Magical items

[Just Another User]

THIS.

At one point in the early 90's, I was in a party that ran through a number of classic modules as written, gathering the wealth therein.

By 14th level, the Paladin had:
A Holy Avenger
2 Frostbrands
4 Flametongue swords
at least one of each 'Slayer sword
And enough +1/+2 swords to equip an entire company of soldiers (no joke!)

Which is to say that 1e especially handed out gobs of magic--most of it effectively worthless! (Who made all these +1 swords? OCD the mage?)

For my part, I would like 4e to be more sane about magic items than 1e/2e--and less commodity than 3e. That looks likely, from the examples given.

Just a question, did you use the rule to destroy items in that adventure? Unlike 3e in 2e dstroy items was relatively easy, all you needed was a failed saving throw (not just a 1) on a i.e. fireball followed by a failed saving throw vs magical fire from the item (and all the exposed items rolled, not just one, at least for tiems that could reasonably being damaged, a sword should not roll against fireball, but it should against lightining bolt) and your item was useless. losing magic items was much easier in 2nd edition if you applied the rules.

Another reason why I don't like 3.x rules is that it is harder to make item more linked to a certain place, for example if I want a certain kind of magic weapon being availlable only in a certain city, or that flying carpets are crafted only in the arabian-like country, but by the rules to craft a magic carpet you need just the craft wondrous item feat, the overland flight spell, gold and XP, once you have all these things there is nothing in the rules that stop you from crafting a magic carpet, even if your character never seen one before or they don't even exist in your campaign world.

 

[Syrsuro]

Game is balanced for players having around 5-10 magic items each at 10th level. Maybe not super items, but still items.

I don't think that is being disputed. At least I"m not disputing it.

In fact, that is the point.

First: The 3E rules forced that bit of 'balance' on the game (unless you houseruled it away somehow). And the consequences of that decision had long-reaching effects throughout the game, ending up in magic losing its mystique and appeal and becoming mundane.


But more importantly, speaking for myself anyway, the point is NOT the magic that the players wear. It is the magic that they find and DON'T wear. It is the magic that exists soley for the players to look at, discount as useless and sell. It is the hordes of +1 and +2 items your hypothetical 10th level character will pick up and discard as he looks for something better than the +4 (or whatever) he is already wielding.

The consequence of this 'balance' in the 3E rules was an overall devaluing of magic items, which made the game 'less fun' for many of us.

So either

a) accept that magic items are a commodity and adapt world to the fact that there is some limited trade/barter with them
b) limit number of magic items per person to max 1 (maybe 2nd one on epic level) and throw all original adventures and monster/player balance out of the window

Of course, your post also ignored option (c) which I alluded to above: Eliminate the POINTLESS magic (the piles of pointy cash that exists only to make the NPCs 'comparable', but which will be sold as soon as the players hit town), fix the aforementioned balance for the NPCs with stat adjustments, and make the magic that you do give out meaningful and appropriate. Which is, imho, the only real fix for 3E, as it makes magic uncommon while still allowing the game's balance to hold.

(And, of course, b is a total strawman since there is a HUGE range between limiting people to one or two items and eliminating christmas trees).

But more importantly, you ignored option (d): Rewrite the game to give us another, better option.

So if, as it appears, the 4E rules remove the above described 'balance' and consequently magic becomes more memorable, this is a Very Good Thing. IMHO, of course.

(For the record, there is also an option (e) for 3E. Houserule that the magic item creation rules as written do NOT actually make permanent items. They make items that are semi-permanent; items which, when exposed to Dispel Magic or Antimagic areas, can potentially lose their enchantment (And that truely permanent items are far rarer and thus more valueable - and cannot be crafted easily). Now you can create lots of semi-permanent +1 and +2 items (etc.) for their opponents to wield, and the players can make semi-permanent items for themselves as needed, while at the same time keeping 'true magic items' a rare treasure, memorable and worth finding. And you even get to add some extra tactical decisions to the game as they players have to consider whether they want to destroy their opponents magic items or not)

Carl

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is effectively how 3E does it. Cheap items are available in small towns, but expensive items are not. Any item cheaper than a suit of plate mail can be purchased anywhere plate mail is for sale. The DM, by setting the demographics of the campaign world, decides how many places actually sell expensive items.

Cheap items can be created by low-level characters with the appropriate feats. Low-level characters do not have the exp. or gold to create more expensive items.

yes, and that is the only sane part about 3.x magic item rules, but I expect the local witch beeing able to brew a potion for you, or a thayan enclave selling 3-4 potion in a city of moderate size where adventures or rich persons come by (and where its worth to have spys), not a shop where you go and buy and sell magical items as if they are common things. Even though they are cheap...

but: as pointed out by others: you had to give NPCs magical armor just to make them a challenge at all, or they are dead on first contact, and you had to stat out your players with defensive items so that they are not dead at first contact (especially cloaks of resistance were needed desperately).

