Magic Items that lost their magic

[GnomeWorks]

I'm not positive, but are you limiting your model to a standard medieval society? I haven't participated in an epic-level D&D game thus-far, but of those I've read about, you tend to expand beyond the base society at those levels.

In the economic model I'd like, the sort of crazy epic stuff that happens in high-level D&D doesn't really happen... the closest thing to what I'm envisioning, in terms of D&D, I guess, would be E6.

A noble or even a king may not be able to spend 3 million gold on a magic sword...but perhaps a Hound Archon could purchase one from the City of Brass, etc. etc.

Just to let you know, my mind said "ARGH!" as soon as I read that.

No, I haven't considered extraplanar things so far as my thoughts on in-game economics, and I have little to no interest in going there. While your example might bring some amount of validity to 4e economics (presuming that groups always follow the heroic-paragon-epic thing of going to increasingly distant planes, which may or may not be the case), it's not something I'm about to consider.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, if you only go to the power level of E6, you only get to +2 swords or so, which are 8,000 gp. That seems relatively reasonable.

of course, that also means you only have two types of magic bonuses +1 or +2. But that might be enough anyway.

If you remove the pluses entirely and it's more a suite of options (Flaming to deal fire damage, Throwing to be able to throw the weapon and have it return to you, perhaps), it should be even less of a balance problem anyway. In any situation where you don't need fire damage or throw the weapon, a regular, non-magical sword is perfectly equivalent.

---

Regarding the Gauntlet: I don't like the fixed strength score entirely. I wouldn't want any character to "dump" his strength because he has the gauntlet.

What I prefer is a mix of enhancement and max score. So, Gauntlets of Ogre Power grant you a +2 enhancement bonus to Strength, but no higher than 18. Higher concordance could increase the bonus and the maximum. (+4/20, +6/22). So if your class uses strength as a primary ability score, the best results you get with the gauntlet is when you have a score of 16, not 8.

If with the bonus the strength score would go beyond the limit, add additional properties or powers, so even someone that already has "Ogre Strength" benefits from it, but he doesn't "break" the math, but still gets options.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Well, if you only go to the power level of E6, you only get to +2 swords or so, which are 8,000 gp. That seems relatively reasonable.

Dude, I didn't really mean E6 directly, I was trying to say that that'd be the best comparison... my lines of thinking about game design and such have long since left anywhere that D&D cares to tread. It was an attempt to provide an example with which most folks 'round here would be familiar, not an exact replica of how I envision things.

To be completely honest, in the game system I'm working on, we've barely touched on magic items... we barely have basic item construction and costs of such figured out, and we're a year and a half into development. I have an idea in my head of how I'd like things to work out, but things like costs and such? Not even close yet.

of course, that also means you only have two types of magic bonuses +1 or +2. But that might be enough anyway.

My problem isn't with the bonuses themselves, it's with the mentality it helps create. "This sword is +1, that one is +2, I'd be dumb to not take the better one."

I don't want character-significant items to be dropped in favor of random loot dropped by random critters in the world. To use 3.5 terms, you shouldn't ditch the masterwork longsword your father made for you for the +1 longsword that random orc you just slew had - I mean, you might, but the system math shouldn't force that decision on you. It shouldn't be the only and obvious choice.

If you remove the pluses entirely and it's more a suite of options (Flaming to deal fire damage, Throwing to be able to throw the weapon and have it return to you, perhaps), it should be even less of a balance problem anyway. In any situation where you don't need fire damage or throw the weapon, a regular, non-magical sword is perfectly equivalent.

That is the hope.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Dude, I didn't really mean E6 directly, I was trying to say that that'd be the best comparison... my lines of thinking about game design and such have long since left anywhere that D&D cares to tread. It was an attempt to provide an example with which most folks 'round here would be familiar, not an exact replica of how I envision things.

I know that it wouldn't be "E6", but if that is the difference between power levels in the game, I think that would be reflected in the level of power differences between the items. The highest item is no more "spectacular" than a +2 sword in raw power. Which points to the idea that maybe it shouldn't be at all about any pluses.

 

[Jack99]

I don't think you know what hyperbole means, because there are indeed weapons in the PH that cost 3 million gp. I know I'm poking at your favorite game and all, but at least make sense when you try to defend it.

I know quite well what a hyperbole is, and I am also quite aware of the prices in my favorite game. The original hyperbole is still there. Just because a common laborer can never afford a +6 sword, it doesn't make it a bad and broken system.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I know quite well what a hyperbole is, and I am also quite aware of the prices in my favorite game. The original hyperbole is still there. Just because a common laborer can never afford a +6 sword, it doesn't make it a bad and broken system.

It's a broken system for an economy not because a laborer could not afford a magic sword, but because the value of any given item is based on the available resources of a handful of individuals.

 

[Runestar]

As a general rule, people are lemnings - if they read on the interweb that X class is broken, they will believe it, even if there has never been an issue before.

When I say that the internet has ruined D&D, I am saying that I think it did a lot more bad than good, at least for many people. Luckily for me, it has never been an issue for our group, since most of my players never visit D&D boards.

Conversely, if there are groups that continue to believe that splatbooks such as ToB and Incarnum are overpowered, then at least there is the internet to turn to to dispel such untruths.

In the end, I feel that all the internet really did was to allow people to better make informed and enlightened decisions about what or how they want to play. If not for forums like gleemax, I would likely never have discovered the effectiveness of battlefield control, the inefficiencies of attempting to heal during combat, the crappiness of counterspelling or the wonders of martial adepts.

I still shudder when I think of all the times I quaffed healing potions during combat while being threatened.

 

[mevers]

Just because a common laborer can never afford a +6 sword, it doesn't make it a bad and broken system.

The problem I have with the crazy high prices of stuff in DnD is the disconnect I feel between my PC spending hundreds of thousands of gp on magic items (or at least walking around with gear "worth" that much), while his family / home village etc are basically poverty stricken dirt farmers. If my PC is good, or even just loves / likes his family, I find it very hard to justify the situation in game.

When just one of your 5 or more magic items is worth more gold than your entire family is likely to ever earn in their entire collective lifetimes, I have a hard time imagining why my PC doesn't sell it and buy his family a much better standard of living.

 

[Runestar]

Inflation? So to prevent the economy from collapsing from the sudden influx of gold, you have to spend it on magic items instead of donating it towards altrusitc purposes.

And of course, the wizard who receives the payment would know better than to spend it...

 

[Fanaelialae]

The problem I have with the crazy high prices of stuff in DnD is the disconnect I feel between my PC spending hundreds of thousands of gp on magic items (or at least walking around with gear "worth" that much), while his family / home village etc are basically poverty stricken dirt farmers. If my PC is good, or even just loves / likes his family, I find it very hard to justify the situation in game.

When just one of your 5 or more magic items is worth more gold than your entire family is likely to ever earn in their entire collective lifetimes, I have a hard time imagining why my PC doesn't sell it and buy his family a much better standard of living.

Assuming the character gets along well with his family, instead of upgrading his boots of coolness to boots of awesomeness he gives them 20k gold (or whatever). It isn't likely to impact his effectiveness noticeably (if at all) and his family can now afford to live like royalty.

It's not exactly as though a character has to divest himself of all his wealth for those he loves. It isn't hard to balance acquiring more mystic bling with supporting your dirt-farming relatives when, even at first level, you can easily acquire more gold than they earn in a month. After all, that bling can help you acquire even more wealth for your family in the long run (and besides, you earned it ).