New Monte Cook article Magic and Mystery

[BryonD]

I like this column much more than the previous one.

I'd start by saying I really don't have an issue with +X items because if handled correctly the numbers are all invisible inside the story anyway. And yes, that does get harder to do when EVERYONE has a +1 Longsword and a +1 Ring of Protection, but it can be done.

But, if you can transcend that to enchanted swords are more art and less math, (while still offering that boost for the power-gamer inner child....) then excellent.

And throw wealth guidelines and ANYTHING that puts balance over story into the trash!

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

If I could pass just one bit of loot-related wisdom on to every future DMG, it would be 4e's "Don't give your players cr@p they don't want" advice.

Whether you go by WBL, parcels, wish lists or pure fiat, nothing reminds me more of Diablo [in a bad way] than getting +1 voodoo dolls of Charm Little Girl.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

A certain amount of the problem with magic item bonuses (and ability score bonuses and feat bonuses too, for that matter) is that the modifiers have traditionally been rather low and their granularity rather coarse. This combination make small changes relatively important. Of course, for a simple system that has to fit disparate things into a meaningful total modifier and a d20 roll, there are few simple alternatives.

Suppose you made ability modifiers simply ability score divided by 2? So a 10 Dex gives you a +5. Then maybe you let superior equipment (masterwork, whatever) give the +1 to +4 weapon and armor bonuses. Until you get to +5, it isn't even magic. You might find a +5 sword around 7th, 8th level, and they go up to about +10. Feats, spells, whatever, hand out slightly bigger chunks compared to 3E/4E.

Then you have to change the math to make this work. The point is not to simply make everything bigger numbers. The point is rather to shift the ranges of the meaningful numbers such that each +1 has relatively less effect. If each +1 is individually less important, then going from a +5 to +6 sword (old +1 to +2) doesn't mean as much either. Neither does going from an 18 (+9) to 20 (+10) main ability score.

The problem, of course, is all the obvious ways to make this work well with a d20, and not quickly dwarf the die roll with modifiers, are fiddly. You can, for a crude example, total up all the raw modifiers, and then look up the total on a chart to get a final smaller number. This effectively turns each +1 into a + 0.4 or such. Or maybe it doesn't even scale linearly, encouraging players to stay within the expected range for their level. But then going from my starting +5 magic flaming sword to my new +6 magic flaming sword is even less meaningful. It all stacks up in the end, but every little jump is too much like accounting.

I'm not at all sure that there is any elegant away around this problem, from a purely math perspective. So I think we get stuck with +X swords that top out somewhere between +3 and +6, or we nullify that particular aspect of the problem by banishing the +X altogether. That doesn't change the fundamental problem for ability scores and other sources, though. It just gives a bit more wiggle room.

This is one of the very few areas where percentile systems have an inherent advantage over smaller ranges. You can stick to +5% and +10% changes when it works well enough, but if you really want an effect that gives +2% or +3% per increment, because that is what works, you can.

 

[Hussar]

I truly think they can write a million articles on this and even have rules in the book cover it but until they start to write adventures that yield little to no magic items as a reward as a common practice people will simple look to that as an example of what D&D is about.


As they say, lead by example

Y'know, there is a strong point here. For years, Dragon articles have talked about this specific issue in D&D. This isn't something new. And, yes, if you look at the modules, you see a sort of split personality on the issue. On one hand the DM's advice is, "Make the magic interesting and wonderful" and on the other, the modules give out +1 swords like candy with only one or two items that have any sort of interesting qualities.

If I could pass just one bit of loot-related wisdom on to every future DMG, it would be 4e's "Don't give your players cr@p they don't want" advice.

Whether you go by WBL, parcels, wish lists or pure fiat, nothing reminds me more of Diablo [in a bad way] than getting +1 voodoo dolls of Charm Little Girl.

