Magical items

[AllisterH]

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

Again, I agree with this and defend 3E.

On what basis did Gygax et al assign the XP values for the various monsters in the MM? Hell, did we even know what the typical size of a party was supposed to be? They're rules in the DMG about assigning XP based on the difficulty of the encounter but what the hell was a standard encounter supposed to look like?

I awear, TSR must have thrown darts at a board to come up with those XP totals.

 

[Spatula]

To better put it if I follow the mechanical rules (a.k.a. the RAW) I can't put that flavour in my campaign.

You can't? Why not?

 

[Shadeydm]

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


Quote:
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'.

Careful there are people getting tar and feathered around here for mixing facts and criticism of 4E

 

[Just Another User]

You can't? Why not?

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.

 

[Spatula]

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.

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with computer games if you feel the DM should have no say in the shape of the campaign world.

 

[Just Another User]

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with computer games if you feel the DM should have no say in the shape of the campaign world.

Do you know what RAW mean, yes?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Do you know what RAW mean, yes?

It is "Rules As Written" isn´t it?

 

[Spatula]

Do you know what RAW mean, yes?

Yep. I also know that the rules are not and have never been a straightjacket, that the stuff that is in the DMG is there because it is under the DM's purview, and that the rules cannot take into account the vagaries of your specific campaign world because that's for you to decide.

It would be a little silly if the DMG listed "must be a dwarf from the Firetop Mountains" under the requirements for making a fiery weapon. It would not be silly for a DM to say, "The next campaign will take place in the world of Zamzagar. In Zamzagar, only dwarves from the Firetop Mountains have mastered the art of making fiery weapons."

Or to look at it another way, the PHB says that clerics can get powers from worshipping ideas rather than dieties. The FRCS says that that option is not available; clerics in FR must choose a diety, because that's how things work in FR no matter what the core rules say.

Also, see the "power components" sidebar in the 3e DMG, WRT using exotic materials for spells & making magic items.

 

[Lanefan]

A few thoughts:

1. 3e magic item creation rules are beyond annoying; if 4e does away with them it could easily be the best development it achieves. PCs should not be making magic items.

2. Believability goes away all too quickly if the items in a particular adventure just "happen" to be those that are best suited to the particular PCs - the voulge-guisarme example from earlier is what I mean.

3. I've always allowed characters to "commission" creation of a magic item, usually through a wizards' guild. The PC asks if item x can be made, and if it can the guild collects half payment up front and tells the PC to come back in anywhere from a few weeks (for a simple potion or scroll) to a year or more (for something complex like a +3 Frostbrand Defender sword with a once-per-day Dimension Door) to collect the item and complete payment.

4. The idea of a magic "shop" never really flew with me, but the idea of there being some amount of trade in magic items makes loads of sense. Logically, it would happen in one of two basic ways: different adventuring parties get together and barter, or some group - the local wizards' guild (or, for weapons and armour, the warriors' guild) seems the most obvious - acts as a clearing-house. It also makes sense that just because a particular party can't use a given item doesn't mean nobody can - somebody somewhere is proficient in that wacko weapon you just found, and has the money to buy it; all you have to do is find her.

4a. The only time a magic shop *does* make sense is if it is acting as a fence for the local Thieves' guild, selling the magic items that the guild members have managed to steal.

5. Magic really should be easier to break/destroy/blow up than 3e has it. 1-2e had it right, even if the rolling sometimes goes on all night to sort out the cascading destruction. That way, the players can more often have the fun of discovering new stuff and finding out what it does...

Lanefan

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

PCs should not be making magic items.

This is wrong.