Standard DM behavior?

[delericho]

Is this normal practice? I've been gone from the game for some time and I'm relearning but I always remembered the DMs letting you use your gold as you wanted to - as long as it was legally acquired.

This was more or less standard practice in 1st and 2nd Edition, much less common in 3e, less common still in 3.5e, and certainly not standard in 4e.

However, there are two other factors at work:

1) When you purchase a magic item, especially one from a supplement, you should probably inform your DM(s) of what it is and what it does, as a courtesy if nothing more. It must really suck to put lots of work into a storyline, only to see it trashed by an unforeseen item power.

2) That said, the DM(s) need to take PC powers and capabilities (including magic items) into account when preparing. If they did know about the item before introducing this plot item, then they goofed, and have nobody to blame but themselves.

Fundamentally, you need to talk to your DM(s) about this. The players and the DM(s) really need to be on the same page about things like this... and it's really not right for them to unilaterally impose a restriction of this sort on the game in mid-stream.

It's also worth pointing out to them that it's not the "Adventurer's Vault" that's causing the problem here. It's one particular item you happened to have. If they're going to ban that, then they're probably also going to have to ban "Martial Power" and other supplements for exactly the same reasons.

(Of course, in 3e I always completely banned anything from any supplement I didn't personally own, and always advised others to do likewise. However, 3e had more balance issues than 4e... such a move might not be required in the new edition.)

 

[Dannager]

It strikes me as heavy-handed and poorly handled, but I can see where the DM is coming from. Basically, it's a conflict between the DM's reluctance to audit the players' every niggling purchase and the DM's need to know the players' capabilities when planning encounters and puzzles. If you design an elaborate quest to find someone who can translate an inscription, and one of the players busts out a magic translating device right at the start, that's a lot of work down the tubes and a table full of players staring at you while you scramble for something else to do that evening.

(While I support rewarding player ingenuity, buying a magic item does not strike me as ingenious.)

That's the problem, though. The "puzzle" wasn't ingenious either. It wasn't magically warded to prevent magical translation (which, actually, is easily something the DM could have added on the spot - they try to use Comprehend Languages? The warding foils the ritual, etc.), it wasn't in a cipher or otherwise encrypted. It was just another language.

It was much worse in 3E and previous. Back then, you had to watch every spellcaster like a hawk, or they'd whip out random utility spell #248 and bypass the whole damn adventure. This was one of the driving forces behind "core-only" games. 4E has dramatically reduced the number of potential plot-smashers - for the most part, all you have to worry about nowadays are magic items and ritual spells - but the problem is really inevitable in D&D's splatbook-driven sales model.

Except that the biggest plot-smashers in 3e (and the one in question in 4e) were in the core books.

 

[the Jester]

This was more or less standard practice in 1st and 2nd Edition, much less common in 3e, less common still in 3.5e, and certainly not standard in 4e.

I don't know that I agree that restricting item purchases is not standard in 4e. It certainly is in my game, and in most of the games I've played in, seen and heard about (not counting on the Intarweb).

Regardless, again, it's a playstyle choice.

I'll ignore the "That's an excuse for being a bad dm!!!1!!" comment, thank you. That makes it sound like restricting the purchase of magic items in the campaign is badwrongfun. Well, I certainly wouldn't want to encourage that.

 

[Greg K]

Yes, we do.).

No we don't. There is not enough information.

1. You may not like having a scroll written in another language. That is playstyle decision. However, it is not an uncommon trope.

2. For all we know, the DMs could have been unhappy, because the OP overstepped his bounds by purchasing items from the Adventurer's Vault out of game. If so, the situation simply led the DMs to clarify their positions on the purchase of items from either AV specfically or magic items in general.


3. Was the OP prevented from having his character read it? The OP says he derailed the planned adventure which doesn't sound like the DM told him no. If the DM allowed the player to read it, then that was good on his part. I have actually gamed with a DM in the past that would have said, "No, its bad for the plot line. Therefore, you can't read it".

