# Andy Collins: "Most Magic Items in D&D Are Awful"



## I'm A Banana (Mar 11, 2007)

It's a bit old, but I haven't seen much discussion on this: Design and Development

I think it reveals a key component about the necessity of magic items in D&D...specifically, which magic items are necessary, and how they end up crowding out "interesting" magic with their simple utility. It also displays elements of GP cost that I think are key: many magic items cost more than they should, forcing them into higher-level campaigns than they need to be in (and where they need to compete with powerful magic weapons and armor for "screen time" on a character).

The "big six" are, indeed, pretty much the only magic items I see PC's using or wanting (combined with the occasional high-level class-specific items). And it's good to see this book is going to help address that....perhaps.... 

So, discuss. Do most magic items in D&D suck? Are characters overly dependent on boring +x bonuses? Are Andy Collins, et al, encouraging munchkin min-maxing when they drop the price of some magic items by over half? Or are they trying to design magic items that will actually be used, in addition to the Big Six?


----------



## Nifft (Mar 11, 2007)

I think that elimination of the "big six" will be my new secret design agenda.

 -- N


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Mar 11, 2007)

By big six, do you mean stats?

I think they have to render Cloaks of Resistance and the myriad AC boosting items irrelevant as well before magic items stop taking over the game. Sometimes it felt like playing Diablo or Angband!


----------



## Nifft (Mar 11, 2007)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> By big six, do you mean stats?




There was a link up there, you know. 



			
				WotC Article said:
			
		

> Instead, the majority of a character’s item slots are spent on what I call the “Big Six”:
> 
> Magic weapon
> Magic armor & shield
> ...


----------



## Corinth (Mar 11, 2007)

To think that magic items have the same problem as the spells from which they derive?  Not shocking.  Simple, utilitarian magic always trumps the highly-specialized stuff when talking about everyday use; you keep the special-case spells on scrolls/wands/staves for when you need them, just like the items.  Magic is just another toolset, folks.  This result shouldn't surprise anyone.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 11, 2007)

> I think that elimination of the "big six" will be my new secret design agenda.




I did this in FFZ by linking these bonuses directly to character advancement: everybody gains +x to hit, to damage, to saves, to ability scores, etc. as they level up, so you don't need to buy magic items to give you this boost. Instead, magic items are more interesting.


----------



## MarkB (Mar 11, 2007)

There's certainly a lot of truth there. One of the only non-core magic items that sees regular use with all my characters is _Complete Arcane_'s Vest of Resistance. Why? Because an item that costs the same as the Cloak of Resistance, but takes up the rarely-used Vest slot instead of the Cloak slot is extremely valuable to almost any class, opening up the possibility of using a more unusual Cloak instead of dedicating that slot to improving saving throws.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 11, 2007)

I agree comletely - I find D&D's magic items to be dull, mechanical boosters,


----------



## FullTinCan (Mar 11, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I did this in FFZ by linking these bonuses directly to character advancement: everybody gains +x to hit, to damage, to saves, to ability scores, etc. as they level up, so you don't need to buy magic items to give you this boost. Instead, magic items are more interesting.




Do you have the progression for this?


----------



## Woas (Mar 11, 2007)

I agree with the article in general. Some magic items are just too good. I've been in games where if the players could not get a pair of Gloves of Dex +2 or Headband of Wisdom +4 (the DM was being realistic and not letting people use the back of the DMG as a Sear's Catalog of Magic gear), they were openly frustrated with the game because they felt their character was inadequate somehow. Even though there were plenty of other magic items available to them that they never wanted to use or figure out.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Mar 11, 2007)

I'd agree, though what I'd prefer to see happen in the long run, are rules like the FFZ ones mentioned above, where when a PC levels, they can choose an inherent boost from a small list of abilities that resembles the Big Six. The amount of treasure gained per level goes way down, and all the things you *can* buy/find, etc. are actually interesting and cool, and your character only has a few of them.

In fact, with all the design and development gurus over at WotC, I'm surprised that a rules variant like this hasn't been released already -- it'd satisfy a lot of DMs and players, I think.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 11, 2007)

> Do you have the progression for this?




Kind of. I've adapted it to FFZ's level and statistic progression (you can see examples of it in the thread in my sig), and I've evened out the spread so it happens gradually over the course of your levels, rather than in simple bursts. But, in a simplified form, it can look like this:

Level 1: Nothing
Level 2: +1 Attack and Damage
Level 3: +1 Saves
Level 4: +1 AC and DR
Level 5: +2 Ability Score A
Level 6: Nothing
Level 7: +2 Attack/Damage
Level 8: +2 Saves
Level 9: +2 AC and DR
Level 10: +2 Ability Score B
Level 11: Nothing
Level 12: +3 Attack/Damage
Level 13: +3 Saves
Level 14: +3 AC/DR
Level 15: +4 Ability Score A
Level 16: Nothing
Level 17: +4 Attack/Damage
Level 18: +4 Saves
Level 19: +4 AC/DR
Level 20: +4 Ability Score B
...etc.

These are all inherent to FFZ characters -- there's no items you need to wear to gain these bonuses. They're all Enhancement bonuses. If you go with equivalent item cost, it means that low-level characters are kind of potent (most 2nd-level characters can't afford a +1 weapon, usually), but it evens out pretty quickly (by about 5th level).


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 11, 2007)

Partly, this just shows to me the problem inherent in making magic items comodities which can be freely sold or purchased at thier value.  

Partly this just shows to me just how narrow most DM's campaigns must be if the good stuff basically just means, "What helps me most often in a straight up pitched conflict"  Where are the rings of featherfall?  The water breathing items?  The necklaces of adaptation?  The items confering energy resistance?  Where are the items that confer flight?

Partly this is just hyberbole.  The situation is not nearly so bad as he suggests for the purposes of the article, as I don't believe that lots of other classics are truly gone from the game nor do I believe that the list he presented truly represents a great departure from earlier editions of the game except to the extent that in earlier editions of the game you were much less likely to be able to fill up your slots they way you ideally wanted to.  I can remember having 10th and 12th level characters with open slots and weapons not really more powerful than those possessed by 6th and 7th level characters in this edition.


----------



## Particle_Man (Mar 11, 2007)

Interestingly, both the Iron Heroes game system and the Vow of Poverty within Book of Exalted Deeds have similar "Advancements instead of magic items", although the vow gives you some other cool stuff too.


----------



## Sir Elton (Mar 11, 2007)

The best magic items are the most flavorful.

After all, who would want the Lamp of the Annoying Djinn!  I would, said Djinn would jump to conclusions and tempt me with certain things that I might desire.

How about the Ring of Three Wishes?  That's an awesome item!!

Maybe a serpent's ring.  How about the Rod of Wonder?


----------



## blargney the second (Mar 11, 2007)

I love the Design & Development series.  I like this particular group of articles about magic items, and think that there are some very good points being raised.

However, I don't like the scathingly negative tone that Andy is using.  Hindsight is 20/20, but he's using it to denigrate the work done by himself, his co-workers, and his company.  They did the best they could given the information they had at the time.  If new data has become available, that doesn't warrant publicly skewering them to promote sales of a new product.

-blarg


----------



## jrients (Mar 11, 2007)

_Most_ magic items are not awful, but the standard array of items that players will buy or make if they can are boring.

I plan on addressing this in my next campaign by using a les sparsely populated world than the DMG suggests is the standard.  No item above 3000gp in value will be available for purchase because no town on the campaign map will be big enough to support more than that.  Also I'm going to try very hard to make the items the PCs find to be more interesting than the mechanically optimal stuff they might prefer.