Now that NPC and PCs don´t need those items, and only monsters are a bit tougher if you have a low magic campaign, then everytthing is fine!

 

[AllisterH]

My experience with 1E was that if you followed the rules as written for handing out treasure, you got appropriately restrained quantities of magic - definately no christmas trees in our groups, (at least up to the mid-levels - and the game was broken imho past 12th or so anyway). But if you bought published modules, you found them laden down with tons of magic (probably because magic sellls).


Although it is possible my memory has been colored by the shared opinion of our DMs at the time that magic should be scare at the lower levels.

Carl

I don't think so. Here's another reason why the "magic is scarce" idea never made much sense in 1E/2E.

In previous editions, a fighter would gain followers at a certain level. Now, here's what the specific leader you rolled would get.
5th level fighter - battle axe +2 (a +2 weapon at 5th level?)
6th level fighter - shield +1, spear +1, dagger +1
6th level fighter - plate mail +1, spear +1, dagger +1, crossbow of distance
7th level fighter - plate mail +1, shield +1 broadsword +2, heavy warhorse with horseshoes of speed

(the crossbow and horseshoes of speed are the ones that leave me scratching my head. Do you know how near damn impossible it is to ROLL and get those specific items on the Treasure tables?)

Personally, I'm not against lowered magic items, but I do NOT want to see those "Decanter of endless Water/Everburning Log type of useless items" I always wanted to know, who would you even bother crafting half the items in the DMG.

 

[Revinor]

But more importantly, speaking for myself anyway, the point is NOT the magic that the players wear. It is the magic that they find and DON'T wear. It is the magic that exists soley for the players to look at, discount as useless and sell. It is the hordes of +1 and +2 items your hypothetical 10th level character will pick up and discard as he looks for something better than the +4 (or whatever) he is already wielding.

So you suggest that 10lvl people will somehow stop finding +1 items in treasure hordes because they are on higher level? It is ok with me, it is sacrificing 'simulation' part for 'fun' part, which is a good thing sometimes.

We are still then left with their previous items. While they are not finding low-level items anymore, they have previous versions of their equipment with them, which they will probably want to sell (exchange for healing potions/ressurection for fallen comrade/whatever). Which again implies that magic items will be on market.

(And, of course, b is a total strawman since there is a HUGE range between limiting people to one or two items and eliminating christmas trees).

We are talking about 4th edition here and the range is not THAT huge. You have like 7-8 item slots in 4th edition, so 'christmas tree' is 8 magic items (10 with rings at epic).

So if, as it appears, the 4E rules remove the above described 'balance' and consequently magic becomes more memorable, this is a Very Good Thing.

Let's see how 'memorable' magic items in 4th edition are.

Here’s what my 11th-level gnome warlock, Dessin, is wearing right now:

Implement: +3 rod of dark reward
Armor: +3 leather armor
Neck: +2 cloak of survival
Arms: Bracers of the perfect shot
Feet: Wavestrider boots
Hands: Shadowfell gloves
Head: Diadem of acuity
Rings: None right now, sadly
Waist: Belt of battle
Wondrous Items: Bag of holding

He is 1 ring short of christmas tree (just because he is 11 level, so he has not managed to get one yet).

I don't see any difference between data above and 3rd edition munchkins. Except maybe lack of stat items which were too common in 3rd edition - but it is mechanic change of disallowing them, not paradigm change of 'making magic more magic'.

 

[Dausuul]

My experience with 1E was that if you followed the rules as written for handing out treasure, you got appropriately restrained quantities of magic - definately no christmas trees in our groups, (at least up to the mid-levels - and the game was broken imho past 12th or so anyway). But if you bought published modules, you found them laden down with tons of magic (probably because magic sellls).

Although it is possible my memory has been colored by the shared opinion of our DMs at the time that magic should be scare at the lower levels.

Yeah, my experience with 2E was that magic items were extremely rare and precious. But my usual DM was a skinflint who hated to part with so much as a +1 sword. Not that I'm complaining; even at the time it wasn't a big deal, more of an ongoing joke.

"I have PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER! Can you spare 25 cents for a cup of coffee?"

(Folks in my current group will recall my own skinflint habits, at least by 3E standards. This is where that tendency came from, guys.)

Game is balanced for players having around 5-10 magic items each at 10th level. Maybe not super items, but still items.

You can take it away and give them only 2 items per entire party - sure. If it fits you and your players, great. Just don't be surprised if they will die often then they should - but after all, it doesn't matter as long as magic items feel 'magical', does it ?

