Magic Item Daily Power rule change and Elixir

[Shin Okada]

As a rough example, there was a Living Greyhawk adventure back in 3.5e where the point was to get the unconscious King away from the people who were trying to take over the kingdom. Part of the fun of the adventure was that they needed to escape the city while they guards were looking for them and the King and wanted him and them dead.

In order to allow this adventure to happen, the author had to write a Anti-Magic Field around the King just to make sure the PCs couldn't use a single spell solution to what could be a fun role playing challenge. If it wasn't there, then the PCs could have simply cast a teleport spell and leave without any difficulty. Or they could have simply magically healed the King and they wouldn't need to run.

The adventure was much more fun(IMHO) when the PCs had to find material to disguise themselves and the king, had to come up with an explanation for the guards at the gate as to why they were dragging an unconscious guy around with them, and then had to survive the ambush on the road by enemies of the King.

I think I start to see the main difference between our style and yours.

I am used to play campaigns and sequel games, in which an event (or one big portion of a campaign) is short-cut by some unpredictable measure is not a problem at all. The PCs skipped the entire city-adventure part of the big story? What's wrong is it? The story goes on as long as PCs are living (or at least some PCs are living). The unpredictability and freedom of choice, are something welcomed.

But maybe that is not true when you are playing a one-shot game or something like living Greyhawk/FR games which basically have trouble if "that day's main-part" is skipped unpredictably.

It doesn't have to be prepared by the DM. I just hate magical solutions to problems because they are never creative. They should be the last resort rather than the first solution to a problem.

If I put a locked door in front of the PCs, I don't care if I hadn't considered them climbing to the second floor of a building and sneaking through the window, I'll allow it....If they can succeed in a couple of rolls to do so. At least it required a slightly inobvious solution to the problem. On the other hand "I cast a Knock spell" is about the most obvious solution to the problem there is. It requires no more effort than looking at your character sheet to see if you have that spell.

When magic IS used it should be special. It should be because you did something special to get that magic. Simply looking through a list of 1000 items for the one that solves your problem and saying "I craft that one" or "I buy that one" isn't special."

I tend to agree with you that there are something PCs can't do in 4e. Magics in 3.5e or before were too all-mighty.

But, for me, magic and magic items are part of each fantasy game's "world law" or "physics". Which players can use as the base tool to think of approaches or solutions to challenges and situations. It is basically no different from non-magical measures such as ladder. And no different from blasters and space ship in a space opera game. The world of D&D is sword and sorcery. As sword is not that special, so as sorcery. Magic is part of the D&D world isn't it?

And, do you really think using ladder and going up to the 2nd floor is more "creative" than casting a knock, or using other magical ways to solve a "locked door" problem?

(By the way, this time no rule regarding Knock is changed. It is ritual and not magic item)


Anyway, what I am afraid of is that the large removal of makable magic items will largely reduce the ways for PCs to "re-prepare for rematch" within the rule. As you have pointed out, in 4e, PCs' capabilities are more strictly defined by rules, magic or not, comparing to the older editions. And encounters in the published adventures are more "fixed" and "static" comparing to those of pre-4e modules. So, when PCs fight a combat encounter once, and found that is difficult for them to win (or win reasonably), players tend to feel helpless.

It may not be needed in one-shot game, especially those with physical time limit (like those played at CONs) in which if PCs lose, they lose. But may harm much the playing experience of casual campaign or sequel games played in someone's house or in a gaming club, which re-challenges are welcomed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think I start to see the main difference between our style and yours.

I am used to play campaigns and sequel games, in which an event (or one big portion of a campaign) is short-cut by some unpredictable measure is not a problem at all. The PCs skipped the entire city-adventure part of the big story? What's wrong is it? The story goes on as long as PCs are living (or at least some PCs are living). The unpredictability and freedom of choice, are something welcomed.

But maybe that is not true when you are playing a one-shot game or something like living Greyhawk/FR games which basically have trouble if "that day's main-part" is skipped unpredictably.

No, what is wrong with it is that I CAN'T EVEN CONTEMPLATE making a scenario like the one being discussed in 3.x. It isn't that it is such a terrible thing if in some situation PCs can shortcut a big chunk of adventure, as long as the DM doesn't mind leaving a lot of work on the cutting room floor at least. The problem is that with earlier versions of D&D VAST amounts of possible plots and stories were just out of bounds because the PCs could trivially bypass them. What you COULD run was limited to only certain types of layouts.