I disagree here though. I find that the weird stuff is where people really start to engage with the game a lot more. Ok, Voodoo Doll of Charm Little Girls is probably not the best example (and WAYYY too creepy), but, something like, say, a Life Drinking Weapon is so much cooler than just a +2 sword. Ignore the actual plus on the weapon, fold that into the character, and then just go with the extra stuff. A weapon that grants temp hp when you kill something? That's cool. There's all sorts of things you can do with that.

 

[GSHamster]

I disagree here though. I find that the weird stuff is where people really start to engage with the game a lot more. Ok, Voodoo Doll of Charm Little Girls is probably not the best example (and WAYYY too creepy), but, something like, say, a Life Drinking Weapon is so much cooler than just a +2 sword. Ignore the actual plus on the weapon, fold that into the character, and then just go with the extra stuff. A weapon that grants temp hp when you kill something? That's cool. There's all sorts of things you can do with that.

I think, though I might be wrong, that Tequila Sunrise was more trying to get at the Diablo idea of weapons that are very specific in effect and boosted specific skills that may not exist in your party.

For example, getting a magic dagger that makes your Fireballs hit harder is rather pointless if you don't have a wizard who likes casting Fireballs.

 

[Hussar]

But, wouldn't random generation of treasure be the culprit here? TS talks about wish lists and parcels and equates them to Diablo drops. If you have wish lists and/or parcels, then you should never have treasure that the PC's don't want.

 

[billd91]

But, wouldn't random generation of treasure be the culprit here? TS talks about wish lists and parcels and equates them to Diablo drops. If you have wish lists and/or parcels, then you should never have treasure that the PC's don't want.

Depends. Is the random generation of the treasure producing items the party doesn't want? Or is the DM giving the NPCs items appropriate to their own powers that the PCs don't, in turn, want? I I'm not sure how TS views the two different situations.

 

[Jhaelen]

+X might not be very exciting, but it's the simplest way to represent a sword with unnatural sharpness, or one who's sole property is that the wielder becomes a better fighter than she normally is.

That too is an archetype of magical weapons, and should be modeled.

I agree that it is the simplest way to represent this, but I disagree that this means it's the way it should be done.

Representing sharpness could instead be modeled by dealing additional bleeding damage or ignoring hardness/resistances.

A weapon turning someone into a better fighter, imho, almost implies an intelligent weapon. If it's only meant to represent being better balanced, it could improve initiative, deal a small amount of damage on a miss, increase your defenses, etc.

Any of these options is better than simply granting a flat stat bonus.

 

[Vascant]

For example, getting a magic dagger that makes your Fireballs hit harder is rather pointless if you don't have a wizard who likes casting Fireballs.

I am pretty sure this goes to DM style but in my view the world does not revolve around the players. This is a Role Playing Game not Lotto Winner Game, so in the spirit of role playing the players have no control over what died before they got there and that equipment became loot/treasure or that the wizard they fought was throwing fireballs and he made that dagger he was using. Adventuring in some dark dungeon shouldn't have the feel of players pushing a shopping cart through a mall. Next thing we know there will be a book entitled "Home Shopping Network the RPG", this is where the once mighty adventures call up and compete against other players purchasing legendary treasure. The host will of course be Flame the Dragon.


Finally, finding something you don't want or can't use isn't from Diablo.. the original D&D has this same thing which was well before computer games.

 

[Balesir]

That screams of entitlement. Plus in the real world not everyone can get the equipment that suits them best and end up having to work with good enough. In the US Military there are a large number of soldiers that could be highly effective with weapons such an M249 SAWs or M82 Sniper Rifles, but end up assigned an M4 or M16. Street racers often have to use whatever vehicle is available to them instead of top of the line high performance sports cars and racing motorcycles.

Well, I am the DM, so I'm not sure whose "entitlement" I'm supposed to be screaming for. In the imaginary world, 3rd level fighters don't get 26th level equipment (items) - they can't afford it and they don't go to places dangerous enough for them to find it. If they are working for a patron (e.g., if they are "soldiers") they get what the patron gives them or what they can get for themselves. I don't see what point you are trying to make, here?

That's fine for certain playstyles, but not all. Your post is pretty one-true-wayish here.

