Magic items are finally rare !

[JohnSnow]

You've never (and your players have never) leafed through magic item lists dreaming about things you want your character to have? Note also that the list of magic items can be made much richer than class abilities. Having systems where you can combine or split ability picks, and having lists the lengths of magic item tables is, while technically doable, hard.

Actually, yes, I have done that. But that's the act of picking out the cool items, not buying up the powers. There's no reason the list of magic items HAS to be richer than the list of class abilities. There's no functional (i.e. game) difference between "buying" a +3 strength bonus magic item with "gold pieces" and using "character points" to buy a +3 enhancement to your strength. The difference is that the latter is available to any character in the campaign world who has enough gold and the former is only available to characters with the appropriate resource (which may not have anything to do with gold).

Well... if there is no gain for it, then burying fallen comrades with their gear is equivalent to burning money. It is stupid. If you want people to do it, you have to give them something in exchange... this isn't an issue for magic items, its an issue if there is any benefit to wealth at all.

Except that this can represent extreme metagaming. If people in the campaign world believe that a fallen comrade should be interred with his gear and the gear of his defeated foes (similar to the way they laid Boromir to rest in The Lord of the Rings), then heroes (as most groups like to imagine they are) would never think to strip the corpse. Looting the dead is pretty dishonorable in most societies.

If there are lootable powerups (which, I believe we agree, are fun, and therefore should be in the game), then there will be a market for them. The currency may not be gold, but the market will be there. And, of course, the players will rapidly cease to care about any currency that cannot be used to purchase powerups, as will the people they are buying them from. (which brings us back to the thread a month back about what gold is useful for)

For some reason (don't ask me why), I like loot. Looting is, inherently, fun. If you look at generic RPG type game design, I think you'll find a *lot* of people agree with me. Once you have useful loot, you have a market (baring the MMORPG concept of soul-bound items, with NPC item use not triggering the soulboundness for loot...). Separating wealth from power buy cripples my suspension of disbelief.

I see what you're saying, but magic as a purchasable commodity changes societies in unbelievable ways. In most myths, the ability to use magic is bound up inherently in the character. Not everyone can use or benefit from magical gear in most settings. Supremely crafted gear is available to everyone, but magical gear can only be wielded by those who prove themselves worthy. Magic items don't have to be predictable and work the same way for everyone, because they're magic.

To me, that could be represented by some spendable resource that was distinct from wealth. Alternatively, for a simpler solution, the access to powers can be tied directly to level. That's one reason I like the Midnight setting's "Covenant Items" (which are kinda like a cooler version of Legacy items). They're special, and the longer the character owns them (i.e. the higher level he is), the more "special" they get. To a weaker character who acquires them, they're just not as good. When combined with the Heroic Paths, a character in Midnight might be as powerful (or moreso) than his counterpart in a standard D&D game, but most of that power is tied in some way directly to his level. Giving his gear to a low-level nobody makes them a low-level nobody with some nice, but not horrifically-overpowered, gear. It's no more "overpowering" than Rand's father giving him a power-forged blade at the beginning of The Wheel of Time.

That makes Covenant Items supremely valuable to heroic characters, but doesn't allow the king's idiot son (who's a low-level nonheroic) to become a great hero just 'cuz he's rich and can pull a +5 sword, +5 armor, and a +5 shield out of the royal armory.

I think that last is the thing that bugs me the most about magic items being available for sale. It has some genre-breaking implications because, in a rational setting, there are NPCs who should be able to exceed the "wealth-by-level" guidelines.

 

[Kraydak]

Actually, yes, I have done that. But that's the act of picking out the cool items, not buying up the powers. There's no reason the list of magic items HAS to be richer than the list of class abilities. There's no functional (i.e. game) difference between "buying" a +3 strength bonus magic item with "gold pieces" and using "character points" to buy a +3 enhancement to your strength. The difference is that the latter is available to any character in the campaign world who has enough gold and the former is only available to characters with the appropriate resource (which may not have anything to do with gold).