Note that I have played with the same players pretty much since 1981, they are very clever people. There is ZERO chance that if there was ANY way of bypassing or trivializing an encounter or entire adventure they wouldn't find it and use it. In order to challenge this kind of player the DM has to go to stupidly ridiculous lengths and even so it is 5 brains against one, they'll find a way every time. Magic in AD&D/3.x was just too generalized and open-ended.

With 4e things are a lot better. The players feel more challenged, the game runs more smoothly and we can actually play out things like a kidnapping or a murder mystery without needing 27 anti-magic zones and making up unlikely reasons why this and that spell won't just solve the whole thing.

I tend to agree with you that there are something PCs can't do in 4e. Magics in 3.5e or before were too all-mighty.

But, for me, magic and magic items are part of each fantasy game's "world law" or "physics". Which players can use as the base tool to think of approaches or solutions to challenges and situations. It is basically no different from non-magical measures such as ladder. And no different from blasters and space ship in a space opera game. The world of D&D is sword and sorcery. As sword is not that special, so as sorcery. Magic is part of the D&D world isn't it?

And, do you really think using ladder and going up to the 2nd floor is more "creative" than casting a knock, or using other magical ways to solve a "locked door" problem?

(By the way, this time no rule regarding Knock is changed. It is ritual and not magic item)


Anyway, what I am afraid of is that the large removal of makable magic items will largely reduce the ways for PCs to "re-prepare for rematch" within the rule. As you have pointed out, in 4e, PCs' capabilities are more strictly defined by rules, magic or not, comparing to the older editions. And encounters in the published adventures are more "fixed" and "static" comparing to those of pre-4e modules. So, when PCs fight a combat encounter once, and found that is difficult for them to win (or win reasonably), players tend to feel helpless.

It may not be needed in one-shot game, especially those with physical time limit (like those played at CONs) in which if PCs lose, they lose. But may harm much the playing experience of casual campaign or sequel games played in someone's house or in a gaming club, which re-challenges are welcomed.

Nah. Go back and play AD&D a bit. There was no such thing as crafting. You had to be level 7 to even make a potion or a scroll. You had to be level 13 to make ANY other kind of item and even the most trivial permanent item like a +1 sword required a Permanency spell that was a level 7 spell (meaning you had to be 13th level to cast it). MANY items effectively required a character to be 15th or 17th level for access to 8th and 9th level spells. Even then the really potent items were simply uncraftable.

Players still found ways to be clever and work around adventures. They may not have been crafting items to do it (sometimes that did come up) but they still found plenty of clever ways. At low levels it usually involved creative use of equipment, nonstandard ways of using certain spells, social engineering, creative tactics, etc. I think 4e has that AND a bit more of a limit on what magic items you can use.

In your troll scenario for example the players in my game might have for instance dug a pit or two somewhere, filled it halfway with oil soaked brush, and baited the trolls into attacking them in a spot where they could push them into the pit and burn them up. I'd consider that a lot more creative than "lets craft a bunch of fire weapons". Crafting the weapons is OK, but it doesn't reach to the high levels of creative problem solving.

I think what the new 4e situation is trying to do is cut a middle ground. Maybe the players CAN acquire some items that help them, but they may have to work at it a bit more. Maybe they need to go find an Azer that can make flaming swords and bring him a special item he wants in payment, etc. OTOH if the DM is OK with the players having a fairly obvious way to solve the problem he can let them have some special ingredient that lets them craft flaming swords.

 

[Shin Okada]

No, what is wrong with it is that I CAN'T EVEN CONTEMPLATE making a scenario like the one being discussed in 3.x. It isn't that it is such a terrible thing if in some situation PCs can shortcut a big chunk of adventure, as long as the DM doesn't mind leaving a lot of work on the cutting room floor at least. The problem is that with earlier versions of D&D VAST amounts of possible plots and stories were just out of bounds because the PCs could trivially bypass them. What you COULD run was limited to only certain types of layouts.

I tend to agree with this part. I played 1st & 2nd AD&D (though not as often as I played Basic/Expert D&D) and played 3.0e and 3.5e till epic level. I know what you say. With all those wishes, scrying spells, time and dimension related magics, many of the story plots did not work without each module saying "A and B and C and D and ... don't work in this mod blah blah blah." 4e did a big improvement on this aspect.

And, at the same time, because of that, I don't think 4e rituals and magic items were, even pre-essentials, not causing such problems.