But if a PC takes the right feats and wants to make the same old maguc junk, that's their business.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 11, 2007)

Celebrim pretty much summed up my reaction to that article


----------



## jmucchiello (Mar 11, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Partly, this just shows to me the problem inherent in making magic items comodities which can be freely sold or purchased at thier value.



I've played early editions of D&D in this manner. People had funky items.


> Partly this just shows to me just how narrow most DM's campaigns must be if the good stuff basically just means, "What helps me most often in a straight up pitched conflict"  Where are the rings of featherfall?  The water breathing items?  The necklaces of adaptation?  The items confering energy resistance?



These cost as much as +2 or +4 to an ability. Which is better occasionally falling and geting a little damage or +2 to hit +2 on damage every attack? Remeber falling damage has not changed but characters have far more hit points than they use to.


> Where are the items that confer flight?



Like the spells, all of these items were nerfed.


> nor do I believe that the list he presented truly represents a great departure from earlier editions of the game except to the extent that in earlier editions of the game you were much less likely to be able to fill up your slots they way you ideally wanted to.



Actually, in early editions there were no items to easily boost Con, Int, or Cha. The strength items were awesome, put the gauntlet of ogre power on the wizard and he's suddenly as strong as Conan he gets the +3/+6 bonus regardless of not being a fighter. But gauntlets of Dexterity merely boosted a 14+ dex by 1. So the reason they didn't dominate earlier editions is they didn't exist in earlier editions. Again, same as the spell.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 11, 2007)

Interesting articles - they sure do reflect the campaigns I've been in.

I'm looking forward to getting the Magic Item Compendium to see how they addressed the issue.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Mar 11, 2007)

I can see the points about the "big six", but without a rules overhaul (like the level bonuses mentioned previously) certain classes do require some of those six items to stay balanced with the other classes.

I played a fighter (sword and board) in a low magic campaign and quickly found that BAB and feats alone weren't enough to keep the fighter viable for very long compared to the classes with scaling class abilities.  It wasn't that my fighter couldn't participate, but he couldn't fill his niche well as an effective melee combatant.

To be fair, I didn't realize how dependent that fighter would be on magic items, and I could have built him to be more effective if I'd had more experience outlining character progressions.


----------



## prosfilaes (Mar 11, 2007)

Woas said:
			
		

> I've been in games where if the players could not get a pair of Gloves of Dex +2 or Headband of Wisdom +4 (the DM was being realistic and not letting people use the back of the DMG as a Sear's Catalog of Magic gear),




Realistically, the reason players want them is the same reason characters want them is the same reason they'd get made. Stat boosts are useful for anyone, and just about everyone here probably has a stat-boosting item they'd jump at if they were real. I don't care how dorky it would make me look; I'd constantly wear a Headband of Intellect. Any wizard who could make one would make one for himself if he couldn't get a better one elsewhere, and would be in demand among other wizards for Headbands.

But a lot of the other stuff is a lot less interesting. A ring of feather fall would only be in demand by those who suspect they might fall (rock climbers, acrobats). A ring of water breathing would only be in heavy demand by people who took scuba lessons (non-magical water breating.) Etc, etc. (Being forced to cut this short.)


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 11, 2007)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> These cost as much as +2 or +4 to an ability. Which is better occasionally falling and geting a little damage or +2 to hit +2 on damage every attack?




Not drowning.  

In my experience, things which give you an absolute advantage are more important than things that give you a relative advantage.  An item that gives you +2 to hit, +2 to damage only gives you a relative advantage, particularly compared to an ordinary +1 magic item.  An item on the other hand which gives you a complete pass on common hazards - drowning, falling, heat, disease, etc. - gives you an absolute advantage.  If you have to choose one or the other, choose the absolute advantage and sacrifice a bit of relative advantage.  

As for a flying item, its not important that it lets you fly for a long time.  If you can fly for just 5 minutes a day, that's just huge.


----------



## IceFractal (Mar 11, 2007)

See I like niche items, but I often do tend toward getting the utilitarian ones, for a couple reasons.

First off - they're always on, not limited uses per day or charged.  I don't really like single use or even limited use items, because they tend to either get hoarded against theoretical future emergencies, or wasted when they weren't really needed.  That ring of three wishes - sounds great, but you just tied up a large chunk of wealth in an item that you'll always be wondering whether to use, and will probably regret using when you do.

Secondly, as mentioned in the article, they don't require time to activate.  Quite important in the case of ambushes.

And third, most of the interesting niche items are highly overpriced.  I'll see stuff like an item that gives you a fairly minor bonus for a few minutes a day, and costs as much as a +2 stat item.  That is not a good buy, unless you only fight one battle a day and know about it ahead of time.


----------



## The Human Target (Mar 11, 2007)

I run campaigns that are pretty varied and usually only have one main combat and maybe one or two minor ones per 5 hour session.

My players tend to carry a lot of the more odd "non-Big Six" magic items, because I usually leave a lot of them as treasure. 

But at the end of the day, they keep the cloaks of resistance and Rings of Protection etc on as their default gear if they have them. 

Because they have a lot bigger chance of being attacked by owlbears in the forest and needing a strong AC than they do falling into a giant water pit and needing to breath.

Its just logical.

And add onto the fact that characters really do need the big six items as the game is currently designed.

Stat out two exactly identical 12th level fighters. Give one the standard Bix Six items for his level. Give the other none of them, and equip him with more miscellaneous magic. See which one on average lives longer, hits more, and for all intents and purpose is the "better" fighter. The first one is going to win out unless the DM caters situational to his gear.

Compare a Cloak of the Manta Ray ( 7,200 gp) to a Cloak of Resistance +2 (4,000 gp.)

Unless in a game heavily inclined to salt water encounters, the Cloak of Resistance is going to see literally a thousand times more use. And its 3,200 gp cheaper. 

I do think that random +something items get tedious. The same way I get bored with random +something feats, and class abilities etc.

But thats the way its currently designed.


----------



## kenobi65 (Mar 11, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> In my experience, things which give you an absolute advantage are more important than things that give you a relative advantage.




But, all of the "absolute advantage" items that you name protect you against things that may or may not come up in a particular adventure.

Necklace of adaptation?  A *wonderful* item on adventures where you encounter poison gas or similar hazards; no use at all in others.  Depending on the campaign, it might be something that's useful on a regular basis, or only once in a blue moon.

Belt of giant strength?  If you're a melee combatant, useful every time you're in a fight.


----------



## Endur (Mar 11, 2007)

I like the part where the half-orc barbarian with an intelligence of 8, wisdom of 6, and charisma of 6 gets the same price for his magic items as the bard with int 14 and charasima 16.  Not only that, but the half-orc knows exactly which magic items he wants to buy.


----------



## cthulhu_duck (Mar 11, 2007)

I'm surprised that the big six is missing bags of holding or other such devices.

They seem to be amid the top three in my local gaming.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Mar 11, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Partly this just shows to me just how narrow most DM's campaigns must be if the good stuff basically just means, "What helps me most often in a straight up pitched conflict"  Where are the rings of featherfall?  The water breathing items?  The necklaces of adaptation?  The items confering energy resistance?  Where are the items that confer flight?




In general, the lack of available slots means you have to make a very hard choice about what to spend your gold and/or the party caster's XP on.  The extra +1 to hit and damage on my sword is likely going to see far more use than a Ring of Feather Fall.  Even then, that can be built into another item, it's cheap enough.  I almost always get an unslotted Necklace of Adaptation, because it's dang useful, but if the DM cared about that sort of thing, I'd hold my breath and go with my Periapt of Wisdom instead.