Yes, this is how it works in 3.X. Hand out the expected wealth by level or watch the party suck, especially the melee warriors. Don't think anyone is disputing that. Those of us who hate Christmas trees are really hoping it works differently in 4E, and it looks like it will.

when players go through few official modules and get a heap of useless magic items, they will try to sell them somehow...

Well, if you run official modules and hand out a bazillion crap items, then sure.

a) accept that magic items are a commodity and adapt world to the fact that there is some limited trade/barter with them
b) limit number of magic items per person to max 1 (maybe 2nd one on epic level) and throw all original adventures and monster/player balance out of the window

Okay, now this is just ridiculous. PCs can easily have several magic items apiece without feeling like they're loaded down with useless crap. The important thing is to avoid handing out a lot of redundant items, and to encourage PCs to find clever uses for the stuff they have.

Yeah, if you give out a dozen +1 longswords, the PCs will be looking to get rid of those. So you don't hand out a dozen +1 longswords. Instead, you hand out a couple healing potions, a decanter of endless water, a +1 dagger, and a deck of illusions. The party wizard will probably take the dagger as a backup weapon. The fighter will take the healing potions, since you can never have too many of those--especially when they aren't up for sale in every little hamlet. The rogue will glom onto the deck of illusions for distraction purposes. And any party that can't find a thousand and one ingenious uses for a decanter of endless water doesn't deserve to be playing D&D.

Notice that you don't really have to worry about any of these items becoming obsolete, either. The dagger will hardly ever see use, it's mostly just a bit of "cool factor" for the wizard. The potions are single-use consumables, so by the time the PCs are high enough level that the potions wouldn't be useful, they'll be gone anyway. And the deck and decanter are handy no matter what level you are.

Or, once in a while, go ahead and give out a dozen +1 longswords. The PCs obviously have no use for them, so they'll be looking for some way to offload them for a benefit. The question is, offload them to whom, and for what benefit? Maybe they arm the leaders of a small mercenary company, in exchange for a future favor. Maybe they try and talk a local lord into giving them a base of operations in exchange for outfitting his household guard. Or maybe they stash the weapons in anticipation of the day when they themselves have followers they want to arm.

This is the 2E mindset; you don't have a handy store where you can just go and sell the items you yourself can't use, so you look for other ways to turn them to advantage. Yes, this is "limited trade/barter," but it's a far cry from having magic item shops.

Now, obviously, if you're going to load the PCs down with magic loot every adventure, this sort of thing gets old in a hurry. You can only arm so many mercenaries, and you really don't need more than one base of operations. But so long as a trove of +1 weapons is an extraordinary find, it can be a roleplaying hook instead of an exercise in bookkeeping.

 

[xandore]

I've been primarily a DM since 1978. I played D&D, AD&D 2nd edition, optional rules, and finally 3e and 3.5e. When I saw how 3e/3.5e had the method for item creation I was like OMG thats wonderful YAY! A little over a year ago I introduced 2 groups I DMed to outfitting their characters the way its done in the RPGA. Most at 1st were like WHAT? That's crazy! We don't get loot as we go along in dungeons to keep? No use it or lose it in dungeons. When you advance you get a set amount each level. You can delete everything you have and replace it with totally different stuff each adventure as long as you have gone to a community able to have the equipment you want. It took some months for it to really sink in. Once it did the players were like this is great. That's just how I felt as the DM. No more guessing what items to put into the adventure. If I wanted something for them to recover or felt they needed something more for the adventure I included otherwise I didn't need to.

Regardless of how 4e is I intend to continue doing it the same way.

 

[Spatula]

Another reason why I don't like 3.x rules is that it is harder to make item more linked to a certain place, for example if I want a certain kind of magic weapon being availlable only in a certain city, or that flying carpets are crafted only in the arabian-like country, but by the rules to craft a magic carpet you need just the craft wondrous item feat, the overland flight spell, gold and XP, once you have all these things there is nothing in the rules that stop you from crafting a magic carpet, even if your character never seen one before or they don't even exist in your campaign world.

So the mechanical rules in the DMG don't take into account your campaign's flavor-related particulars? Strange.

 

[Spatula]

First: The 3E rules forced that bit of 'balance' on the game (unless you houseruled it away somehow).

It's a neccessary adjunct to having actual encounter design guidelines, which previous editions had none of.

 

[Just Another User]

So the mechanical rules in the DMG don't take into account your campaign's flavor-related particulars? Strange.

To better put it if I follow the mechanical rules (a.k.a. the RAW) I can't put that flavour in my campaign. Because by the RAW if you have the right feats, the spells, the gold and the xps, you can make any magic item, even if the GM say that , for example, only the dwarves of the firetop mountains know how to make Firebrand weapons.