>

When you have a game that is numbers first and then just apply fluff where you feel necessary makes the game feel like it's just chess with some fluff held on with a sticky note.

Two responses.

First, I think it's worth remembering that magic items as magical powerups were invented by D&D's original designers. When Ggyax invented the +1 sword, I don't think he was expecting the players whose PCs discovered one to be romantically soliloquising about the weapon's eldritch properties. It was a maths boost in a game that uses mathematical techniques for action resolution. To my mind, a call to reduce the players' engagement with action resolution is a call to increase GM-driven railroading as the alternative.

Second, there are two types of "fluff" (not a word I really like - it is rather dismissive). There is mere colour, and there is colour (fiction) that actually matters to resolution. If a random table tells me that possessing my dwarven-made armour will, over time, make me more acquisitive, but there is no mechanic to support that, then it is mere colour. My personal view is that mere colour is fine in small doses but it is not where the action of gameplay is at. It would drive me mad to play in a game where, for instance, my fellow players spent hours describing their negotiations for the purchase of a flagon of wine, or their expenditure of gold pieces on wine and food where this is not connected to the resolution of any actual challenge but just freeform description of the PC's life.

Then there is fiction that actually matters to resolution. Your example of an Earthquake spell is an instance of this. Gygax's AD&D rules for henchmen loyalty are another - that is a framework in which, for NPCs at least, the acquisitiveness-causing properties of dwarven items can be given mechanical teeth. With the item that increases acquistiveness, make it so that the PC has to make a Will save, or something similar, in order to spend any money or loan anything to another character.

I can give examples from my own 4e game, too, that illustrate the contrast between mere colour and fiction that matters. What shade are the PCs' eyes? I don't know - it's never come up, because no point of action resolution has ever turned on it. But I know that the invoker-wizard has markings on his fact that resemble a raven with wings spread, because that was established as part of the resolution of his ressurection in the form of a deva rather than a human.

What are the names of the PCs' brothers and sisters? Do they even have any? That's never come up either, but their relationships to various gods, primordials and other cosmological entities are known and are explored in every session in intimate detail, as that is the fiction that is actually driving the game - both the framing of scenes, and their resolution, including via deployment of the action resolution mechanics.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

This isn't at all true in my experience. The relevant abilities included THACO/attack matrix, saving throws, AC, hp and stats. And the official TSR character sheets, which we used, had boxes for all of these on them. And the players had a very good knowledged of the numbers written in those boxes!

For me, at least, this was most prominent for fighters in classic D&D - because they have no abilities other than those gained from their items.

For example, in the first long-running AD&D game that I GMed, the fighter was distinctive because of his flametongue sword and his cloak of the manta ray.

Two responses.

First, I think it's worth remembering that magic items as magical powerups were invented by D&D's original designers. When Ggyax invented the +1 sword, I don't think he was expecting the players whose PCs discovered one to be romantically soliloquising about the weapon's eldritch properties. It was a maths boost in a game that uses mathematical techniques for action resolution. To my mind, a call to reduce the players' engagement with action resolution is a call to increase GM-driven railroading as the alternative.

Second, there are two types of "fluff" (not a word I really like - it is rather dismissive). There is mere colour, and there is colour (fiction) that actually matters to resolution. If a random table tells me that possessing my dwarven-made armour will, over time, make me more acquisitive, but there is no mechanic to support that, then it is mere colour. My personal view is that mere colour is fine in small doses but it is not where the action of gameplay is at. It would drive me mad to play in a game where, for instance, my fellow players spent hours describing their negotiations for the purchase of a flagon of wine, or their expenditure of gold pieces on wine and food where this is not connected to the resolution of any actual challenge but just freeform description of the PC's life.

Then there is fiction that actually matters to resolution. Your example of an Earthquake spell is an instance of this. Gygax's AD&D rules for henchmen loyalty are another - that is a framework in which, for NPCs at least, the acquisitiveness-causing properties of dwarven items can be given mechanical teeth. With the item that increases acquistiveness, make it so that the PC has to make a Will save, or something similar, in order to spend any money or loan anything to another character.