Brad


----------



## drothgery (Mar 11, 2007)

Endur said:
			
		

> I like the part where the half-orc barbarian with an intelligence of 8, wisdom of 6, and charisma of 6 gets the same price for his magic items as the bard with int 14 and charasima 16.  Not only that, but the half-orc knows exactly which magic items he wants to buy.




The low-mental-stat half-orc barbarian gets a flaming greatsword +2, belt of giant strength, and cloak of resistance because that's what all the mighty warriors in every saga he ever heard wore. Or because his fellow adventurers advised him, or even crafted the items for their meatshield devoted friend and ally.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 11, 2007)

> Partly this just shows to me just how narrow most DM's campaigns must be if the good stuff basically just means, "What helps me most often in a straight up pitched conflict" Where are the rings of featherfall? The water breathing items? The necklaces of adaptation? The items confering energy resistance? Where are the items that confer flight?




As it sits now, if you want someone to use a ring of feather falling instead of a +1 weapon, you have to have them being dealt falling damage at least as often as they are swinging a sword to hit.

THEN, it's worth it.


----------



## Shroomy (Mar 11, 2007)

Most Wondrous Items (and the problem is mostly with Wondrous Items) that are not part of the Big Six just kind of suck (at least those in the DMG).  They are too niche orientated, they often do not have interesting abilities, and they are way overpriced for the benefits received.  Reducing the associated costs would make it easier for DMs to justify adding them to NPC equipment/treasure, it would reduce the amount of gold that PCs could generate by selling items, and would encourage PCs to create niche items when and if they are needed.  Personally, I don't see a much of an issue here, but I will reserve judgement until I actually get a chance to see the _Magic Item Compendium_.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 11, 2007)

cthulhu_duck said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that the big six is missing bags of holding or other such devices.
> 
> They seem to be amid the top three in my local gaming.






			
				Design and Development said:
			
		

> Throw in a few more common items, such as the *bag of holding*, boots of striding and springing (though the “springing” part’s wasted on most folks), maybe a metamagic rod or two, a smattering of easily forgotten potions and scrolls, and of course the omnipresent wands of cure light wounds—and you’ve probably covered 80% or more of the average PC’s gear list.




Sadly that about sums me up. I mean, which would you rather have in MOST D&D situations?

* Cloak of Resistance or Cloak of Elvenkind?
* Boots of Striding & Springing or Boots of the North?
* Gloves of Dexterity or Glove of Storing?
* Amulet of Natural Armor or Amulet of Proof vs. Detection?
* Belt of Giant Str or Belt of Dwarvenkind?
* Ring of Protection or A Ring of Mind Shielding?

See? The First items are useful to JUST ABOUT everyone, the latter are much more specific to a particular situation or character and hence not a normally as useful.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Mar 11, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I agree comletely - I find D&D's magic items to be dull, mechanical boosters,




I agree as well. This is why only:

Wands
Staves
Scrolls
Potions
Wonderous items (Flying carpets, bag of holding and such)
And like items

Are things one can buy in shops. Anything else (Such as +1 vorpal swords) have to be acquired in a complicated manner. They could be Legacy weapons of a Hero of a Church or a King, Forged by a Hermit in the mountains, or lost in a ancient battle field. Even then there are no items that that empower scores directly, (Such as bracelets of Ogre strength) but indirectly through flavor. (A Necklaces that contains the spirit of a dead barbarian which causes involuntary rage) 

---Rusty


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 11, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> However, I don't like the scathingly negative tone that Andy is using.  Hindsight is 20/20, but he's using it to denigrate the work done by himself, his co-workers, and his company.  They did the best they could given the information they had at the time.




Wow, did I read the same article?



> If new data has become available, that doesn't warrant publicly skewering them to promote sales of a new product.




New data, or the addition of Mike Mearls to the development team? I don't know how much Mearls absorbed from Monte during the creation of Iron Heroes, but the parallels between Andy's article and the products Mearls has already developed are obvious.

Personally, I wish that the game was balanced from the class side. If the Big Six are necessary to compete, then either increase the statistical progressions of the classes, or scale back the monsters.

Why not just have magic weapons/armor/gauntlets/cloaks scale with power automatically as the user's level increases? Then the statistical advantage of the item is an afterthought, and   players can begin to appreciate magic items for their additional "quirky" powers and not have to discard them or trade them out as they level up.

Take, for example, the *Sword of the Sirene*... It's a +1 short sword, _waterbreathing._ At 6th level, its bonus increases to +2. It's part of the character's lore; he has a sword that allows him to breathe underwater!-- and he's not compelled to trade it in for the short sword +3 in another 4 levels or so.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Mar 11, 2007)

My first thought, when I read the introduction was the (supposed) mantra for feat and prestige class balance - if you would always take it, it's probably near to, if not broken.  Now, I don't necessarily think that the "big six" are broken, but if they are always being taken, that would seem to suggest that the problem isn't with the other magical items that suck, but with the "big six" that are too good.

I also didn't really like the tone of the article.  There was, of course, the prevalent idea of the magic shop.  I think the biggest mistake WotC made with 3E was assigning a GP value to items.  I would have liked them to instead give a general guide as to what level an item might be appropriate to give out.  Also, the article seemed to discount some of the more meta ideas.  For one, that GMs are making up their own items and not using the ones in the book, for whatever reason.  For another, that items are acquired (found or bought) as a character grows in level... so incidental items might mean more.  For a third, maybe that the vast majority of items in the books are simply boring - either stat boosts or items that mimic spells or feats.


----------



## Victim (Mar 11, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Partly, this just shows to me the problem inherent in making magic items comodities which can be freely sold or purchased at thier value.
> 
> Partly this just shows to me just how narrow most DM's campaigns must be if the good stuff basically just means, "What helps me most often in a straight up pitched conflict"  Where are the rings of featherfall?  The water breathing items?  The necklaces of adaptation?  The items confering energy resistance?  Where are the items that confer flight?
> 
> Partly this is just hyberbole.  The situation is not nearly so bad as he suggests for the purposes of the article, as I don't believe that lots of other classics are truly gone from the game nor do I believe that the list he presented truly represents a great departure from earlier editions of the game except to the extent that in earlier editions of the game you were much less likely to be able to fill up your slots they way you ideally wanted to.  I can remember having 10th and 12th level characters with open slots and weapons not really more powerful than those possessed by 6th and 7th level characters in this edition.




Some needs can be met more efficiently through other means.  Resist Energy lasts a pretty long time, scales with level, and is low level.  At higher levels, it's easy to slap it on pretty much everyone.  At even higher levels, Energy Immunity lasting 24 hours can be applied well in advance.  But with items, you're paying 12k+ for weakest level of effect on resist energy.  Why pay tons of money for stuff you can probably get for free - and customized for the situation at hand?  

Moreover, if you have high saves, you already take less damage from most energy effects - not that resistance isn't helpful on top of saves.  The main items tend to spill over into other areas.  With a Con booster, you not only have more HP, but also a better chance of resisting the poison gas that a necklace of adaptation saves you from, and you can hold your breath for a longer period of time.  Sure, it's not absolute like the specialized item, but the big items can often help in both overall combat and in narrow cases.  That's why they're the main priorities after all.

Similarly, potions can handle quite a few situational needs.  If breathing water doesn't come up that much, then keep a potion for emergencies.  If the situation comes up, the potion can probably save your life, and if it doesn't, then you don't have a decent chunk of your assets locked up in something that doesn't help you.