From a game design point of view, there is a difference. A magic item list has small granularity. It provides a very broad range of effects. It is broadly applicable across classes. It can be transfered to make up for perceived power differentials in a party. It can be used *fast*, as needed (oh look, we want to go underwater... time to buy underwater items), rather than abilities bought at level up. It provides its own, very plausible, rebuilding mechanics. Could you do it with character abilities? Yes. Would it be hard, and would it remove the very real joy of killing people and taking their stuff? Yes.

Except that this can represent extreme metagaming. If people in the campaign world believe that a fallen comrade should be interred with his gear and the gear of his defeated foes (similar to the way they laid Boromir to rest in The Lord of the Rings), then heroes (as most groups like to imagine they are) would never think to strip the corpse. Looting the dead is pretty dishonorable in most societies.

Most societies track inheritance of goods (or, sometimes, believe that people get to take their stuff into the afterlife if its buried with them...). In which case looting the dead becomes stealing (at least friendly dead). At which point the in-game advantage of not looting (friendly) corpses is legal. Of course, high level PCs tend to be able to thumb their noses at legal issues...

I see what you're saying, but magic as a purchasable commodity changes societies in unbelievable ways. In most myths, the ability to use magic is bound up inherently in the character. Not everyone can use or benefit from magical gear in most settings. Supremely crafted gear is available to everyone, but magical gear can only be wielded by those who prove themselves worthy. Magic items don't have to be predictable and work the same way for everyone, because they're magic.

You read different literature than I do. Lots of fantasy is filled with weak people who use magic items more powerful than they (and either get the beat down from more rounded people, or eventually grow into their own).

To me, that could be represented by some spendable resource that was distinct from wealth. Alternatively, for a simpler solution, the access to powers can be tied directly to level. That's one reason I like the Midnight setting's "Covenant Items" (which are kinda like a cooler version of Legacy items). They're special, and the longer the character owns them (i.e. the higher level he is), the more "special" they get. To a weaker character who acquires them, they're just not as good. When combined with the Heroic Paths, a character in Midnight might be as powerful (or moreso) than his counterpart in a standard D&D game, but most of that power is tied in some way directly to his level. Giving his gear to a low-level nobody makes them a low-level nobody with some nice, but not horrifically-overpowered, gear. It's no more "overpowering" than Rand's father giving him a power-forged blade at the beginning of The Wheel of Time.

That makes Covenant Items supremely valuable to heroic characters, but doesn't allow the king's idiot son (who's a low-level nonheroic) to become a great hero just 'cuz he's rich and can pull a +5 sword, +5 armor, and a +5 shield out of the royal armory.

If Covenant Items scale with time, then you just removed the joy of looting. If Covenant Items scale with level, you still removed the joy of looting, because PCs can buy powerful items cheaply off lowbies (or take them, if the silly lowbies don't cooperate). Remember that carrying around more loot than you can protect is very, very dangerous.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Why have the +1 sword instead of an innate ability? Simple. People like loot. Loot is fun. Magic items aren't (and never will be) "cool". The act of looting and buying powerups, however, is both cool and fun. Why on earth would WotC cut out a very fun mechanic?!

The question is, what is really more fun:
Getting a flying carpet or a +1 Sword?
Finding a "Bonsai Tree of Goodberry" or a Wand of Cure light Wounds?
Looting a Headband that allows you to cast Divination 1/day, or finding a Headband of Intellect +2?

+1 Swords, Wands of CLW, and Headband of Intellects became a neccessity in D&D 3, leaving little room for flavorful, bizarre or funny items. (I am not seeing yet what mechanical implementation they use to ensure that +6 Wands don't add to this problem, but I hope they do find a good way.)

 

[Kraydak]

The question is, what is really more fun:
Getting a flying carpet or a +1 Sword?

GP value(flying carpet)>>GP(+1 sword)

Finding a "Bonsai Tree of Goodberry" or a Wand of Cure light Wounds?

Assuming the bonsai mostly works like a wand, you have to balance the giggle at the name to the irritation of figuring out how to carry the dang thing. Which could take 10+ minutes of game time... In which case the wand of CLW would end up with more net enjoyment.

Looting a Headband that allows you to cast Divination 1/day, or finding a Headband of Intellect +2?

