Worlds of Design: When There's Too Many Magic Items

If you’ve GMed a long-standing campaign where players reached fairly high levels, you may have run into problems of too much magic, or of too many low-powered magic items (such as +1 items) in the hands of the heroes. What to do?


While you could simply buy up the surplus, there are other ways that don’t put lots of gold in character’s hands. These methods can be built into a game’s rules (as in Pathfinder 2 “resonance”) or they can be added by the GM.
[h=3]Limit the Supply (i.e., limit ownership)[/h] The proper game design way is to severely limit supply, as could be done in a board game. No magic item sales. Middle-earth is an example of a world with very few magic items.

But what about joint campaigns, where several people GM in the same world? New GMs, especially, will tend to give away too much “to make people happy.”

But that’s a setting thing, not rules/mechanisms. An RPG designer doesn’t control the setting, not even his or her own.

In these days where “loot drops” are the norm, where every enemy in a computer RPG has loot, it’s really hard to get players accustomed to a severe shortage of stuff to find. So limit usage, or provide ways to use up the small stuff.
[h=3]Limit Usage[/h]
  • Tuning to just three (5e D&D)
  • Resonance
  • Easy to come up with other methods
5e D&D’s tuning of magic items to characters is one of the best rules in the game, at least from a designer’s point of view.

Pathfinder 2 beta was using resonance (level plus charisma), whereby use of a magic item uses up some of your resonance for the day, until you have no more and can use no more magic until the next day. It was more complex than that, with you “investing” in items that could then be used all day. There are lots of ways to use the idea.
[h=3]Destroy Them[/h] The D&D method was fireball or LB with failed saving throw. But that was so all-or-nothing that even I didn’t like it. Moreover, the tougher characters tend to end up with even more magic items, relative to others, because they fail their save less often; that may not be desirable.

Have everything (most, anyway) wear out. This is a hassle if you have to track something like charges or uses. I assign a dice chance (or use a standard one for a type of item), and the player rolls after each use (or I do, so the player won’t know until the next time they try to use the item). When the “1" comes up, the item is done, finis, kaput (unless you allow it to be “recharged”). For example, 1 in 20 failure rate is obvious; roll a 1 on a d20, that’s it. With two dice you can make 1 in 40, 1 in 50, whatever you want. If you want armor, shields, and other passive defensive items to wear out, rolling once per combat might do.
[h=3]Burn Them Up[/h]
  • My Skyrafts
  • Furnace Helms in Spelljammer
  • Rituals?
I devised something called Skyrafts, made of segments of Skystone (of course), that could slowly fly when powered by magic items. So you could sacrifice something like a +1 sword to get X miles of travel, X being whatever a GM wishes. The more segments (carrying capacity) in the Skyraft, the more magic it consumed. Yes, this could be expensive, but if your world has become infested with +1 items, this is a way to get rid of them.

Furnace Helms in SpellJammer accomplish the same thing, but only if you’re running a Spelljammer campaign.

You could also devise powerful ritual spells that consume magic items.
[h=3]“Enforcers”[/h] These are people who seek out wimpy characters with magic items much too powerful for them, and take them away. I don’t do this, as it doesn’t make much sense to me. But it could in some contexts.

I'm sure others have devised yet more ways to limit the influence of magic items.

This article was contributed by Lewis Pulsipher (lewpuls) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. You can follow Lew on his web site and his Udemy course landing page. If you enjoy the daily news and articles from EN World, please consider contributing to our Patreon!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
Just a few random thoughts.

1. Loot drops, as you call them have been around since the game started. Monty Haul is a very old term, so we can't blame video games. Your comment on new gms wanting to please is more accurate.

2. We have to blame the game as well. D&D is structured around killing monsters and taking their stuff. Magic is, by far, the most interesting stuff. I have found when I run D&D with less combat, more intrigue, the desire for gold and magic drops, but not completely!

3. My favourite method for limiting magic items comes from 13th Age. All permanent magic items have quirks, because all magic items have at least some degree of sentience. If players have more items than their level can handle, they are overwhe!med, and start taking on the quirks. A "sword of aggression", for example, might cause the wielder to have less control over his temper. The designers had another great idea for reducing magic items. Because they are intelligent, an item could sacrifice itself to save a player, if she is about to die. The player might be annoyed at losing a favoured magic item, but the alternative is a lot worse. I like this idea, as it lets you save a player, who would otherwise die, or can give the gm an excuse to kill off an item, if a player is annoying everyone by taking on quirks, in order to have more goodies.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The "no 'I' in team" is also a common misconception. It's a lower-case "i" hiding in the negative space of the "A," as detailed in red below:

***+***+***+*****
+*++*+++***+*+*+*
+*++***+***+*+*+*
+*++*+++***+*+*+*
+*++***+***+*+*+*


:)
Johnathan
 

This assumes that the magic item pricing actually reflects the item's utility value - 3e's system tried to do this but had some pretty notable failures (mainly every Big 6 item vs any situational item).
3e's item values were in some cases OK and in others completely out to lunch. Were I ever to run a 3e/PF game (highly unlikely!) I'd re-do item values from top to bottom before play began.