I can give examples from my own 4e game, too, that illustrate the contrast between mere colour and fiction that matters. What shade are the PCs' eyes? I don't know - it's never come up, because no point of action resolution has ever turned on it. But I know that the invoker-wizard has markings on his fact that resemble a raven with wings spread, because that was established as part of the resolution of his ressurection in the form of a deva rather than a human.

What are the names of the PCs' brothers and sisters? Do they even have any? That's never come up either, but their relationships to various gods, primordials and other cosmological entities are known and are explored in every session in intimate detail, as that is the fiction that is actually driving the game - both the framing of scenes, and their resolution, including via deployment of the action resolution mechanics.

Im on my phone so I don't have the patience to cut so I will just quote the whole thing. Now your AD&D fighter example is different. You didn't know what items you would be getting, unless your DM gave you what you asked for, and they were a lot more rare. My fighters used to stand out because of his items as well but it was a hell of a lot different back then than what 4th edition did. 4th edition expected the equipment because of the math while AD&d did not. Now you did have monsters that could only be hit by certain weapons but again thats different.

 

[Kinak]

I find these two methods work the best. Either limit it to the point of it being non-existent (which it sounds like more of what you do) or going overboard to the point of it being simply an aspect of character advancement (which is more of what I do). Both methods, I think, work well. And I think what we can agree on is that the current system (3x/PF) doesn't produce a desirable effect in either direction. It's half way between good enough.

That's a very good way to put that.

And I'd certainly take magic item creation rules that embraced crafting (and were more robust than, say, 2nd Edition's couple of paragraphs). But, as you say, 3e threads the needle between two workable solutions.

Crafting rules, while I think useful for players, also tend to put more limitations on DMs. It's become more bookkeeping to create an interesting magical item than it is wonderment. So while I think there is great benefit to players being able to craft items and by doing so need some rules to govern the economy of it, there needs to be less of that on the DM side of the table.

To be fair, I find wonderment issues spread far beyond the crafting parts of items in 3e. It has just as much to do with quantity of items and only being able to track a few interesting items.

I find my players can only really keep track of one or two interesting items on top of their character complexity. That leaves all the other slots as either static or forgotten and, with most of their slots full, means only a sliver of magical items can be wondrous.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[pemerton]

Now your AD&D fighter example is different. You didn't know what items you would be getting, unless your DM gave you what you asked for, and they were a lot more rare. My fighters used to stand out because of his items as well but it was a hell of a lot different back then than what 4th edition did. 4th edition expected the equipment because of the math while AD&d did not.

I don't see why items chosen by the GM should be magical but items chosen by the player are not.

As for 4e's maths, the enhancement bonuses on items are a straightforward part of character build. You can turn them into inherent bonuses and nothing about the game will change. What is distinctive about 4e items is not their bonuses but their other features. One of the PCs in my 4e game wields Whelm, a dwarven hammer artefact. Another wields (5 parts of) the Rod of Seven Parts.These items are not less magical, and their powers and effects less dramatic, just because their enhancement bonuses are inherent elements of PC building.

 

[sheadunne]

I find my players can only really keep track of one or two interesting items on top of their character complexity. That leaves all the other slots as either static or forgotten and, with most of their slots full, means only a sliver of magical items can be wondrous.

Cheers!
Kinak

I would agree with that. I'm constantly reminding players of various effects they can deploy based on magical items they have in their possession. They usually do fine with character abilities, spells, etc, but because magical items tend to be added on to their character advancement rather than an integral part of it, there's a bit of disassociation going on. The item exists outside of the character rather than part of the resources they can deploy in a given situation. Obviously static bonuses aren't really part of that as they get integrated into the character and forgotten. This doesn't apply to all players, I don't have an issue with tracking and utilizing a vast variety of magic items, but I also like the complexity of spell casters and I think they go hand and hand. If you're used to tracking limited resources, adding on magical items, especially those you created yourself, becomes less of an issue. Most players I game with though, don't tend to gravitate toward wizards and the like. About the closest most get is the sorcerer or sometimes the cleric.