Nah. Go back and play AD&D a bit. There was no such thing as crafting. You had to be level 7 to even make a potion or a scroll. You had to be level 13 to make ANY other kind of item and even the most trivial permanent item like a +1 sword required a Permanency spell that was a level 7 spell (meaning you had to be 13th level to cast it). MANY items effectively required a character to be 15th or 17th level for access to 8th and 9th level spells. Even then the really potent items were simply uncraftable.

The big difference is spells. In pre-4e, many of the spellcaseters had far more spells in their spellbook or spells known than they can prepare for that day. So, even when they fight some opponents with their resources full and yet lost, retreating and preparing more appropriate spells may raise the chance for them to win.

3.0e added item purchase and creation to this.

Then, in 4e, re-preparing spells is no longer an option (well, wizards can do some, but not so flexible). But 4e item creation rule complemented this "retreat, re-prepare and re-match" process, as a ritual takes only 1 hour.

"Problems which only magic can solve" are much rare in 4e, comparing to pre-4e. The above-mentioned example of trolls and flying monsters could be some extreme example (though many of the 4e players actually have similar experience, I guess).

But I also feel that aside from quick item creation introduced by 4e ritual rule, 4e is lacking the method for PCs (thus players) to re-prepare for rematch. I mean, fighting an encounter and find that they will likely to lose, retreat, then make a plan to raise the odds of their victory, and fight again.

For example, in 4e you don't NEED the ways to inflict radiant damage to fight against undead monsters. But having one will definitely raise the chance to win, or makes the combat easier.

Now, imagine your party fought a powerful lich and his minions once, lost and barely escaped. Pre-update, creating some anti-undead magic items and rematch could have be an option for the adventurers. Now that is not.

It is easy to say that players should be more creative. But I am afraid of that this "quickly making some useful magic items" has been one of the only few method to "re-prepare for rematch" assured by the rule, in the entire 4e system. Thus, removing this will just let many players feel rematch is impractical.

 

[eamon]

I think meaningful interaction with the world really adds to gameplay. It's great when the rules help you do that.

Of course, you can (try to) wing it; and describe everthing as freeform skillchecks; but that's not easy, so I take whatever help the "system" can give me.

That doesn't have to be magic. Skill checks have guidelines too; and there's always non-magical equipment, alchemy, hirelings, etc.

The fact that an eladrin can teleport through a glass pane is screaming plot hook. A tiny gelantinous cube familiar is too (whaddaya know, the gates are made of dragonbone).

Items could work well for this; and some do. A dagger of escape is great fun - but a +3 sword is not.

The point is, when all you have is a hammer, everthing looks like a nail. The toolbox of a 4e character is very combat-by-damage-dealing oriented, and that means that's the obvious way to solve problems.

Sure, out-of-combat, you could free-form it, but it's not clear what's possible or how hard it'll be if you try it. In combat, you don't really have flexibility to work around specific issues. You can't come back tomorrow with a more appropriate weapon/implement - generally, all PC's are hyper-specialized (cant easily switch weapon/implement and they don't much matter anyhow), and buying/crafting items is very expensive so that temporary workarounds don't really work. You've got loads of flexibility, but that flexibility is firmly in the realm of the character sheet, not in adaptability once built.

So, I'm going to mostly ignore the restriction on uncommon items. Barring specific, case-by case exemptions, all items may be crafted, bought or rented, and selling items won't destroy 80% of value. This isn't intended to encourage pile-on play (that's where the case-by-case exemptions come in), but are intended to keep fun things like the Dagger of Escape firmly in player hands. For almost all items, the risk of letting parties have multiple copies and letting them use the daily-powers without further restriction is completely harmless.

 

[MrMyth]

A good rule of thumb might be something like: a character should only have 2 'daily' items per tier. Or, maybe 1 + 1 per tier plus possibly a consumable to help them through a particularly 'long' day. I'm just spitball'n, here.

Honestly, a character having half-a-dozen daily item powers, or more, isn't really unbalanced. It might get increasingly complicated, of course, but that depends on the player. The real potential for abuse only shows up if a player has multiples of the same item - that's where you might see a problem. Someone who is constantly chucking elixirs or uses the same item to buff himself in every fight... that's what to watch for and try to avoid when distributing treasure.

 

[MrMyth]

From a balance standpoint that works for me.

Though from a flavor standpoint does any one else find it weird that these consumables are uncommon and rares while many permanent magic items are common?

Not really.

Some consumables are common - Potions of Healing and the like. Some consumables are uncommon - Elixirs, Illumian Words of Creation, etc. These are powerful items that one doesn't casually come across, whether consumable or not.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that an especially exotic Elixir may be harder to acquire than a basic magic sword.