1e's item values aren't perfect either, but they're a bit closer to the mark overall than 3e.

The way things generally run in the games I play in is we go by consensus. Someone proposes a few magic item assignments and we discuss what makes the most sense for the party as a whole. We eyeball things to make sure that nobody is being neglected, but if there are occasional imbalances because there are only items that make sense for one of the PCs, we're generally OK with it and work on balancing things in the long run. It helps that we've been playing together for years and trust each other as players, but, frankly, I have no desire to play with groups that take a more rigid or competitive approach.
Most of the time, the characters in our games tend to be more or less a team while in the field and mostly individualists when in town; and as treasury is divided in town that means individual greed comes to the fore...even if the intent is to then spend that money on or for the benefit of someone else! Everyone has their own goals and ambitions which may or may not have anything to do with what the party's doing...for example ye olde stereotypical fighter saving up to build her stronghold is realistically going to want to max out her share, as is the cleric trying to build a temple or the MU needing gobs of bribe money in order to get a seat in the Roman Senate.

In the end, equalized shares become the only way to go if one doesn't want to DM a massive argument between each adventure.

It also helps in your system if your players are vaguely equal in their vociferousness or lack thereof, which mine aren't.
 

3e's item values were in some cases OK and in others completely out to lunch. Were I ever to run a 3e/PF game (highly unlikely!) I'd re-do item values from top to bottom before play began.

1e's item values aren't perfect either, but they're a bit closer to the mark overall than 3e.

In my opinion, very few of 3e's magic item prices were accurate. I had to re-price virtually all items that came up for sale, and virtually all items that the players tried to sell.
 

The "no 'I' in team" is also a common misconception. It's a lower-case "i" hiding in the negative space of the "A," as detailed in red below:

***+***+***+*****
+*++*+++***+*+*+*
+*++***+***+*+*+*
+*++*+++***+*+*+*
+*++***+***+*+*+*


:)
Johnathan

You weren't the first to try this. Read the backposts. :)
 

Most of the time, the characters in our games tend to be more or less a team while in the field and mostly individualists when in town; and as treasury is divided in town

Town? Treasure is divided ASAP as you don't know you even will make it to town and using the magic items to get to town is important.

Also, my of the games I played, the party was a team at all times. Divvying treasure was always a team-first proposition. YMMV
 

Town? Treasure is divided ASAP as you don't know you even will make it to town and using the magic items to get to town is important.
The problem with dividing (and using) treasure ASAP is that you risk triggering nasty curses or side effects when there's no other resources around to help you deal with them*. That said, items do get distributed in the field if only so we know who is carrying what; and some of them do get used but they all remain as party-owned. Once back in town the whole treasury - magic, non-magic, cash - gets divided, identified, evaluated, and individuals can then claim items they might want as part of their share.

* - we don't subscribe to this nonsense of auto-identification of magic item properties in any way, with the very rare exception of items that are themselves intelligent enough and communicative enough to actually tell you what they do. To find out what an item does you have to field-test it (which can be risky), or use a Bard's "Item Knowledge" ability if she has it (which might get you some info), or cast Identify (which usually gets you lots of info but has costs attached).

Also, my of the games I played, the party was a team at all times. Divvying treasure was always a team-first proposition. YMMV
MM most certainly does V. :)
 

In the old days, at sufficient level the wizard had room for Identify. In modern days, cursed items rarely exist. And remove curse is just a day away for most parties after 5th level.
 

Disallowing magic item trade is very immersion breaking and very hard to justify.

Since millenia people have engaged in trade as long as there are two persons who want what the others have and it is not feasible to kill the other.
Excempting magical items from this makes no sense at all.

D&D has the problem that there is no item progression besides magic. When was the last edition where your players were overjoyed to find a well made plate armor to replace their scale mail with? By now you basically start out with the best mundane gear you can get or are certain to get it very soon.
 

Because that's what players A & B chose to make?
If you're playing in a game where magic swords are comparatively rare, the players should coordinate so that they don't find themselves in a situation where one has a magic sword and the other does not. That's all I'm saying. A small amount of basic consideration for the other players at the table can overcome the issue.

If they're new players, and they don't have experience with lower-magic settings, then the DM can point it out to them. There's no reason to nerf magical swords, just because of the off-chance that a party can't coordinate.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top