Hmm, I think I worded what I said here unclearly; two people have understood it differently that I meant it, so I'll try to clarify. When I said:

"A character's gear is (or should be) a reflection of who the character is, and if that defines them in the mind of others that is not necessarily a reflection of reality."

...I meant the "should" to indicate "if the player is roleplaying effectively". A player always has the option of having their character simply not use an item. The choice to use an item is always that - a choice - and choices are what define a character just as the character defines the choices they make. This part of my post was replying to this statement:

"Yes! And what happens then is that who a character is and what they do defines them more so than what magical equipment they carry."

...so I was pointing out that the character defines what (magical) equipment they carry. In other words, regardless of play style, a character that is roleplayed will define the abilities they acquire and the gear that they use. To say that that the player doing the roleplaying selects one subset of these but not the other seems inaccurate, to me. As such, the differentiation between the two is purely a matter of taste, not of "right and wrong".

This is a fantastic example of player entitlement. "Magic items are part of my leveling up process!" No, they aren't. Magic items are treasure.

Once again, I am the DM, not a player - there is no instance of player entitlement, here. I wrote "I agree" and "I don't see" to indicate that I was expressing a personal opinion. If you want to treat magic items as some sort of hallowed preserve, I have no desire to stop you - but I do not understand your reasons for wanting to do so and I see several disbenefits in doing so. I respect your right to hold a different view, and I'm happy to tolerate that view, but I don't understand the view and I certainly don't share it.

Buy whatever "equipment" you want. I have no problem with you buying yourself a greatsword, scale mail, a 10' pole and a hand mirror.

But buying treasure? Not in my game, not for my playstyle- and treasure is what magic items are. Treasure that becomes gear once you find it. But unless you hand a potion of healing and immovable rod to the goblins, how on earth are you dictating what their treasure is?

In the game I run, the items that are found in a goblin's safe or a dragon's horde are decided by me, the DM. At that point they are part of the world setting - the players have no control over whether they are there or not.

Once the characters take posession of those items, however, they are gear. They can be sold - because there is nothing that cannot be sold - and alternatives can be bought (because if it can be found then, in theory, it can be bought, even though you might have to go to some lengths to find a seller). Items can also be made or modified (with "Enchant an Item" and "Transfer Enchantment" and similar rituals).

This is the fashion and extent to which I am referring to items being in the control of the players.

And again, that's fine for certain playstyles, but in a campaign setting without lots of magic shops, it's hard to justify.

I don't see "lots of magic shops" as a requirement at all. Much more plausible is a network of brokers, traders, collectors and users of items who may be contacted and dealt with in larger settlements. Cheaper items will be easier to find than higher level stuff, naturally, but in the City of Brass just about anything should be available, if you know where to look.

At the end of the day, though, all of that is just fluff - the basic rule is that magic items are tradable.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your style of D&D. It would be nice if you would acknowledge that yours is not the One True Way.

I will freely and happily acknowledge that, since I never intended to suggest otherwise to begin with. People play D&D (and other RPGs) for a variety of reasons, and even though I think the system is surpassed by others for some of those reasons, if they want to try to combine a specific system with their own preferred style, I am happy to let them do so. Maybe they will even find a way to do it that proves my belief that D&D is a poor fit for their play style wrong - good luck to them. But to suggest that the publishers should change the system to better fit how they want to use the system at the expense of making it poorer at supporting other ways of using the system that people are enjoying seems to be somewhat selfish and vindictive.

Replace should with can and I'd find that a little more palatable.

As I said above, my intent seems to have been obscured by my (lack of) words, here - by "should" I mean "should if the character is being roleplayed". In other words, the character decides whether or not to use an item based on, well, their character (given the situation and necessity they find themselves in).

The main problem I have had with both 3e and 4e over the years is the assumption of magical items as part of character.

That was my point - regardless of play style, they are part of the character, in the same way that clothes are part of my character. A craftsman's tools are, in a sense, part of the craftsman - that's just an aspect of the way things are.