I'd agree with those who suggest that some kind of X-D storage item is also part of the general loadout.  There's usually some kind of bag or hole for big things (often as a group item), plus a few HHH scattered throughout the group to carry their personal gear without encumberance or access problems.


----------



## GSHamster (Mar 11, 2007)

Restricting what items players can buy or sell is a band-aid solution at best.

Remember that characters can craft items.  If you just give them the unusual stuff, they're going to craft the more useful stuff.

I once ran a campaign where I didn't give out a lot of magical items, so the party ended up making most of their gear.  And the stuff they made was the Big Six items, for the most part.

Restricting bought items means nothing unless you restrict creating items.  And honestly, preventing characters from crafting items seems kind of lame.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Mar 11, 2007)

cthulhu_duck said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that the big six is missing bags of holding or other such devices.
> 
> They seem to be amid the top three in my local gaming.



Absolutely. Most of the people I've played with grab a Heward's Handy Haversack as soon as possible. (Me too!)


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 11, 2007)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> Absolutely. Most of the people I've played with grab a Heward's Handy Haversack as soon as possible. (Me too!)




The average player doesn't take HHH because they play like this:
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=984


----------



## BryonD (Mar 11, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Personally, I wish that the game was balanced from the class side. If the Big Six are necessary to compete, then either increase the statistical progressions of the classes, or scale back the monsters.



The way I read it, that wasn't really the point.
The D&D idea is that character abilities + "correct" value of gear = appropriate power level for standard challenge.  Now, I understand the Grim Tales (and other versions) take on less gear.  And that is cool.  But, as far as default D&D is concerned, that ain't happening.

So, the point is not that they need the big six.  The point was that the bix six are the things that set the value scale and nearly everything else is way overpriced by that scale.
A 10th level character with 10th level amount of gear will be "appropriate" power level if he spends his cash in the big six.  But if he spices his character up by going outside that "big six" box he pays a big price by getting a lot less power bang for his gear buck.  So people tend to get the same stuff because the "cool" other things simple come at a premium that exceeds their worth.

So if they re-price other stuff so that 5,000 gp worth of "other" gives the same punch as 5,000 gp worth of big six then they have opened up the door for a much wider variety of builds.  Which would be a great thing.

Whether or not they have achieved this remains to be seen.


----------



## Gooba42 (Mar 11, 2007)

MarkB said:
			
		

> There's certainly a lot of truth there. One of the only non-core magic items that sees regular use with all my characters is _Complete Arcane_'s Vest of Resistance. Why? Because an item that costs the same as the Cloak of Resistance, but takes up the rarely-used Vest slot instead of the Cloak slot is extremely valuable to almost any class, opening up the possibility of using a more unusual Cloak instead of dedicating that slot to improving saving throws.




How is this not already fixed with the variant magic items mentioned in the core books?

Vest of Resistance, Hat of Dexterity, Amulet Of Deflection, etc. are all *very* simple substitutions...

Is this another case of lazy DMs and players who won't make their own content but then complain about everything that gets produced for them?

Don't get me wrong, I have my copy of Magic Item Compendium pre-ordered but I only started recently and I have *lots* of material to catch up on and niche bits that I honestly wouldn't think to make myself. However, I see a lot of very experienced gamers who know the game inside and out who apparently refuse to use any resource that isn't "Official".

It really seems like people are taking what, on its own, is an open-ended and very creative game and pigeonholing themselves by refusing to be creative.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 11, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> The way I read it, that wasn't really the point.
> The D&D idea is that character abilities + "correct" value of gear = appropriate power level for standard challenge.
> 
> So, the point is not that they need the big six.  The point was that the bix six are the things that set the value scale and nearly everything else is way overpriced by that scale.




D&D is definitely balanced to include, not just "correct value of gear," but "correct gear."

In my opinion, there's just no way to balance a _helm of comprehend languages_, a _folding boat_, and _Murlynd's Spoon_ against the Big Six-- no matter how much you reduce their value. There are certain kinds of items/abilities for which you could reduce their cost to nearly nothing, lump them all together in the aggregate into a Heward's Handy Haversack, and they still won't be balanced against a +5 sword.

Let me amend that somewhat. There's no way the the upcoming Compendium is going to tackle that balance issue. That's a big problem inherent to the d20 System. "Stuff" that gives you big, chunky, discreet d20 bonuses is infinitely more valuable just by nature of the System. 

Even within the statistical bonus items there's a pecking order: attack and damage; AC; saving throws; skill bonuses.



> A 10th level character with 10th level amount of gear will be "appropriate" power level if he spends his cash in the big six.  But if he spices his character up by going outside that "big six" box he pays a big price by getting a lot less power bang for his gear buck.  So people tend to get the same stuff because the "cool" other things simple come at a premium that exceeds their worth.
> 
> So if they re-price other stuff so that 5,000 gp worth of "other" gives the same punch as 5,000 gp worth of big six then they have opened up the door for a much wider variety of builds.  Which would be a great thing.
> 
> Whether or not they have achieved this remains to be seen.




My supposition is that the System isn't granular enough to handle this kind of rebalancing. Not only would you have to reduce the monetary costs of these items to near nothing, you'd have to reduce their opportunity costs as well in order to fit them into the Encounter framework.

It doesn't matter if you can get 10 or 20 "lesser" items to add up to one of the Big Six-- you won't have enough time within round or even the Encounter to use them.

EDIT: To put it another way, the "cost" of the Big Six is measured on a scale inside the Combat Round and the Encounter. Certain other kinds of magic items can't be measured on that scale, because they are non-combat or extremely situational. It's apples and oranges and they simply can't be balanced against each other. You can't even _measure_ Murlynd's Spoon against a magic sword, let alone balance them.

Rebalancing D&D, from the top down, against the Combat Round and the Encounter seems to be one of the big problems they are tackling right now.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 11, 2007)

> My supposition is that the System isn't granular enough to handle this kind of rebalancing. Not only would you have to reduce the monetary costs of these items to near nothing, you'd have to reduce their opportunity costs as well in order to fit them into the Encounter framework.




It's impossible to make it perfect in the system as-is, but it's entirely possible to alleviate the problem enough so that it's not really a problem anymore.


----------



## Tzeentch (Mar 11, 2007)

In addition to the amazing adventuring backpack, I've yet to see a DM say anything about the penny-pinching adventurers who are happy eating "Rations, Trail" for months or years.

Amazingly, for all its inherent munchkinism, I think this is one area where the Everquest d20 game did well -- magic items have their bonuses spread out into far more discrete types that cuts down on the uver-generalist nature of things like the ever-common "+3 longsword."


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 11, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's impossible to make it perfect in the system as-is, but it's entirely possible to alleviate the problem enough so that it's not really a problem anymore.




I'd attack it in one of two ways:

1) The quirky/fluffy stuff is paid for in a currency completely seperate from the Big Six (and associated items)

2) The quirky/fluffy stuff is... just free.


----------



## Baumi (Mar 11, 2007)

What I really like in the new companion is the rule that you can easily stack the Attribute Bonuses and Resistances to other Magic Items. For example you could now create a Hat of Disguise that also give you +4 Int or use a Cloak of Elvenkind that give you Resistance bonuses ... so you can have the cool/interesting effects in ADDITION to the "necessary" but boring Stat-Boosts!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 11, 2007)

I think we'll probably see some of the "Big Six" abilities being granted by other items... and the other items having abilities that are granted to the Big Six.

We've already seen one take on it: the augment crystals.

EDIT: And I seem to be right.



			
				cthulhu duck said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that the big six is missing bags of holding or other such devices.




