Magic items are finally rare !

[DM_Blake]

Disagree. PCs shouldn't be in the business of *making* items. They get their stuff by going out and finding/recovering/stealing items that other people made.

I have no problem with a PC being able to make a magic item, but to me, it should be the labor of a lifetime, not something the PC knocks out in the afternoon every Saturday.

I disagree with both of you.

PCs should be able to make magical items. What arbitrary rule says "That NPC wizard in town can make magical items, but you can't because you're a PC wizard"? If the player wants to do it, let them do it, or give them story reasons why they can't "Well, sure you can make that magical ring, but the fair princess will surely be eaten by that troll before you finish".

As for labor of a lifetime, that's pretty harsh. Basically you're saying "sure, you can make a +1 sword, but you must give up being an adventurer and devote the rest of your life to your labor."

Obviously, nobody is going to do that. No fun to show up every game session and watch the other guys go out on adventures while your character sits at his forge making his labor of a lifetime.

Making magical items needs to fall somewhere between those extremes. PCs should be able to make them just like any other NPC could. But they also shouldn't have to trade away their lives for it.

As for me, I'm always for any rule system that allows PCs total freedom to do what they want, certainly to do what other NPCs can do, and doesn't punish them for wanting to do that. In fact, the 3.x version of crafting magical items seems to punitive to me. It's bad enough that the mage has to ask his party to stick around town while he makes the item - there's nothing for those characters to do but get into tavern brawls. But it's worse that the mage must also sacrifice his own XP to make the item:

"Here you go, Mr. Fighter, I've made your magical sword to match the magical bow I made for you last week, and the magical rapier I made for the rogue the week before, and the magical mace for the cleric last month."
"Sure, thanks Mr. Mage for all you've done, we've been adventuring while you did all that and we've gone up levels, while you've actually lost XP, and now we need to fire you and replace you with this other Mage who is actually the same level as the rest of us. We like you, but we've outleveled you and you're useless to us now. Sorry, life is tough."

Let's open up the realm of crafting, but make it much harder. Maybe wizards can make items that enhance their spellcasting, but there should be a limit to how often they can do it. Make enchanting items almost as expensive as buying them, but have them cost the crafter something in hit points, or energy or something. For instance, assuming 4e uses a Condition track, I'd suggest the following:

"Crafting a magic item costs 90% of the purchase price. Furthermore, the strain leaves the caster X step(s) down on the condition track. The condition persists for one month."

That'll eliminate the "magic item factory" as a default concept, but still allow it for an Eberron campaign. The player CAN make anything they need, but only at the cost of adventuring - which explains why most adventuring wizards don't make stuff. Moreover, because the strain of it leaves you frail, it would be something people would probably want to avoid.

But that's just how I'd do it.

And how does that open up crafting?

There's no way I would ever do that. This kind of rule system basically says "no PC will ever want to create magic items, except in the rare occasions where the entire group decides to take a month-long vacation while the mage recuperates".

And the first time I did that, and my DM decided to throw a surprise attack by some BBEG 2 weeks into my recovery, that would be the last time I would ever make a magical item in that campaign. Even the thought that he might do that would likely keep me from making magical items to begin with.

Why even create rules for doing something, and print them in the books, and waste space in those books that could have contained useful rules, if the rules you're creating are there only to discourage PCs from ever trying to use them?

I sure hope WotC doesn't waste paper printing "you might do this, but you'd be screwed if you do" rules.

 

[JohnSnow]

And once again, the power gamer is left in the cold. But hey, lets turn our backs on a significant chunk of the D&D player base. After all, if you arent happy adventuring to buy your next 25,000 gp frilly shirt, you arent welcome anymore.

The problem is that D&D's wealth system is basically tacking on a "point buy" system for character power to a game that's supposed to be level-based. Characters get "x" power for levelling up, and in addition, it's assumed that they also get so many g.p. with which to buy powers. But that system penalizes players who want to spend money. And it enforces a campaign style where the characters are ridiculously rich, but if they spend any more than they have to, they're gimping their powers.

Wouldn't it make more sense if those powers were more inherent? Separate money from power, and let the PC infuse power into his items (or himself) as a strict consequence of increasing in level. The Power Gamer gets the joy of "powering up" but there's no way for him to "beat" other players by hoarding his gold to buy one more item for his optimal array. He'll get his power at the level he's supposed to, and not before.

It also makes for more heroic stories, like where Beowulf beats Grendel to death butt-naked and unarmed. On the other hand, he does make full use of the environment he's fighting in...

 

[DM_Blake]

There's a quote in Sword & Sorcery's Relics & Rituals: Excalibur which sums up the problem I have with the way they handled magic items in 3e.

And while the quotes given are referring specifically to the way you handle a setting with an Arthurian flavor, I think it's a good default for fantasy in general. Magic is more interesting if it isn't quite "every day." Even in Eberron, the most fascinating magic isn't the things that are ordinary, but the ones that are special, like Dragonmarks, Creation Forges, and Dragonshard items.

So even where magic is industry, it's the unusual magic that people like. I don't see anyone getting a kick out of the fact that every character has a magic sword. It's the big mysterious stuff that gets people's attention, like airships and warforged components found in Xen'drik.

That says to me that 4e could do worse than to try and reintroduce some of the "otherness" quality of magic and magic items.

Those Sword and Sorcery quotes are pretty cool. And they apply wonderfully to a "real-world" scenario where magic is virtually non-existent.

If that's your campaign, than evertything you've said in this thread is perfect for that kind of campaign.