It means I have either had to bash the ruleset into some semblance of what is needed to represent my campaign world; or as my preference with most things is to just play RAW (simpler/easier) I have to DM/GM with Magical Item assumptions that don't jive with my campaign world. If Monte's new ruleset does not have this MI assumption hard-coded into the rules, it means that I can play RAW the way I like, and you too will be able to play the way you like. Wouldn't that be a good thing rather than hard-coding a particular playstyle?

Rules are hardcoding; they are a literal analogue. The alternative is not to have "flexible rules", it is to have a "build a game" toolkit that lets you select a range of subsystems, modify them to suit and use them to play a game. I find nothing wrong with this in principle, but (1) I personally want a system that just works out of the box and (2) there are loads of "build a game kit" systems out already - previous editions of D&D among them. If WotC want to create a 5E that is another one, fine - but if they try to warp 4E into one I will be irritated because I will be forced to, at a minimum, pick out the bits that I don't want (and figure out how to communicate that clearly to the players).

That is such a trite example that assumes a very particular playstyle. What if fireball-casting wizards are rare to the point where the average commoner has never seen such magic but is haunted by the tales that such things exist in the world? What if raising people from the dead simply doesn't happen except by the direct action of a deity and not by one of their priests? What if any character (player or non-player) could be killed by a simple dagger thrust into the braincase? While not a playstyle for everyone, I would like it if the rules could actively support a playstyle I enjoy (as well as yours).

But, by the time you have all of that, surely you have a different game with different rules? You have, at a minimum, cut out Arcane and Divine classes (or severely depowered them), discarded or heavily modified the hit points and healing systems and restricted the characters to low levels. If I had to do all that to run the game, I would just pick a different system. This notion that we must have one system and warp it to fit whatever game style we wish to play seems very odd to me. I run D&D, but I also play and run HârnMaster for just this sort of game. The idea of running a Hârn game using D&D would just seem insane, to me - why would I handicap myself so badly in achieving what I want with the game from the outset?

If this is what you want to do, fine, each to their own. But to say that one of the existing systems should be changed in its published form so that it does better what another system already does far, far better to begin with just seems, well, almost nihilistic, to me.

Why can't you just have these as abilities (even party abilities) rather than forcing them as magical items? While MIs are an effective way of doing this, it also carries a lot of baggage that does not jive with all playstyles. By decoupling MIs from the equation, you can support a greater spectrum of how people wish to play their game.

Why does it have to be magic though. I play pool (8 ball) to an international standard of play (or at least I used to a few years ago although most of the chops are still there). A crap cue would directly affect my performance while my customised Predator cue (A special P3 for those interested) means I have far greater control over what I'm doing. Why can't the mundane quality of the weapon (be it poor, used, standard, superior, masterwork, or exquisite in craftmanship) affect the plus side of things, and leave the magic to be magical and mysterious?

So, what they do and the function they serve is unimportant; it's all down to what they are called??? Holy moly - call them "mastercrafted" or "alchemical" items and call Artifacts "Magic Items". What does "magical" mean, anyhow? Either it just means "beyond our understanding" (i.e. it's pure fluff), or it refers to a specific power source in the game world. If it's the latter, and there are people in the world who use that power source, then it's just gear. If it's the former, then it isn't any specific or particular thing in game (rules) terms - it's just "whatever stuff is outside the player characters' ken". Either way, there is a capability for it built into the 4E (and 3.X) rules (just run a game with no Arcane power source characters, no magic items, "masterwork" +1 to +X swords and armour and maybe a few Artifacts).

A sword with unnatural sharpness might overcome a foe's armor more easily (I really wish they'd go to an Armor as DR approach) rather than making the wielder "artificially better".

This further sounds like what you are looking for is a different set of rules. D&D has never used DR instead of AC for all armours - but there are other systems that do (as well as having separate wounds instead of hit points, variable quality crafted weapons and armour, rare and limited magic use/users, non-player-oriented (and working) economic systems, thoroughly world-defined rules systems and "realistic" wound recovery).