I'm surprised you didn't read the next paragraph of the article. "Throw in a few more common items, such as the bag of holding, boots of striding and springing (though the “springing” part’s wasted on most folks), maybe a metamagic rod or two, a smattering of easily forgotten potions and scrolls, and of course the omnipresent wands of cure light wounds—and you’ve probably covered 80% or more of the average PC’s gear list."

A bag of holding is mostly a non-item. Once you have it, that's it. You're not continually upgrading it, or paying attention to it, or spending most of your money on it, as you are with the Big Six.

Cheers!


----------



## blargney the second (Mar 11, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Wow, did I read the same article?




Yep, you did.




			
				Andy Collins in the article in OP said:
			
		

> Most magic items in D&D are awful.  Almost every book has a few of these stinkers—and some of them are chock-full.




He's putting down the work that other people did to design, develop, edit, and even purchase previous products.  I don't think he's wrong about items being badly costed, but it doesn't make his current project better by lambasting what came before.

-blarg


----------



## MerricB (Mar 11, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> He's putting down the work that other people did to design, develop, edit, and even purchase previous products.  I don't think he's wrong about items being badly costed, but it doesn't make his current project better by lambasting what came before.




Given that Andy's done more than a little of that design himself, he's putting himself down as well. He's well within his rights to do so... and if other designers can't handle the fact that their magic items were awful, they shouldn't be working on D&D.

Would you prefer that the MIC didn't come out, and the designers kept their hands over their eyes singing "La la la"? See Palladium for that sort of game.


----------



## Razz (Mar 11, 2007)

Andy Collins quote: "_when’s the last time your character thought seriously about shelling out 23,500 gp for a rod of enemy detection, or a whopping fifty-seven thousand gold pieces for a helm of underwater action?_"

Um, what is he smoking? Does he and the rest of R&D really think this?

How about "when's the last time you ALLOWED your players to sift through magic items and purchase them like it was Walmart?"

NEVER! 

Is it to my understanding that the majority of D&D players purchase magic items like a candy store? I'm not talking about +1 weapons and potions, but do you let them walk through a metropolis and purchase the latest stock of "Rings of 3 Wishes?"

I always thought it was a DM's job to randomly scatter or introduce new magic items to the game via various methods besides random loot?


----------



## MerricB (Mar 11, 2007)

Razz - if you don't allow PCs to buy magic items, what do they do with their money?

Cheers!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 11, 2007)

> Um, what is he smoking? Does he and the rest of R&D really think this?
> 
> How about "when's the last time you ALLOWED your players to sift through magic items and purchase them like it was Walmart?"
> 
> ...




#1 thing to note is that the GP cost comes out of the treasure value, too. So, as a DM, you're plunking down "market price" for a helm of underwater action that will pretty much be ignored if it can't be sold, or you're plunking down equivalent GP for an item that the party will see and use and love.

#2 thing to note is that the way you play D&D isn't the only way to play D&D.

#3 thing to note is that purchasing or requisitioning or ordering magic items isn't an inherently bad thing.


----------



## Pants (Mar 12, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> Andy Collins quote: "_when’s the last time your character thought seriously about shelling out 23,500 gp for a rod of enemy detection, or a whopping fifty-seven thousand gold pieces for a helm of underwater action?_"
> 
> Um, what is he smoking? Does he and the rest of R&D really think this?
> 
> ...



Not everyone plays that way. Some don't allow ANY buying or selling, others (like me) are happy to let the adventurers spend their gold on something useful. Hell, if they're in Greyhawk/Waterdeep or wherever, I'd let them buy pretty much anything... within reason. They've earned that gold, what's the point of giving them gold and then not allowing them to do anything with it?

Frankly, I think if you follow D&D's standard treasure assumptions (as established back in 1e) then there's absolutely no reason WHY a lucrative market wouldn't spring up around the acquiring and selling of magical items.


----------



## blargney the second (Mar 12, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Given that Andy's done more than a little of that design himself, he's putting himself down as well. He's well within his rights to do so... and if other designers can't handle the fact that their magic items were awful, they shouldn't be working on D&D.
> 
> Would you prefer that the MIC didn't come out, and the designers kept their hands over their eyes singing "La la la"? See Palladium for that sort of game.



Like I said, I think he's right that the items were too expensive, and it's good that they're correcting those mistakes with the new book.  But he's still smearing a lot of ugly paint with that very broad brush.  His language goes well beyond mere self-criticism into the territory of unnecessary roughness.

-blarg


----------



## Ulric (Mar 12, 2007)

Gooba42 said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong, I have my copy of Magic Item Compendium pre-ordered but I only started recently and I have *lots* of material to catch up on and niche bits that I honestly wouldn't think to make myself. However, I see a lot of very experienced gamers who know the game inside and out who apparently refuse to use any resource that isn't "Official".
> 
> It really seems like people are taking what, on its own, is an open-ended and very creative game and pigeonholing themselves by refusing to be creative.




Exactly. I've been playing D&D for a long time and this is a huge trend I've seen in recent years. Most of the "problems" people talk about can be easily fixed, in game, by a DM. But too many anally retentive people follow every little stat or set of numbers in official books just so they can complain about "problems" or "errors". If you notice a problem...CHANGE IT, and keep right on playing. That's the power you have as a DM. If you're so uncreative that you can't handle that, maybe you shouldn't be a DM at all.


----------



## hong (Mar 12, 2007)

Andy Collins, stop making my house rules obsolete, damn you!!!11

It's spooky that not a month after I write up the following:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=187954

the designers post an essay addressing the exact same issues I'm trying to fix. Well, not _quite_ the exact same issues (I'm looking at it more from the PoV of boosting NPCs without having to deck them out with treasure) but it's much the same thing in the end.


[/stealthpimp]


----------



## Felon (Mar 12, 2007)

I guess I'm the only guy who read this article and experienced something akin to relief. 

Yet how can that be, when others so often lament how over time the power of magic items gradually come to overshadow the characters and their innate abilities?

Bonuses to AC and ability scores don't faze me. Nor do the attack and damage bonuses from magic weapons. What distresses me is a campaign where all characters can fly, teleport, turn invisible and/or ethereal at will, and otherwise acquire magical superpowers that allow PC's to simply ignore physical challenges placed in their path.


----------



## Felon (Mar 12, 2007)

Pants said:
			
		

> They've earned that gold, what's the point of giving them gold and then not allowing them to do anything with it?




Yep, a simple point that many would do well to make note of. Money's worthless if there's nothing to spend it on.


----------



## Gooba42 (Mar 12, 2007)

Ulric said:
			
		

> Exactly. I've been playing D&D for a long time and this is a huge trend I've seen in recent years. Most of the "problems" people talk about can be easily fixed, in game, by a DM. But too many anally retentive people follow every little stat or set of numbers in official books just so they can complain about "problems" or "errors". If you notice a problem...CHANGE IT, and keep right on playing. That's the power you have as a DM. If you're so uncreative that you can't handle that, maybe you shouldn't be a DM at all.




The ability to create my own content and play flexibly with a group of players all free to do the same is why I play this instead of D&D Online, EverQuest or any of a handful of competitors in the market.

I'm sure it's better for WotC's bottom line this way but honestly I'd love to see them focus on mechanics rather than implementations.

Don't sell us soulmelds, give us an Incarnum workbook, a couple examples and directions how to make soulmelds.

Don't sell us vestiges, give us a Binding workbook, a couple examples and directions how to make vestiges.

Demand for campaign specific and pre-made content will drive "implementation sales" on a separate line of books. I don't want WotC to hold my hand, I want them to put tools in it.