GP(divination 1/day)>GP(headband of intellect)

+1 Swords, Wands of CLW, and Headband of Intellects became a neccessity in D&D 3, leaving little room for flavorful, bizarre or funny items. (I am not seeing yet what mechanical implementation they use to ensure that +6 Wands don't add to this problem, but I hope they do find a good way.)

Again, you get to enjoy flavor *once*, when you describe the item. Thats it. Anything beyond that (such as the logistics of transporting a potted plant) is probably a drawback, and usually takes up game time in non-fun ways. If you want "flavorful" items, you are just setting yourself up for disappointment (at best, at worst the DM and the player could disagree about what is "cool" at which point you will have a sullen player who got a, by his standards, subpar toy that the DM thinks is really valuable and will eat up his loot quota for awhile while the DM is irritated that the player isn't chortling with joy)

 

[JohnSnow]

From a game design point of view, there is a difference. A magic item list has small granularity. It provides a very broad range of effects. It is broadly applicable across classes. It can be transfered to make up for perceived power differentials in a party. It can be used *fast*, as needed (oh look, we want to go underwater... time to buy underwater items), rather than abilities bought at level up. It provides its own, very plausible, rebuilding mechanics. Could you do it with character abilities? Yes. Would it be hard, and would it remove the very real joy of killing people and taking their stuff? Yes.

It's no harder than coming up with a list of magical items. As a matter of fact, you can limit the degree to which items can be abused. An item intended for fighters can be game-breaking if wizards get it. This is part of where the ridiculous saves of 3e come from. Items intended to make up for a fighter's defect (something that grants a boost to Will saves) allows the wizard's will save to become unbeatable. Bad design.

Most societies track inheritance of goods (or, sometimes, believe that people get to take their stuff into the afterlife if its buried with them...). In which case looting the dead becomes stealing (at least friendly dead). At which point the in-game advantage of not looting (friendly) corpses is legal. Of course, high level PCs tend to be able to thumb their noses at legal issues...

Again, having to implement flavor controls to prevent characters from gaining a mechanical benefit is bad game design.

You read different literature than I do. Lots of fantasy is filled with weak people who use magic items more powerful than they (and either get the beat down from more rounded people, or eventually grow into their own).

I wouldn't dispute whether that's true. But the question frequently gets raised as to what degree D&D should duplicate the literature after which it's inspired. While I can certainly come up with examples in literature of the low-level character who gets a great magical item (like Tomas in Feist's Riftwar or Leigh Norrington in Stackpole's Dragoncrown War), those are usually what I'd call artifact-level items. Other examples include the One Ring and Stormbringer. But, in most cases, these items are intelligent or possessed and try "dominate" their wielders to a degree. Can you give an example of a drawback free magic item of the kind you're talking about?

If Covenant Items scale with time, then you just removed the joy of looting. If Covenant Items scale with level, you still removed the joy of looting, because PCs can buy powerful items cheaply off lowbies (or take them, if the silly lowbies don't cooperate). Remember that carrying around more loot than you can protect is very, very dangerous.

Covenant Items are, by their very nature, supposed to be rare. The average PC gets one in his career. If covenant items were common, you'd be absolutely right about the degree to which they'd be sought after and wanted. But the point is that in a world where you HAVE covenant items for the PCs, there's no need for them to have lots of items.

I realize that if you were implementing this on a widespread basis (as in 4e, say), it needs some work as a system. But there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

 

[AllisterH]

Personally, I always find this discussion interesting.

On the one hand, a lot of people hate the Christmas tress Effect of magic items in 3E, yet at the same time, they don't the mundane class to be close to the wuxia scale.

So humour me gentlebeings.

Why not the focus on the REAL problem. Namely what magic can do in the hands of the PC.

From the dawn of Od&D to 3.x, strip a mage of anylevel of his "bling" and he at most loses 10-20% of his effectiveness. It mostly just takes him longer (he actually has to use those level slots to cast the protection spells) for every battle and he can't last as long.

Said fighter is absolutely boned in the same scenario in EVERY version of D&D (not just 3.x).

