Magic Items that lost their magic

[Hexmage-EN]

And because of this, it's even more important for DMs to make them special in other ways. Many of us were doing this already, but it's more necessary now since a lot of the time a magic item's powers won't be making anyone "ooh" or "aah" on their own.

Currently I'm leaving magic items as they are. I don't want to mess with the balance at this point. Once I've gained more experience with the new system, I may drop a more potent item into the mix here and there.

An easy way to do that is to simply describe the magic item's effects in unique ways.

Take a Lifedrinker Dagger for example. The mechanics say that it simply drains HP on a hit. What if it were instead a "Tendril of Zuggtmoy" that buries blood-sucking fungal mycelia into the wounds it inflicts? Then, when the blood is drained, mycelia grow into the wielder's hands and transfer the vitality. The wielder feels this as a strange, tickling sensation.

 

[RangerWickett]

My new theory is that the problem isn't the ruleset, but the internet.

Before 1999, I barely had any idea what other gaming groups did. Then I got on the Eric Noah message boards (later EN World), and people started all using the same gear and posting builds and stuff. I wonder if 2nd edition magic items would have fared any better.

 

[billd91]

My new theory is that the problem isn't the ruleset, but the internet.

Before 1999, I barely had any idea what other gaming groups did. Then I got on the Eric Noah message boards (later EN World), and people started all using the same gear and posting builds and stuff. I wonder if 2nd edition magic items would have fared any better.

I think 2e would have fared the same if it had the same magic item creation rules as 3e. Rather than the internet, I think that's the main culprit.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

An easy way to do that is to simply describe the magic item's effects in unique ways.

Take a Lifedrinker Dagger for example. The mechanics say that it simply drains HP on a hit. What if it were instead a "Tendril of Zuggtmoy" that buries blood-sucking fungal mycelia into the wounds it inflicts? Then, when the blood is drained, mycelia grow into the wielder's hands and transfer the vitality. The wielder feels this as a strange, tickling sensation.

This is exactly what I already do. But there's something for a magic item actually being potent as well as cool.

 

[Hereticus]

Though here's a question: if you take out the magical item economy, what would gold be used for? That's pretty much the only thing that you can buy, outside of alchemical items.

It can be spent on followers, or for building a fortress.

 

[Rechan]

It can be spent on followers, or for building a fortress.

Which costs what? And what are the rules for followrs? Are they minions?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Personally for my group when it comes to specifically money (I don't think I have actually specifically used gold in years) Resources they have used it for:

• Bribery.
• Paying for certain tasks. Having a spy master as a NPC-friend need to give them something in return.
• Paying for bolt-holes to hide in.
• Travel costs such as trains, airships, etc.

There are others but those are some big ones I remember.

 

[Hereticus]

It can be spent on followers, or for building a fortress.

Which costs what? And what are the rules for followrs? Are they minions?

There are no rules for it in 4.0E.

A DM would either have to make it up from scratch, or base it on previous editions.

Henchmen would have a salary whether they are minion/thugs, or standard/specialists.

And fortresses would be assigned "levels", with different features (size, location construction, etc) determining the level and value.

Heck... I can see it now, the Construct Fortress ritual... just add gold and you have a brand spankin' new fortress in an hour!

Seriously, I'd like to see the DMG-III have fortress and hireling guidelines. As a player, I enjoy the city/temple/guild building aspect of role playing.

 

[ferratus]

Heck... I can see it now, the Construct Fortress ritual... just add gold and you have a brand spankin' new fortress in an hour!

Seriously, I'd like to see the DMG-III have fortress and hireling guidelines. As a player, I enjoy the city/temple/guild building aspect of role playing.

I don't see what's not serious about that ritual. It seems like a great idea for an epic level ritual to go along with the Fey Liege, or Darklord, or Archmage, Winter Sovereign and other epic destinies. All you have to do is make the ritual as expensive as building the keep mundanely.

 

[Jack99]

Foolish about what? I would think that statments like that would be plainly against the board rules.

I told you what it was I didn't know. You still haven't identified where this came from, or anything that lets someone who doesn't know the context make any sense of it in terms of game design.

The thing that's setting off my bs detector is that "sacred cow" is a perjorative term. It suggests to me that the designers included something that they knew wouldn't make for a good game. For what reason? Since when did the 4E people give two hoots about anything in prior editions? Why would they admit to comprimising on their principles without an explanation?

I'm being skeptical, not snarky. There are lots of people on this board making unsubstantiated pronouncements about what 4E should and shouldn't be. And like you, they may or may not be right but I think it's sensible to expect a little substance (I don't mean restating what you said and adding the word "indeed" to the end). I often suspect that these rememberances that people have are filtered through a layer of interpretation. Saying "I remember seeing it somewhere" is fine for your purposes I suppose, but I see no harm in asking for sources on things that you're claiming were said by someone else.

The other thing about context: I remember one instance of the devs not agreeing on an issue. The case I remember was character death and dying rules. So the opinion of a single dev about a certain rule that was kept in the game may not be the final word on what the other devs thought or what it all really means.

I doubt I was against any board rules, but if you think I am, I suggest you report me and let the mods decide. They are usually pretty good. When that is said, I apparently misread your post as snark. Sorry about that. I will see if I can dig up the quote (or rather, the article), but I must admit that it has been a while since I read it. Could be anywhere really.

My new theory is that the problem isn't the ruleset, but the internet.

Before 1999, I barely had any idea what other gaming groups did. Then I got on the Eric Noah message boards (later EN World), and people started all using the same gear and posting builds and stuff. I wonder if 2nd edition magic items would have fared any better.

I agree, the internet ruined D&D to an extend.