----------



## Greegan75 (Mar 12, 2007)

Ulric said:
			
		

> Exactly. I've been playing D&D for a long time and this is a huge trend I've seen in recent years. Most of the "problems" people talk about can be easily fixed, in game, by a DM. But too many anally retentive people follow every little stat or set of numbers in official books just so they can complain about "problems" or "errors". If you notice a problem...CHANGE IT, and keep right on playing. That's the power you have as a DM. If you're so uncreative that you can't handle that, maybe you shouldn't be a DM at all.




 I couldn't agree more with this post. Hell, it forced me out of lurking.


----------



## Ace (Mar 12, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I did this in FFZ by linking these bonuses directly to character advancement: everybody gains +x to hit, to damage, to saves, to ability scores, etc. as they level up, so you don't need to buy magic items to give you this boost. Instead, magic items are more interesting.





I did this also and it works quite well.

My layout is a bit different as it assumes a few minor items might be picked up along the way.

I agree with the notion  that unless you as DM spice up the items they are boring. The big 6 are especially dull -- mechanical bonuses are a snooze when compared to A Holocaust Cloak --

Items need names, identities and purposes otherwise they are just pieces of kit.

The kit approach iss workable but hardly fantastic. In fairness some folks like Tom Clancy's Lord of the Rings. I don't and I assume a lot of D&Drs don't  so I cooked up rules 

I've posted these before (in the low items thread) but here goes again.


Levels 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20 +1 to a stat -- this covers booster books and the basic level up 

saves +1 at 4,8,12,16,20 -- covers for vest or  cloak

AC bonus 75% of BAB -- this means a level 20 fighter would have an AC of 37 in plate and shield (heavy shields get an extra +1 to AC)with a 12 dex-- this is roughly 3 below what an optimized core fighter would have and its easily made up for with 


Extra feats 1 fat @1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19

and for good measure +2 to all skills 

To be at par with core a PC needs a stat boost item (like a belt or whatever) and a magic weapon or two (or wand or whatever) and maybe a ring or something cool -- thats it


----------



## charlesatan (Mar 12, 2007)

Gooba42 said:
			
		

> I'm sure it's better for WotC's bottom line this way but honestly I'd love to see them focus on mechanics rather than implementations.
> 
> Don't sell us soulmelds, give us an Incarnum workbook, a couple examples and directions how to make soulmelds.
> 
> Don't sell us vestiges, give us a Binding workbook, a couple examples and directions how to make vestiges.




They done that already in their respective books. Weapons of Legacy for example has mechanics on how to "build" your own Legacy Weapons. Even the DMG has formulas for creating magic items. The rest are simply that -- examples.


----------



## Psion (Mar 12, 2007)

Andy Collins said:
			
		

> Even the hallowed Dungeon Master’s Guide is no exception; when’s the last time your character thought seriously about shelling out 23,500 gp for a rod of enemy detection, or a whopping fifty-seven thousand gold pieces for a helm of underwater action?




Allow me to emphasize where I feel the problem lies here:



> shelling out




To me, the stinky magic items are the "top six". The are stale and predictable precisely because the assumption is there that they are free for the buying and players perceive (rightly or wrongly) that these are the items worth buying. AFAIAC, campaign that entertain such an open buying philosophy head right down this rut.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Mar 12, 2007)

I do pretty much allow my players to head back to Ptolus and do a little Wal-marting of magic items (at least those in the main books). I figure the item sets you give your character are part of the fun of building a character.

Regardless, I think pointing to the magic item marketplace as being the problem is a red herring. If you don't allow buying and selling, you simply make item crafting feats and item crafting classes such as wizards, clerics, and druids even more valuable than they already are.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Bonuses to AC and ability scores don't faze me. Nor do the attack and damage bonuses from magic weapons. What distresses me is a campaign where all characters can fly, teleport, turn invisible and/or ethereal at will, and otherwise acquire magical superpowers that allow PC's to simply ignore physical challenges placed in their path.




Bingo.  And don't underestimate the power of physics bending objects like the ubiquitous HHH.



			
				Pants said:
			
		

> Yep, a simple point that many would do well to make note of. Money's worthless if there's nothing to spend it on.




I've never had magic items available for sale above the level of potions and scrolls, and I've never had a problem with characters finding things to do with thier wealth.



> Frankly, I think if you follow D&D's standard treasure assumptions (as established back in 1e) then there's absolutely no reason WHY a lucrative market wouldn't spring up around the acquiring and selling of magical items.




There are lucrative markets around the buying selling of F-18's and nuclear weapon technology too, but they aren't exactly the easiest markets to break into if you happen to be well, just about anyone.  My assumption has always been that there is essentially infinite demand for magic items, but essentially zero supply because the major brokers of power try to horde magic items for thier exclusive use.  So, you can always find a major religion, nobleman, or government that wants to add to thier collection, but you can almost never find someone willing to sell a magic item that they own any more than you can normally find people who'd willingly sell thier own XP.  This is actually pretty easy to justify.  If you dry the market up, what you'll discover is that PC's don't sell magic items that they could reasonably at any point in the future have a use for, because they recognize that such items are essentially irreplacible.  You'll also notice that high level characters that can produce high level magic items are rare, and when they do make something its for thier own use or the use of a close ally.  How do we know that?  Because that's exactly how the PC's operate.  Moreover, if you assume a living system, then no one really wants to put magic items on the open market because everyone knows that if you put it on an open market there is a very good chance that that item will come back in the hands of an enemy.  Try this excercise.  Every time the PC's sell an item on an open market (open meaning that they are selling it to someone who is acting as a distributer), dice for the chance that the item is purchased by one of the sinister organizations that the PC's are up against.  Then, if the PC's get unlucky or just stupid, add that item to the enemies wealth above and beyond thier CR.  Doesn't take much time for your average PC party to realize that selling the +2 unholy flail to that merchant they met was maybe a bad idea - tidy profit or not.  So, my assumption is that all the markets for magic items are basically closed ones, and would only be available to the PC's if they had a close alliance with a major broker of power.

And speaking of, just what do you think PC's in my experience tend to do with thier money?


----------



## Andor (Mar 12, 2007)

Well it's kind of an annoying article frankly. He's right that most non-combat items are massively over-priced. What he fails to mention is that was clearly a deliberate design decision in 3.5 ed. Go compare the 3.5 prices to the 3.0 prices. Allmost all the movement utility items had their durations reduced and costs increased in 3.5. 

Frankly using cash as a level balance mechanic is a deeply flawed. If I were to have one bit of input into the 4ed design process it's this: Chuck the exponential prices increases, a linear or moderate geometric progression is fine, if you also include a level based activation mechanic to the items. Then you can include the obvious yet needed discussion about how to adjust these levels to the needs of your campaign. This removes most of the stupidity from the D&D economy, and adds some nifty possibilities. For example if a magic sword activates gradually then you have self-scaling items. _EG- A +3 flametounge long sword may be a +1 sword in the hands of a 1st level character. A +1 flaming sword in the hands of a 3rd level character and so on untill it's full powers are available at 9th level._ It also allows for the big dramatic face off with the BBG if a PC can briefly activate a magic item over his level for some appropriate cost such as an action point or some ability drain. 

Personally I find the price/ability structuring of D&D magic to be very annoying. Combat centered stuff is usually reasonably priced, with the occasional flyer, but utility stuff is completely out of whack. It makes me wonder what the heck a non-adventuring mage _does_. He has almost no abilites useful outside of combat that last for more than a moment or two. It's as though you could buy a flame thrower for $200 but that cell phone is gonna cost more than your house. And God help you if you want to go scuba diving.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Well it's kind of an annoying article frankly. He's right that most non-combat items are massively over-priced. What he fails to mention is that was clearly a deliberate design decision in 3.5 ed. Go compare the 3.5 prices to the 3.0 prices.




