Response to recent article by James Wyatt on DMG

[wrightdjohn]

While I love 4e and plan on playing it regularly, I personally feel the DM philosophy on many fronts has been downhill. I guess I much prefer that than the opposite.. good DM philosophy and bad game.

James Wyatt makes the point that the ability of player characters to get their hands on any magic item they want is essential to the game. Well if I really felt that way then my D&D career would be over. I've been running very popular campaigns most of my life (I'm 40) and I think allowing players to create any magic item in the game is insanity.

Now if you read the 1st edition DMG, and dragon articles of the time, controlling magic items was one of the most important jobs any DM had. A slip up in that area would ruin many a campaign. Now in 4th its... be ready DM.. any item in the book could be coming your way after the group cashes in after their next adventure.

I couldn't disagree with this whole philosophy more. Why the game rules don't just leave that up to the DM with perhaps some examples and some guidance on how to do it either way. I'm not wanting to tell other players and other campaigns how to operate. I do though think that there are a heck of a lot of DMs out there who feel the way I do. I know some don't but many do. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it was a majority but its a large group either way. My personal, and anecdotal experience, is 100% of the DMs I know would not want this approach.

The cries against magic mart was not the flavor.. it was the free exchanging of gold for any magic item. James Wyatt seems to have misunderstood this disagreement as an all flavor disagreement.


So whats kind of houserule fix would work for this?

1. Every magic item type has its own recipe. If you do not know the recipe you can not create that item.
2. Recipes are hoarded and kept secret and are incredibly difficult and expensive to research. Any item the DM does not want can just never be "discovered"

take care...

 

[Heselbine]

James Wyatt makes the point that the ability of player characters to get their hands on any magic item they want is essential to the game.

Have you got a link? This seems a bit of a bizarre thing to say.

Do bear in mind however that in 4e magic items are a whole lot less unbalancing than they were in previous editions.

 

[Danzauker]

I don't think that was the point.

Actually, in all editions, magic items have always been a prominent feature of D&D.

Players look ahead to get some uber-cool magic item. Heck, in older editions Paladins were actually EXPECTED to get a Holy Avenger!!

What I think he meant was that a DM should listen to what his players want, and try to shape a bit his campaign around their goals.

Just like a DM tries to make the PCs backgrounds integral to the plot, so I think it's good to find out if a player really would like to get a Staff of the Magi and have him find it, at the appropriate time, and maybe after a good quest.

This has nothing to do with game balance, of course. Magic item levels are there for that purpose.

D&D is at the core a cohoperative game, and in my experience it works best when DM and players concord on the goals and direction of the campaign.

 

[arcanaman]

True Cyric but Remeber your the prince of lies while they maybe it doesn't

mean a player can not invent way to do so during an adventure as I've

seen many a time.

 

[erik_the_guy]

Do bear in mind however that in 4e magic items are a whole lot less unbalancing than they were in previous editions.

You are absolutely right. In 3e PCs in my campaigns with any magic items they wanted would have magical mythril shirt, magical shield, and gloves of dex for an essentially unhitable AC by level 10. All the monsters in the DMG could destroy any of the other party members just to make them balanced against the fighter. (Fighter's weren't completely broken, just one of my players was good at power gaming).

In 4e the items are far less game breaking. Magic armor and sheilds don't stack, there are more restrictions on teleportation/invisibilty/flight, no ability boosting items, one effect per enchanted peice of equipment, etc...
The reason the player's can have any item they want is that the items are better balanced than previous editions, and in general they will not effect the campaign aside from some minor combat modifiers.

Of course when it comes to magic items that make you permenantly invisible, let you walk through walls, or slay ancient dragons (i.e. artifacts) the DM still has complete control.

I don't see what the problem is. Most players have daily powers that are far better than any magic item they can acquire. Let them buy what they want, and let them find what you think they want. You don't need to drop a magic longsword for the longsword weilding fighter, just dont drop a magic wand if the party has no wizard.

 

[Terwox]

My personal, and anecdotal experience, is 100% of the DMs I know would not want this approach.

Bah. I ran it this way in 3E.

4E is a large step up.

Anyway, if you read the rest of the system, it actually is already balanced your way.

Magic items sell for, or disenchant into, 1/5th of their value. So, if you want to create custom items, you're burning 80% of your magic item allotment. If you really want a frost weapon, but all you've got is a +2 fiery weapon, you're going to end up with a +1 frost weapon. (And a little left over.)

So, yes. The players have control over the crappy end of their item spectrum. Big deal. They can't make anything greater than their own level, and they get loaded down with items better than that in the course of normal adventuring. Item creation kind of stinks.

I assumed you were crying foul at the wishlist scenario presented in the DMG.

 

[Regicide]

The items SO FAR are less powerful. They're simply not as cool or as fun to get, and don't change the game as much. I mean heck, I wouldn't even WANT the Vecna items now.

 

[DracoSuave]

The items SO FAR are less powerful. They're simply not as cool or as fun to get, and don't change the game as much. I mean heck, I wouldn't even WANT the Vecna items now.

Not even the Head of Vecna?



Somehow I could see myself playing a character who collects +1 swords.

See, the thing is, magic sword +1 doesn't exist in any treasure parcel (the minimum is level 2 item) so you'll never see one adventuring, and crafting magic items is a higher level ritual, so there's no reason to make a magic sword +1....

...making them a rare and valuable collectors item!

 

[Tellerve]

In 4e the items are far less game breaking. Magic armor and sheilds don't stack,

I can't find where that is stated. I see that shields have a shield bonus and armor and armor bonus and normally they stack. Why wouldn't enchanted versions stack?

Tellerve

 

[Oompa]

Not even the Head of Vecna?



Somehow I could see myself playing a character who collects +1 swords.

See, the thing is, magic sword +1 doesn't exist in any treasure parcel (the minimum is level 2 item) so you'll never see one adventuring, and crafting magic items is a higher level ritual, so there's no reason to make a magic sword +1....

...making them a rare and valuable collectors item!

Well.. you dont need to use the treasure parcel, and an level 2 character starts with an lvl 1, 2, 3 item.. so could be lvl 1 weapon.. just what the dm would like...