But D&D is not that, and has never been that, and never will be. "Real-world" Arthurian campaigns have no room for fireball slinging wizards, or clerics running around with Hold Person, Flame Strike, and Cure Critical Wounds. Such a campaign removes spellcasters as PC classes and puts them on ultimate pinnacles. Heck, I haven't actually counted, but I don't think there are even 5 characters who could cast any spell of any kind in the entire Arthurian mythos, so in that setting, you wouldn't ever hear of a spellcasting mage or cleric anywhere, ever, except as bed-time stories and old wives' tales. And you'd never meet one. How many knigts of the Round Table had ever even seen Merlin?

No matter how much 4e rarifies magic items, I can't imagine they'll take it to that level. Maybe a sourcebook, from WotC or elsewhere, but not the core system.

Which means magic items will still be in the random treasure tables. Orcs won't likely be hoarding them, but trolls might, giants probably will, beholders and dragons certainly will, and any evil NPC guy will have them too.

Now, apply these same quotes from Sword and Sorcery to the concept of Artifacts and/or Relics in D&D, and now you're talking.

Artifacts will be rare. They will be the big and mysterious stuff that players never make. The +1 sword or the ring of +1 protection will be all over the place. Potions will be even more common. But those artifacts, now that's the Holy Grail, the Siege Perilous, etc.

 

[Kintara]

I would prefer a system that allowed the Rogue to hoard tons of gold (like Haley ), and not have an abysmal AC (for instance). I would like for magic items to weigh less in proportion to other things so that it's not a catastrophe if I curtail my spending on magical gear. At the least, I would like to be able to switch between Cool D&D Bling (which enjoy greatly) and Non-Bling versions.

How they might achieve that will be of interest to me.

 

[DM_Blake]

The problem is that D&D's wealth system is basically tacking on a "point buy" system for character power to a game that's supposed to be level-based. Characters get "x" power for levelling up, and in addition, it's assumed that they also get so many g.p. with which to buy powers. But that system penalizes players who want to spend money. And it enforces a campaign style where the characters are ridiculously rich, but if they spend any more than they have to, they're gimping their powers.

Wouldn't it make more sense if those powers were more inherent? Separate money from power, and let the PC infuse power into his items (or himself) as a strict consequence of increasing in level. The Power Gamer gets the joy of "powering up" but there's no way for him to "beat" other players by hoarding his gold to buy one more item for his optimal array. He'll get his power at the level he's supposed to, and not before.

It also makes for more heroic stories, like where Beowulf beats Grendel to death butt-naked and unarmed. On the other hand, he does make full use of the environment he's fighting in...

Now here's an idea I can get fully behind.

If PCs had few magic items instead of lots of them, and if those magic items grow in power with the PC, and if it did not cost the PC his wealth to do it, now that would be a great system.

Find that rare item in the dead monster's hoard, and keep it for your entire life. 10 or 20 levels from now, that item will still be a valued piece of your equipment because it has grown in power along with you.

And best of all, the guy who wants to buy land and a castle with his gold is not penalized by falling behind the other guy who bought a backpack full of magic items.

This would be a great magic system.

 

[Imp]

I really hope they keep to their word on this, because the notion of adventurers as investors in their own optimized power curve is completely repellent to me, and in 3.x has caused me to go through great contortions in campaign setting and house rules to try to curb that aspect of the game. It'd be fine if this were a spaceship game, but it's not.

However, I think ByronD is right that this is going to be eroded over time, because people just gotta have their kits, even if that means everybody everywhere has to have their damn kits or else. So I am pessimistic about this promise.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I don't think they are going to be "rare". This entire post I read as kind of a clarification of what they had said at Gencon. They said before that it would not be required to have magic items. So there were all sorts of threads everywhere saying "There will be no +1 swords, since creating a +1 sword would be an item that would be required."

I pretty much read this as "Whoa...what we meant is...they'll be LESS required but not gone altogether."

 

[TwinBahamut]

Ideally, magic items should be important enough that they are remembered at all times, and also not needed so much that PCs wouldn't mind burying a fellow PC with his gear. The current system fails on both counts, so any change would be an improvement.

 

[Odhanan]

Ideally, magic items should be important enough that they are remembered at all times, and also not needed so much that PCs wouldn't mind burying a fellow PC with his gear. The current system fails on both counts, so any change would be an improvement.

DMs can make magic items memorable in any number of ways (including circumstances, specifics of the item, appearance, background, et cetera); players can choose to bury their paladin friend with his holy avenger.

These are issues with the people playing the game, not the system.

 

[ogre]

One of the main problems I saw occur with 3e and magic items was the +bonus to everything scewing the power curve at mid-high level (10-20). I mean, plus this and plus that and pretty soon the d20 roll means nothing. I think that is the core of the issue with 3e and what 4e is presumably trying to address. Taking away all these + items that effect a d20 roll is imho what needs to be done. Let the +sword deal extra damage or have +armor ignore certain damage types (DR).
On magic item creation, I'm in the camp of still allowing them to be made by PCs. I think the most elegant solution is simply require each magic item to have a 'special' ingredient to finish, like the blood of a dragon or the eyelash of a pixie. Something unique, that puts the manufacture in the DMs hand, so he can arbitrate how/when items can be made. Personally, I like campaigns (Eberron) where there are magic light posts, floating chairs or what have you, where common magic abounds. But, if you want a flaming sword, that requires the gut of a salamander or something special.

And lastly, as far as the magic spoon goes, well... I had a PC, mercenary fighter, and that was his prized posession. He wore it around his neck and I relished the fact that he could go anywhere and be independent, even from food. So, there was at least one adventurer who highly valued good ole' Merlynd's Spoon hehe.