Well, because that would force them to concede the fact that for the most part, despite all the good intentions, 3.5 is an inferior game to 3.0.  The first thing I think should happen on the way to 4e is kick back most of the 3.5 changes and make another try at it.


----------



## hong (Mar 12, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Well it's kind of an annoying article frankly. He's right that most non-combat items are massively over-priced. What he fails to mention is that was clearly a deliberate design decision in 3.5 ed. Go compare the 3.5 prices to the 3.0 prices. Allmost all the movement utility items had their durations reduced and costs increased in 3.5.




I don't think the _movement_ utility items are the ones they were dissing....


----------



## charlesatan (Mar 12, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Frankly using cash as a level balance mechanic is a deeply flawed. If I were to have one bit of input into the 4ed design process it's this: Chuck the exponential prices increases, a linear or moderate geometric progression is fine, if you also include a level based activation mechanic to the items. Then you can include the obvious yet needed discussion about how to adjust these levels to the needs of your campaign. This removes most of the stupidity from the D&D economy, and adds some nifty possibilities. For example if a magic sword activates gradually then you have self-scaling items. _EG- A +3 flametounge long sword may be a +1 sword in the hands of a 1st level character. A +1 flaming sword in the hands of a 3rd level character and so on untill it's full powers are available at 9th level._ It also allows for the big dramatic face off with the BBG if a PC can briefly activate a magic item over his level for some appropriate cost such as an action point or some ability drain.




It was partially remedied in Weapons of Legacy (and one of the prestige classes in Unearthed Arcana) since hindsight is indeed 20/20 (and IMO I think 3.5 is really only 3.5 as of late thanks to new concepts like swift/immediate actions, substitution levels, etc.) although I expect it'll be somehow incorporated at some later date (i.e. when 4th Ed finally comes out).



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> Personally I find the price/ability structuring of D&D magic to be very annoying. Combat centered stuff is usually reasonably priced, with the occasional flyer, but utility stuff is completely out of whack. It makes me wonder what the heck a non-adventuring mage _does_. He has almost no abilites useful outside of combat that last for more than a moment or two. It's as though you could buy a flame thrower for $200 but that cell phone is gonna cost more than your house. And God help you if you want to go scuba diving.




The problem with the other utility magic items is that their use varies from campaign to campaign. Look at Dungeonscape: the book has a section devoted to magic items that are great in dungeons and whose applications aren't always as obvious (dust of absorption, bag of tricks, etc.). The strength there is that they have uses. The problem is that it's limited to a dungeon setting (imagine bringing a 10-foot pole to an underwater environment).


----------



## wayne62682 (Mar 12, 2007)

I thought that 3.x had the ASSUMPTION that you could buy magic items in shops, rather than the 1/2e mentality that it's insanely hard to craft and that you had to find them?


----------



## charlesatan (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> There are lucrative markets around the buying selling of F-18's and nuclear weapon technology too, but they aren't exactly the easiest markets to break into if you happen to be well, just about anyone.  My assumption has always been that there is essentially infinite demand for magic items, but essentially zero supply because the major brokers of power try to horde magic items for thier exclusive use.  So, you can always find a major religion, nobleman, or government that wants to add to thier collection, but you can almost never find someone willing to sell a magic item that they own any more than you can normally find people who'd willingly sell thier own XP.  This is actually pretty easy to justify.  If you dry the market up, what you'll discover is that PC's don't sell magic items that they could reasonably at any point in the future have a use for, because they recognize that such items are essentially irreplacible.  You'll also notice that high level characters that can produce high level magic items are rare, and when they do make something its for thier own use or the use of a close ally.  How do we know that?  Because that's exactly how the PC's operate.  Moreover, if you assume a living system, then no one really wants to put magic items on the open market because everyone knows that if you put it on an open market there is a very good chance that that item will come back in the hands of an enemy.  Try this excercise.  Every time the PC's sell an item on an open market (open meaning that they are selling it to someone who is acting as a distributer), dice for the chance that the item is purchased by one of the sinister organizations that the PC's are up against.  Then, if the PC's get unlucky or just stupid, add that item to the enemies wealth above and beyond thier CR.  Doesn't take much time for your average PC party to realize that selling the +2 unholy flail to that merchant they met was maybe a bad idea - tidy profit or not.  So, my assumption is that all the markets for magic items are basically closed ones, and would only be available to the PC's if they had a close alliance with a major broker of power.




The argument goes both ways. Ultimately, it depends on the setting of the GM. I mean in Forgotten Realms and in Greyhawk, it can easily be conceived that shopping for magic items is readily available. In other settings, not so much.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> And speaking of, just what do you think PC's in my experience tend to do with thier money?




It was a relevant question because for some people, shopping for items is indeed fun (as is actually spending on wealth for something they'll actually use). Different people get different kicks -- some prefer their treasures "randomly" placed in a treasure horde, others get the satisfaction from "earning" their magic item by saving up for it and actually managing to purchase it.


----------



## Andor (Mar 12, 2007)

charlesatan said:
			
		

> It was partially remedied in Weapons of Legacy (and one of the prestige classes in Unearthed Arcana) since hindsight is indeed 20/20 (and IMO I think 3.5 is really only 3.5 as of late thanks to new concepts like swift/immediate actions, substitution levels, etc.) although I expect it'll be somehow incorporated at some later date (i.e. when 4th Ed finally comes out).
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the other utility magic items is that their use varies from campaign to campaign. Look at Dungeonscape: the book has a section devoted to magic items that are great in dungeons and whose applications aren't always as obvious (dust of absorption, bag of tricks, etc.). The strength there is that they have uses. The problem is that it's limited to a dungeon setting (imagine bringing a 10-foot pole to an underwater environment).




Sure, that's why I mention the "How to adapt this to your campaign" section. Of course a lot of people don't like house ruling.... Perhaps it would be best to designate a few categories of items (_weapons, armour/defense, stats, movment, utility, summoning, casting, new abilities, misc_) then have a few official power levels. (Low/Default/High magic campign settings) So any player will know that a helm of underwater action works at 3rd level in a Default campaign but not till 6th in a Low magic campaign.


----------



## Ealli (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> There are lucrative markets around the buying selling of F-18's and nuclear weapon technology too, but they aren't exactly the easiest markets to break into if you happen to be well, just about anyone.  My assumption has always been that there is essentially infinite demand for magic items, but essentially zero supply because the major brokers of power try to horde magic items for thier exclusive use.  So, you can always find a major religion, nobleman, or government that wants to add to thier collection, but you can almost never find someone willing to sell a magic item that they own any more than you can normally find people who'd willingly sell thier own XP.  This is actually pretty easy to justify.  If you dry the market up, what you'll discover is that PC's don't sell magic items that they could reasonably at any point in the future have a use for, because they recognize that such items are essentially irreplacible.  You'll also notice that high level characters that can produce high level magic items are rare, and when they do make something its for thier own use or the use of a close ally.  How do we know that?  Because that's exactly how the PC's operate.  Moreover, if you assume a living system, then no one really wants to put magic items on the open market because everyone knows that if you put it on an open market there is a very good chance that that item will come back in the hands of an enemy.  Try this excercise.  Every time the PC's sell an item on an open market (open meaning that they are selling it to someone who is acting as a distributer), dice for the chance that the item is purchased by one of the sinister organizations that the PC's are up against.  Then, if the PC's get unlucky or just stupid, add that item to the enemies wealth above and beyond thier CR.  Doesn't take much time for your average PC party to realize that selling the +2 unholy flail to that merchant they met was maybe a bad idea - tidy profit or not.  So, my assumption is that all the markets for magic items are basically closed ones, and would only be available to the PC's if they had a close alliance with a major broker of power.
> 
> And speaking of, just what do you think PC's in my experience tend to do with thier money?



