Magic Items that lost their magic

[Shroomy]

So, has anyone done up an Artifact style writeup for the classic 1e version of the gauntlet of ogre power or better yet how would you writeup the trifecta - gauntlets, belt and hammer?

As an aside, what's your favourite artifact in the 4e writeup? I got to go with WHELM from Open Grave....

The talking head from Pyramid of Shadows sticks out the most to me, but I also love the elephant figurine of wonderous power (I forget its name) that appeared in Dragon.

 

[ferratus]

It is a vicious cycle really. Mystic bling has a value because you want PC's to be able to purchase or make the thing, and you want them to do that so they can have a magical item suitable to their suite of abilities.

The only way out of not having magical items worth more than a king would spend is to have magical items be priceless, as was assumed in 1e/2e. Unlike 1e and 2e though, you shouldn't use magical items to determine whether or not you can hit a monster, to balance the powers of different classes (in 1e - 3e the warrior classes were more dependent on their magical items than their arcane counterparts).

In other words, arcane items will have to be a freebie that adds to a character's power, but doesn't dominate the character. Ideally, the number of magical items would simply change play style on a scale from the more gritty and drawn out slow mundane combats up to the 2-3 round blazing, booming, blood-fests of a high magic party. In other words, playable and survivable in both modes, with the same set of monsters from the monster manual, but with a different feel. Perhaps high magic games give out less XP to reflect that you are able to kill more monsters and easily loot more dungeons.

I would think that this would require building a D&D clone from the ground up. I've played games from 1e - 3e with DM's who refused to give out magic items as much as they should have (ie. the amount that was given out in official modules), and it SUCKED. I'm absolutely positive that the same holds true for 4e as well.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I would think that this would require building a D&D clone from the ground up. I've played games from 1e - 3e with DM's who refused to give out magic items as much as they should have (ie. the amount that was given out in official modules), and it SUCKED. I'm absolutely positive that the same holds true for 4e as well.

Overall solid idea and it makes sense. In keeping with your idea the amount of magic that "should" be given out really depends on the campaign. If the PC's are always running into things that require magical weapons to combat effectively then such weapons should be available. A great many published modules included more magical goodies than a typical campaign required.

 

[AllisterH]

Er magic items in 1e were not priceless...

They had gold costs and you could sell them to generate XP...You just couldn't BUY magic items in 1e even if you had just recently sold said items...

re: Monetary costs

Explicitly mentioned in both 3e AND 4e, don't the higher price items only appear in exotic locales like the City of Brass and Sigil? There is simply no way to have a rational medieval economy with decidely non-medieval locations such as those...

EDIT : MAgical treasure in modules

Search out for Bullgrit's posts on the matter....1e was OFFICALLY awash with magical items (moreso than a 3e or 4e character would have IMO).

It's only in 2e where they cut down on the treasure...

 

[Fanaelialae]

It is a vicious cycle really. Mystic bling has a value because you want PC's to be able to purchase or make the thing, and you want them to do that so they can have a magical item suitable to their suite of abilities.

The only way out of not having magical items worth more than a king would spend is to have magical items be priceless, as was assumed in 1e/2e. Unlike 1e and 2e though, you shouldn't use magical items to determine whether or not you can hit a monster, to balance the powers of different classes (in 1e - 3e the warrior classes were more dependent on their magical items than their arcane counterparts).

In other words, arcane items will have to be a freebie that adds to a character's power, but doesn't dominate the character. Ideally, the number of magical items would simply change play style on a scale from the more gritty and drawn out slow mundane combats up to the 2-3 round blazing, booming, blood-fests of a high magic party. In other words, playable and survivable in both modes, with the same set of monsters from the monster manual, but with a different feel. Perhaps high magic games give out less XP to reflect that you are able to kill more monsters and easily loot more dungeons.

I would think that this would require building a D&D clone from the ground up. I've played games from 1e - 3e with DM's who refused to give out magic items as much as they should have (ie. the amount that was given out in official modules), and it SUCKED. I'm absolutely positive that the same holds true for 4e as well.

In my experience, it hasn't applied to 4e provided you preserve the +x bonuses (I just give the players an inherent enhancement bonus to attack/damage/defenses at 3/8/13/18/23/28).

