D&D 5E Magic items in D&D Next: Remove them as PC dependant?

[Sunseeker]

However I would say the biggest contributing factor is listing magic items with gold prices. I would prefer that magic items not have costs listed in gold at all, but rather in experience points. Cuts down on the idea that you can just buy or sell them at a merchant (you can't use XP like a currency), and would put the crafting cost up-front for those who want to craft items. For those who want merchanting, there could be a conversion formula into gold laid out somewhere.

Ohhoho yes you can. I mean what's really going to stop me aside from the DM saying "no"? If that's the case, why are items listed with XP costs anyway? I mean what's really going to stop me from going out and grinding packs of wolves or kobolds or other such things that have prescribed XP values within the game?

The problem with XP as a psuedo-currency is that it doesn't actually exist. It's a metagame measurement of player achievement and growth, you can't really spend achievement and growth.

And aside from in specific settings where the DM says "merchants don't have these things", why isn't it reasonable that I could find some magic items at a merchant?

I'm confused as to why availability of magical items needs to be hard-coded into the game at all. Magic items do, or do not exist at the DM's discretion.

 

[Recidivism]

The XP value for magic items is an idea I thought up on the spot, so it's entirely possible it has problems. Although frankly I don't see players expecting 50% of the XP value for selling a magic item if it has no gold cost. Most people, in my experience, do not assume XP can change hands repeatedly -- It can be acquired, sure, but it cannot be used again once spent. At the very least no one in 3/3.5, to my experience, ever assumed that XP from crafting items could be recouped.

Ideally we'd see something where if you crafted a magic weapon granting you a +1 bonus to attacks, it'd equal out to a percentage of X levels advancement. Given that it's largely assumed that advancing in level will grant players a higher bonus to certain activities, a magic item could be modeled as an effective level-adjustment modifier by giving it an XP value, in much the same way that powerful races in 3/3.5 had level-adjustment.

But again this is mostly just a thought experiment so I wouldn't really expect this to make it into any book without some more thorough playtesting (I'm tempted to bring it into my current home campaign but it'd be a big change in mid stream).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The XP value for magic items is an idea I thought up on the spot, so it's entirely possible it has problems. Although frankly I don't see players expecting 50% of the XP value for selling a magic item if it has no gold cost. Most people, in my experience, do not assume XP can change hands repeatedly -- It can be acquired, sure, but it cannot be used again once spent. At the very least no one in 3/3.5, to my experience, ever assumed that XP from crafting items could be recouped.

Ideally we'd see something where if you crafted a magic weapon granting you a +1 bonus to attacks, it'd equal out to a percentage of X levels advancement. Given that it's largely assumed that advancing in level will grant players a higher bonus to certain activities, a magic item could be modeled as an effective level-adjustment modifier by giving it an XP value, in much the same way that powerful races in 3/3.5 had level-adjustment.

But again this is mostly just a thought experiment so I wouldn't really expect this to make it into any book without some more thorough playtesting (I'm tempted to bring it into my current home campaign but it'd be a big change in mid stream).

The whole 'xp cost for making items' thing that bothered me is that it seems like just the opposite should be the case. Making an item should GIVE XP, it is after all an exercise in the use of magic. You'd think a wizard would learn MORE about magic from making an item, not lose knowledge and experience. So it is inherently very meta-game. It also tends to force different PCs to different levels, which is never really a great thing.

The other thing is if items exist, and money exists, then won't magic items have some sort of GP value in the game world? They could be so fantastically rare and unique that there's no real fixed number, but at some point PCs will offer to buy or sell some item or other. At that point the DM will need to come up with something. Even the 1e DMG has 'sale value' numbers for each magic item. It is just a matter of convenience and the fact that without some sort of numbers it is pretty hard to establish how the economy works. Ordinary gear and such tells us something about the 'ordinary' economy of the world, but what do big ticket items cost? At best all we have are castle construction rules perhaps as some sort of guide.

Ultimately I think the real question is only what is the wealth curve for this stuff? Prices will almost certainly exist.

Level adjustment would probably work. I think you're right, we'd have to sort out how exactly that would work, but it seems reasonable.

 

[Mattachine]

The whole 'xp cost for making items' thing that bothered me is that it seems like just the opposite should be the case. Making an item should GIVE XP, it is after all an exercise in the use of magic. You'd think a wizard would learn MORE about magic from making an item, not lose knowledge and experience. So it is inherently very meta-game. It also tends to force different PCs to different levels, which is never really a great thing.

In AD&D, you got xp for finding/using magic items, and you also got xp for creating items. On the other hand, creating items was much more time/resource consuming, relied on a lot of DM creativity, DM fiat, and was limited by aging/constitution score.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In AD&D, you got xp for finding/using magic items, and you also got xp for creating items. On the other hand, creating items was much more time/resource consuming, relied on a lot of DM creativity, DM fiat, and was limited by aging/constitution score.