So the real question is _WHAT_ should magic allow for wizards and clerics?

 

[Kraydak]

It's no harder than coming up with a list of magical items. As a matter of fact, you can limit the degree to which items can be abused. An item intended for fighters can be game-breaking if wizards get it. This is part of where the ridiculous saves of 3e come from. Items intended to make up for a fighter's defect (something that grants a boost to Will saves) allows the wizard's will save to become unbeatable. Bad design.

How much retraining do you want, and how easy do you want it to be? If, say, an adventure calls for underwater activity, magic items are a good, disposable way to get the needed abilities. If you have to spend "level up" abilities for it, you'll have problems. You will also have problems if people haven't just leveled up, knowing that they need to choose the right abilities for the next adventure. If you can wander up to a trainer and drop 50 gold to relearn your talents, well, sure. I still think magic items still have the "fun" advantage, but if you rewrite the inherent abilities to work exactly like magic items mechanically, then there will be no difference other than the joy of loot.

Again, having to implement flavor controls to prevent characters from gaining a mechanical benefit is bad game design.

So why aren't you complaining about the rules incentivising theft from peasants. Both issues are theft at their roots...

I wouldn't dispute whether that's true. But the question frequently gets raised as to what degree D&D should duplicate the literature after which it's inspired. While I can certainly come up with examples in literature of the low-level character who gets a great magical item (like Tomas in Feist's Riftwar or Leigh Norrington in Stackpole's Dragoncrown War), those are usually what I'd call artifact-level items. Other examples include the One Ring and Stormbringer. But, in most cases, these items are intelligent or possessed and try "dominate" their wielders to a degree. Can you give an example of a drawback free magic item of the kind you're talking about?

We are talking powerful items in the hands of weenies in literature. They either come with drawbacks, or are gained to help fight powerful foes (i.e. they always "come" with drawbacks). As the foes are generally top-of-the-line in the world, the magic items are, effectively, "artifact" level. Then again, a full +5 panoply can do wonders for a lvl 5 person facing a lvl 10... As for examples, Gonturan is fairly friendly. The various items in Edding's work are friendly. Ganoes Paran's sword (Chance?) is unaligned, although it represents not entirely wonted attention. The... thingy (not wandering upstairs for a reference) in Martha Well's mage-slayer thingy trilogy is friendly.

Covenant Items are, by their very nature, supposed to be rare. The average PC gets one in his career. If covenant items were common, you'd be absolutely right about the degree to which they'd be sought after and wanted. But the point is that in a world where you HAVE covenant items for the PCs, there's no need for them to have lots of items.

I realize that if you were implementing this on a widespread basis (as in 4e, say), it needs some work as a system. But there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

If you can get Covenant Items early, then there are lowbies you can take them from and at high levels it pays to go "Covenant Item hunting". If you only get them late, they might as well be full power anyways. (That said, I *am* strongly in favor of drastically reducing the number of magic item slots. It saves logistical work if nothing else)

 

[Blair Goatsblood]

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 power gamer hires mercenaries...ogre mercenaries.....mounted on triceratops in plate barding

 

[FireLance]

I am not seeing yet what mechanical implementation they use to ensure that +6 Wands don't add to this problem, but I hope they do find a good way.

One possibility is what was done in Star Wars Saga Edition for armor: characters got a level-based AC bonus that overlapped with the equipment bonus from wearing armor. Thus, lower-level characters got the most benefit from armor, while higher-level characters were usually better off not using any. Under such a system, you could still have +6 wands, but to a high-level character with a +6 level bonus, it would be no better than a +1 wand.

 

[BryonD]

It's no harder than coming up with a list of magical items. As a matter of fact, you can limit the degree to which items can be abused. An item intended for fighters can be game-breaking if wizards get it. This is part of where the ridiculous saves of 3e come from. Items intended to make up for a fighter's defect (something that grants a boost to Will saves) allows the wizard's will save to become unbeatable. Bad design.

Funny, it has worked great for me for quite a few years now.

4E may very well be an improvement. But if so it will be standing on the shoulders of giants. Making a case on the claim the 3E is bad design is just silly.