I've done various experiments in my [4e] campaigns to see how magic items affect the game (including a boss who suppressed all their magical items for a battle, but not their inherent bonus) and it really has been fine. There's a difference between a character who's completely blinged out and one who isn't, but it isn't a big one and it certainly hasn't been game breaking IME.

Magical items are a lot less powerful than in previous editions, so characters really don't depend on them as much (except for the plus to hit/defenses at higher levels). The pluses only come from the basic three items (weapon/implement, armor, and neck piece) so as long as you have those covered, it really doesn't matter how you spend your gold (and it isn't hard to keep those basic three up to date and still have gold to spare). The downside, of course, is that some people feel that the magic items have been watered down to the point where they generally don't care much about them one way or the other (I've got a player like this myself).

Nonetheless, I would say that magical items are far less significant in 4e than 3.x (which isn't to say that 3.x was bad, just a different approach from 4e).

 

[gizmo33]

The only way out of not having magical items worth more than a king would spend is to have magical items be priceless, as was assumed in 1e/2e.

How so? Logically, I don't understand why you exclude the option of lower costs for magic items. One way of making magic items cost less than a king would spend is to *make them cost less than a king would spend* (And, as has already been mentioned, magic items were not priceless in 1e)

Look at it from the supply and demand side (too simulationist for 4E probably, but suppose-) Imagine you're a rich fighter. I can either hire soldiers with my money or buy a magic sword. Hiring 0 soldiers is less useful than a +1 sword obviously, hiring 1 million soldiers is more useful. There's some sweet spot in the middle, and that value could be considered the basic value of a +1 sword. The same reasoning can be applied to +5 swords. I can't see how you get to 225,000 gp for a +5 sword given the other things that you could do with 225,000 gp that would make more sense.

The thing about "the other things that you could do" is that they're mostly forbidden by DM fiat. The private army that you could maintain with 225,000 gp is forbidden by most DMs IME. In fact, you could buy a +4 sword for 45,000 gp and still hire a pretty decent army for the amount of money it would take you to upgrade a measily +1 value. You actually get more of a attack bonus for flanking with your thousand soldiers.

 

[gizmo33]

Search out for Bullgrit's posts on the matter....1e was OFFICALLY awash with magical items (moreso than a 3e or 4e character would have IMO).

If this was actually OFFICIAL, as you say, then I wouldn't have to search someone's post - you could simply indicate the page number in the 1e DMG that makes this clear. IME the treasure tables in the 1e MM were very stingy.

 

[Jack99]

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.

Precisely. I never said the 4e economy isn't broken (Although I prefer to call it not realistic, since we play 4e just fine with the system). I merely pointed out to GW that his "argument" was a hyperbole. Which you agree with in your comment quoted above.

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.

Most of my PC's do just that Maybe this issue is with the characters or players, not with the system.

I sometimes compare players to american rap stars - A lot start out as trailer trash, and at some point, they make it big and start making so much money that they pay for their whole family or town and not even feel the expense. Some do, and some don't.

 

[ferratus]

I generally would agree that the D&D world should try to simulate its own economy rather than a medieval one. I think that if the planes are going to interact with the mortal world at all, and have creatures that can be interacted with and killed, they should be probably be traded with. Sigil would be a good way to do it, or the City of Brass (which I like better than Sigil myself). Now a good question would be what the material world could offer these far more wealthy and cosmopolitan places. Certainly not raw materials (more abundant in the elemental chaos), heck perhaps they wouldn't even desire gold. Really, the only thing that I can think extra-planar creatures would want is human (and other mortal) slaves. Otherwise possibly they might want wood and other organic materials. Still, not a very profitible relationship.

However, it is largely beside the point. The price of D&D magical items is not based on what gives you personal power in the mundane world (which is full of dirt farmers) but what helps you hit the defenses of dragons and extra-planar monsters. It is for weaker creatures to kill stronger creatures, which are impervious to creatures weaker than you. Millions of common soliders are useless against Orcus. Which is generally why, in my opinion, magical blades should be found in dungeons with a prophecy to kill Orcus, rather than bought for huge sums of money.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I merely pointed out to GW that his "argument" was a hyperbole.

I like how you ignore everything else I've said in the thread except the one sentence that irked you.