Yeah, I think the concept was that the wizard could sit in his tower making items while the rest of the PCs did other things and he'd gain some XP while the others were gaining theirs.

AD&D (1e certainly) was also designed for troupe play. You weren't expected to have one single character that you played all the time. So your wizard might hole up for a long time in his tower. Meanwhile you'd be playing your other PCs until their timelines converged again. The 1e DMG made a big deal of PC timelines for that reason. You might well even play the wizard's apprentice detailed to go find some rare material or whatever that was needed for the job. That whole aspect of the game wasn't much talked about in 2e, though the creation rules are the same, and 3e just changed the whole paradigm entirely. Once "be out of action for 5 months" no longer means anything at the table then the XP cost was at least a way of making the player pay SOMETHING. 4e makes the price gold, but basically the same thing applies.

In any case, unless troupe play is once again the primary concept (and people actually do it), or the DM is willing to have significant plot consequences for time spent, we're reduced to some sort of price. I am not really convinced gold isn't a good cost. It has its problems, but is it really worse than the alternatives? Given that you will have a GP cost of some sort inevitably assigned to items anyway, why bother with anything else?

4e has gone to a "make most items with DM permission" model since Essentials. That allows the DM to restrict availability as desired and insert plot consequences into making an item however he wants. That seems like a pretty straightforward and non-metagame approach to me. The exact costs, what is common vs rare and how long enchantment itself takes are up for debate of course.

 

[Aenghus]

While the poll result is clear, I think there is another side that isn't reflected in the results.

While magic items make work for referees, players like getting them. It's fun finding new magic items, and can be seen as a reward for playing. Few players object to getting magic items, and many want to find more.

Also magic items are another content category for developers and publishers and chapters or books of shiny new toys are appreciated by consumers. I think magic items were moved into the players book in 4e to increase sales - books targetted at players and referees sell better than books targetted at referees only.

There is a demand for magic items that tends be be inflationary in every edition - eventually a product fills the demand, and players want to avail of the increasing amount of content. It can be difficult to resist, so generally there is a compromise of some sort.

Just look at computer RPGs and and its easy to see the lure of gaining a succession of increasingly powerful magic items.

 

[Mokona]

While magic items make work for referees, players like getting them. It's fun finding new magic items, and can be seen as a reward for playing. Few players object to getting magic items, and many want to find more.

I, as a player, object to getting magic items. I don't want magic items in my game. I care more about my character determining my abilities than my "gun". I don't name my gun. The weapon is an extension of the wielder and has no value in itself.

 

[Hassassin]

It's THEIR concept, why am I in charge of when they may evolve it? The chance is there at all times and if they express the desire or I catch it, I'll help them out, but I don't think the DMs position is to lean over to Timmy and say: "Hey, you're an elf warrior, why don't you explore your elven heritage of bow-loving with this shiny new bow!"

The plot evolves characters a lot more than magic items do. That doesn't mean the DM shouldn't be in charge of offering the options (plot hooks) that the players choose from.

The DM is likely to set up situations that basically say something like: "Hey you are an elf, why don't you explore your elven heritage by confronting these human slavers who enslave elves."

(Cf. Dragon Age CRPG, where city-dwelling elves are treated as rabble.)

Now we're talking about two different things.
[...]
From candelabra's to tapestries and paintings, this is essentially "gold" (or a better term from nightwrym, "bling").
[...]
But when it comes to gear it's a more tailored option for me.

I don't see a need for an artificial distinction between bling and gear. Anything the characters find is just loot/treasure until they decide to either sell it or use it. As the DM I don't often know which they will do.

You only "need" the distinction with wealth guidelines, because selling something means the character usually loses some of the wealth. Even then the DM can just react to rebalance after he sees what gets sold.

 

[Andor]

I, as a player, object to getting magic items. I don't want magic items in my game. I care more about my character determining my abilities than my "gun". I don't name my gun. The weapon is an extension of the wielder and has no value in itself.

Excalibur
Stormbringer
Anduril
Mjolnir

Magic weapons being a big deal, and an important part of a characters identity is something with a pretty solid grounding in myth and fiction. I'm sure you can name the wielders of every one of those weapons.

This IS diminished by the upgrade of the week. If you have a named weapon whose identify is synonymous with your own you should not trade it to the sword-boy because you found a new one with an extra plus.

 

[nightwyrm]

Excalibur
Stormbringer
Anduril
Mjolnir

Magic weapons being a big deal, and an important part of a characters identity is something with a pretty solid grounding in myth and fiction. I'm sure you can name the wielders of every one of those weapons.

This IS diminished by the upgrade of the week. If you have a named weapon whose identify is synonymous with your own you should not trade it to the sword-boy because you found a new one with an extra plus.

The thing here is that for those big name weapons, they are the best weapons in their respective worlds. There are no upgrades to the Excalibur.

To achieve this in D&D requires that you either have magic items so rare that you don't find a +3 weapon to replace your "named" weapon +1, or if there's a system where your "named" magic item grows in power along with your character.