 

[Lanefan]

This isn't at all true in my experience. The relevant abilities included THACO/attack matrix, saving throws, AC, hp and stats. And the official TSR character sheets, which we used, had boxes for all of these on them. And the players had a very good knowledged of the numbers written in those boxes!

Never worked that way in my experience. We knew our h.p., AC, stats, and stat-related bonuses e.g. Dex. 15 gives you a point of AC. But attack matrices, saving throw tables, and so forth were (and still are) strictly the purview of the DM. We never used those official TSR character sheets, but I'm wondering if the ones you're referring to came from a later era, closer to or into 2e? I ask because THAC0 wasn't really used much in the early days.

For me, at least, this was most prominent for fighters in classic D&D - because they have no abilities other than those gained from their items.

No mechanical abilities, you mean.

For example, in the first long-running AD&D game that I GMed, the fighter was distinctive because of his flametongue sword and his cloak of the manta ray.

Lanefan-the-character is a pure Fighter, always has been. He sees magic as a means to an end - it can make him a better Fighter - so it's only logical he's going to want to go out and get some. He never met a magic longsword he didn't like, and if it happened to belong to someone else at the time well, so what? Indeed, his mechanics are largely based on magic. As a side-effect he took it upon himself to learn all he could about field-testing magic items of all sorts to determine their uses, and ended up writing a treatise on such (which one of these days I really should post here, just for fun).

But if you ever saw (or better yet, heard) him in play your over-riding memories of him would not be his magic, take my word for that!

Lan-"who as character is the antithesis of everything Eric's Grandma stands for"-efan

 

[fjw70]

I personally don't care but I would be shocked if the MI creation rules were in the PH.

 

[pemerton]

Never worked that way in my experience. We knew our h.p., AC, stats, and stat-related bonuses e.g. Dex. 15 gives you a point of AC. But attack matrices, saving throw tables, and so forth were (and still are) strictly the purview of the DM. We never used those official TSR character sheets, but I'm wondering if the ones you're referring to came from a later era, closer to or into 2e? I ask because THAC0 wasn't really used much in the early days.

The sheets I'm talking about are the ones mentioned on this page as the 1981 gold-with-a-pink-cover AD&D sheets.

They had lots of boxes for stats. I can't remember exactly how attack numbers were recorded, but I think they were on there. Saves were.

 

[Balesir]

You go to work each day, and you receive rewards for that (a paycheck) right? You figure our fictional characters will (or even could) continue in their fictional world if they were never given rewards for actions taken? How, pray tell, do they buy food to eat? So, you must, occasionally, reward the character, or they will starve (unless your game happens to have no rules requiring that characters eat, I suppose...) .

In general, in the fiction - only severely disturbed individuals continue on in pain, strife and risk to life and limb without *some* reward. Suitable rewards will differ, of course. But, if they never get anything for their efforts, they will eventually stop making an effort. That leads to a boring game.

On top of good points by [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], characters in any RPG are imaginary. They will carry on adventuring under an abusive boss, living in a cardboard box in t' middle o't' road and licking t' road clean wi't' tongue, if that's what the players decide they will do. They don't really exist!

From there, it is just a bit of human psychology - the character is the player's self-insertion icon. Rewarding the character is rewarding the player, by extension.

OK, but the reward to the player is not the same as that to the character. The player does not get a literal, physical sword of any kind - never mind a magical one. They get the approbation of their peers for a job well done, maybe, and perhaps a feeling analogous to that experienced when a sports team they support wins a match or a trophy or similar; the thrill of having a favoured protege succeed.

The actual magic item, it seems to me, is not really the reward - it is just an in-game token that marks the reward. As such, its form is incidental. You could as well award characters medals or stars in the game and they would perform the same function - and they are not, themselves, the rewards. They are merely attempts, we might say, by the GM to signal that approbation (reward) is appropriate. If used in this way, it seems to me that (a) we are conflating two purposes: that of character enhancement and that of reward signalling, and (b) we are assigning a role of "reward signalling" to the GM that I think is not neccessarily best allocated there. If the real reward is the approbation of your peers, are those peers not the best ones to judge when such a reward is or is not appropriate?