 

[Greg K]

delete

 

[jbear]

*scratches head

how does a situation like this even occur. Why would a magic shop even have everything in it. I can underststand a shop being able to get hold of most low level items fairly easily given a bit of time. But the DM is in conrol of the flow and availability of magic items. if they didn't want you to have access to that item then all they had to say that it wasn't part of stock, don't have it, don't know wheer to get it etc...

personally, I'm not a stingy DM. I give out treasure parcels in accordance with the DM guidelines. Don't do wish lists (I want a sword ... fine. I want x sword, rather not), but I do try and give out useful cool stuff. And then I go over and above the guidelines a bit if the players are clever. Magic shops exist, but not every shop has everything. And if an item I gave out comes back to bite me in the butt... well so be it, and good on whoever did it.

and having soemthing so simple as language being an important part to any puzzle... pretty questionable. I would quietly applaud my players gatting around a problem like that so efficiently. as many people have pointed out, comprehend languages is one of the most common low level rituals there is. All the player has done is save time and money in the long run with a wise investment. nerfing the entire content of AV because of an item that can read languages???

*scratches head

 

[delericho]

It probably would have been better if the text had been encrypted. I can't see a good justification for Comprehend Languages translating what amounts to an intentionally-obscured coded message.

Well, if language is just a codified means of transferring information, then a cipher can be considered to translate that information from one language to another, albeit a custom language that is not widely understood. Certainly, there's an argument for that applying to simple ciphers (the Caesar cipher, for example, merely translates into a language of all-new words - the grammar even remains the same).

Of course, this is perhaps less true of more complex codes. But would a fantasy world have an equivalent of the Enigma cipher? (Or, conversely, would they not have spells/rituals developed precisely to break such codes?)

(Hmm... I think that gives me the seed for that Eberron one-shot I was wanting to run...)

I'm just thinking out loud of course (or it's message board equivalent). I think the answer to all of the above is "that would be a DM call"... and that means you go with whatever makes for the most fun.

 

[delericho]

I'll ignore the "That's an excuse for being a bad dm!!!1!!" comment, thank you.

Did I make such a comment? I certainly didn't mean to!

I do think they shouldn't change the availability of items in the middle of the campaign, though. Certainly without at least discussing it with the players.

 

[Dausuul]

That's the problem, though. The "puzzle" wasn't ingenious either. It wasn't magically warded to prevent magical translation (which, actually, is easily something the DM could have added on the spot - they try to use Comprehend Languages? The warding foils the ritual, etc.), it wasn't in a cipher or otherwise encrypted. It was just another language.

The inscription is not a puzzle. It's an obstacle. We don't know whether there were ingenious puzzles set up for the players to solve as a way of overcoming the obstacle, since the obstacle was bypassed via magic.

I will concede that expecting language to serve as an effective barrier in D&D is rather naive; translation magic is far too easily available and always has been. Which is a bit unfortunate, really, since mysterious ancient runes are a cool trope, and it makes the Linguist feat kind of worthless.

Except that the biggest plot-smashers in 3e (and the one in question in 4e) were in the core books.

The part about 3E is true, but the point is that even if you squashed the ones in core, new ones would keep popping up in splatbooks. You had to a) audit every splatbook for problem items and spells, b) impose blanket restrictions ("no long-range teleportation effects") and hope they covered everything you needed covered, or c) ban splatbooks.

And Adventurer's Vault is not core in the sense of "core-only," meaning the PHB, DMG, and Monster Manual. The whole point of "core-only" is to exclude splatbooks and establish a stable, predictable environment. WotC may be pushing their "everything is core" baloney as a way to boost sales, but all that really means is that we'll need a new name for "core-only."

 

[the Jester]

Did I make such a comment? I certainly didn't mean to!

Fair enough.

I do think they shouldn't change the availability of items in the middle of the campaign, though. Certainly without at least discussing it with the players.

Sure, but it sounds to me like the players just assumed that they could spend money on anything in any book anywhere at any time.

Let's put it this way- is it unreasonable for the dm to say, "No, you can't buy magic items while you're in a dungeon"?

Is it unreasonable to say, "No, there aren't any magic items for sale in a town of 100 people"?

Now, if the dm hasn't said this, does it make it reasonable for a pc to assume that he can buy magic items in a dungeon? A village? Where's the line, and who decides?

Well, the line is drawn somewhere based on playstyle, and the dm is the one that draws it. So if the discussion hasn't happened, the pcs shouldn't assume that they know where it is. At least, not without asking the dm.