Are you implying people who like that as a reward are gullible because they like different things than you?

No. I am saying that if you consider purely imaginary things to be "rewards" then you might readily buy many such rewards, possibly quite cheaply and to no great benefit to yourself.

But, as I have explained above, I actually doubt very much that those who like other play styles really are so gullible as to consider the purely imaginary objects of play "rewards", as such. Rather, they stand as signals or proxies for such entirely human and valid rewards as praise and admiration within the group. I can not imagine anyone genuinely thinking themselves a better person for "having a magic sword", but I can imagine them being pleased that they played well (in whatever style pleases them) and this was recognised by their friends. The magic sword might be an in-game symbol of that success and recognition, but I would argue that it is not really required in that role.

In a certain style of play - challenge-based player-driven play - they are rewards for the player. Imagine a trick where there's a flame tongue floating in a glowing ray of light in the middle of a room (with a bunch of clues as to how to get it and what the consequences of screwing up might be). You know there's going to be some danger in there, so you have to figure out how to grab the thing.

Yes, I can see that scenario, but let me pose a question: do you think that "prize" could not be a piece of in-game knowledge? Or access to a protected area in the imagined world? Or reputation or prestige in the game world?

In other words, yes, a magic item might be used in this role, but there is nothing requiring the prize to be a magic item. Add to this that, as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has said, this is not generally how the majority of magic items are gained, and I think what this amounts to is a challenge for the players/characters, the overcoming of which is a goal and a reward in itself. The fact that it is also the vector for acquiring a magic item - which generally are acquired along with challenges overcome and hence also experience - is actually incidental.

I find these two methods work the best. Either limit it to the point of it being non-existent (which it sounds like more of what you do) or going overboard to the point of it being simply an aspect of character advancement (which is more of what I do). Both methods, I think, work well. And I think what we can agree on is that the current system (3x/PF) doesn't produce a desirable effect in either direction. It's half way between good enough.

I agree with this and your earlier comments on magic items as "build" components; I would just add two observations:

1) As I have said elsewhere, I think 4E's split of magic objects into "magic items" (can be bought and sold, made by PCs and are essentially "build" components) and "artifacts" (cannot be bought or made by PCs, are purely GM artifacts (sic) to be used as rewards, plot devices or whatever) is superb from this point of view. It covers both of your bases and, regardless of how you feel about the rest of 4E's systems, I think this recommends itself for adoption into whatever edition of D&D you favour. By simply setting the frequency and availability of the two types of object this scheme can cater to a wide range of preferences, from artifact-only (all magic items are GM purview only) to enchanted item only (magic items are player-controlled within the resources they acquire).

2) Like you, I like magic items as character "build" elements, but I would point out that they are different in an important respect from other such elements. Magic items that can be bought or made are actually party build elements. They represent a power-up that the players can discuss in character and decide upon what elements to "pick" in order to strengthen the whole party, not just one character. As such, they promote an element of teamwork in character building/development, complementary but quite different from the teamwork in play that is promoted by character classes.

 

[Mistwell]

No. I am saying that if you consider purely imaginary things to be "rewards" then you might readily buy many such rewards, possibly quite cheaply and to no great benefit to yourself.

But, as I have explained above, I actually doubt very much that those who like other play styles really are so gullible as to consider the purely imaginary objects of play "rewards", as such. Rather, they stand as signals or proxies for such entirely human and valid rewards as praise and admiration within the group. I can not imagine anyone genuinely thinking themselves a better person for "having a magic sword", but I can imagine them being pleased that they played well (in whatever style pleases them) and this was recognised by their friends. The magic sword might be an in-game symbol of that success and recognition, but I would argue that it is not really required in that role.

Wow your conception of role playing is completely different from mine, and frankly bizarre to me. The character gains the reward, and the player is happy that the character gained the reward because it's an achievement of a character goal. It's not for praise for their real life friends - that's a strange and somewhat narcissistic way to look at it from my viewpoint.

I mean you realize the +1 sword is listed as a reward right? It's described that way in the rulebook. What did you imagine they meant by that?