My character uses a somewhat uncommon weapon.  If I ever want to upgrade, say from masterwork to magical because we are starting to encounter those enemies with /magic DR, there are basically six options.
1)  The module includes one.  It's an uncommon weapon, I'm not holding my breath for this.
2)  The DM modifies the module.  Possible, especially if the module includes some other weird weapon, he might be kind.
3)  I buy the upgrade somewhere.
4)  Butter up the artificer/wizard and convince him that I need this upgrade more than the others in the party.  Possible too.  Banning purchase but leaving easy crafting seems like a little oversight though.
5)  Change my character concept.  This one is very sad.  A central tenet in the character concept is the fighting style, and the fighting style is only feasible with a small group of weapons.  If the situation becomes dire, I may switch to the basic longsword or greatsword style, but I would feel like I've wasted a lot and made my character significantly less unique.
6)  Accept being less effective than if I had done the most basic of styles.

Fortunately, I did start with a magic weapon so the situation is unlikely to become dire, but I suspect that if our current artificer dies before he can upgrade my weapon then I'll never be upgrading.


The idea of the adversaries acquiring sold items and then adding said items on top of the adversaries' treasure may not be the most effective way to convince the players to stop selling items.  By selling items, they get the gold to invest in whatever it is that you let them invest their gold in, and then they get the item back at no cost effectively.  (If the increased worth of the adversaries kills the party, then maybe the next set will learn.  You'll have to find that very thin line of defeating the party without destroying them while making it clear that it was the items that the party sold that tipped the balance.)


----------



## Toras (Mar 12, 2007)

As a player in a planescape game, I find that I generally have access to a great deal of magical craftsmenship.  While I have picked up the traditional ones, more often than not, there is a tendency to get custom work done.

Cloak of Resistance?  How about a Cloak of the Bulwark (Resist, Con bonus or perhaps some energy resist).  Boots of Grace (Dex and Evasion)?  Make it a bit of a boutique experience, place and order and pick it up when its ready.  You want to throw some one, pack an unexpected enchantment in it. 

Attunement items are a must for todays adventurer on the planes (I'd like not to die, thank you sir).  As is an emergency amulet of the planes (tucked in a trusty bag).  Bags of Holding are a must. Masks of Water Breathing are also nice.  (Plane of Vacuum or Water anyone.)

Bu my tendency is also to the unusual.  Combine the enchantment of a Decanter of Endless water with a Gnomish Pressure container and valve setup and a perm. bless water.  Originally it was designed as an anti-fiend field peace for mortal users.  (Use them instead of flame throwers or something similar).  Guantlets that stored and fired alchemical substances were his item of choice.  (God bless gnomish tinkerers)  Wands of Exposive Runes, are handy.  Beads of force are nice and if in large numbers can be scary.


----------



## Nuclear Platypus (Mar 12, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Razz - if you don't allow PCs to buy magic items, what do they do with their money?
> 
> Cheers!




I have my players invest their money into a variety of stock options and mutual funds. It's either that or the usual 'hero' stuff: alcohol, women or just hoard the shineys. I'd want to summon an earth elemental composed entirely of coins to follow me around. But the Monk tends to go OCD and sort out his coins in nice even stacks.  

Seriously tho, I've hated the obsession with magic items to get anywhere. I doubt I'm the only one that's had a golf bag of magic weapons. "Werewolf? Hand me the #3." Those of the magic six are often fought over in the group, especially anything that bumps up the AC. Another peev is the dependence on heavier armor for protection with the defense bonus as a recent addon rule.


----------



## Felon (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> There are lucrative markets around the buying selling of F-18's and nuclear weapon technology too, but they aren't exactly the easiest markets to break into if you happen to be well, just about anyone.  My assumption has always been that there is essentially infinite demand for magic items, but essentially zero supply because the major brokers of power try to horde magic items for thier exclusive use.



This is just one of those bizarre D&Disms: even fairly low-level characters with a few hundred gold pieces to their names are wealthy by the standards of those living around them. PC's will eventually become as rich as the richest noble (those elite ones that invariably seem to be semi-retired adventurers themselves notwithstanding). If you're a trillionaire, you will find few doors get slammed in your face. 

For the model you describe to work, every item-hoarding organization has to exist in a perpetual state of financially solvency. Thsi is where chaos theory steps in and lends the PC's a helping hand. Jihads and adamantine colossi and annihlatrixes cost money. There's going to be somebody out there with cashflow problems and doesn't have the luxury of hoarding. Probably several somebodies. In fact, buying up expensive assets and never liquidating anything to provide captial is a pretty good way to wind up with all your stuff up for auction. We can't all be Michael Jackson.



			
				Ealli said:
			
		

> My character uses a somewhat uncommon weapon.  If I ever want to upgrade, say from masterwork to magical because we are starting to encounter those enemies with /magic DR, there are basically six options.
> 1)  The module includes one.  It's an uncommon weapon, I'm not holding my breath for this.
> 2)  The DM modifies the module.  Possible, especially if the module includes some other weird weapon, he might be kind.
> 3)  I buy the upgrade somewhere.
> ...



Well, looking back to the heydays of a misspent youth, the desire to obtain a cool magic item that you couldn't just go out and commission was the basis of actual adventuring. Rather than plundering mad money from hapless dungeon-dwellers to go on a shopping spree in town, you'd actually sit down with some sage and figure out how to work around the middle-man (as there were no yellow pages of middle-men to work through). Or you'd be rewarded the item of your dreams in exchange for some good deed, like averting the end of the world. 

I"m not sure D&D is better off in the end by boiling everything down to a simple formula for convenience's sake. Maybe things are fun when they're not convenient and predictable. There's a downside, that's for sure. But again, when I'm DM'ing, I make the adjustments I need to.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 12, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> D&D is definitely balanced to include, not just "correct value of gear," but "correct gear."
> 
> In my opinion, there's just no way to balance a _helm of comprehend languages_, a _folding boat_, and _Murlynd's Spoon_ against the Big Six-- no matter how much you reduce their value. There are certain kinds of items/abilities for which you could reduce their cost to nearly nothing, lump them all together in the aggregate into a Heward's Handy Haversack, and they still won't be balanced against a +5 sword.




Your right in that some of the big six is always going to be on a character sheet, but that doesn't mean it can't be adjusted.

For example, let's take a cloak of etheralness (55,000) vs a +5 sword (50,000). Now almost any fighter in the world is going to take the +5 sword, I mean he needs a good sword. But how about a +4 sword upgrading to a +5 sword vs a cloak of etheralness. I can spend 18k on that extra +1, or I can save my money and get the cloak. The cloak lets me escape hostile situations, scout, move through walls, go invisible, etc etc. Its very handy. For some people, that extra mobility and scouting might be worth the loss of a +1 enhancement.

However, I think one of the things they can start doing with many items is make them slotless. The problem becomes once you fill up your slots with the big six, your not going to replace those slots with other items. However, if you can get nice slotless items, it might be worth it to branch out and get cool new things instead of upgrading your six pack all the time.


----------



## hong (Mar 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, looking back to the heydays of a misspent youth, the desire to obtain a cool magic item that you couldn't just go out and commission was the basis of actual adventuring. Rather than plundering mad money from hapless dungeon-dwellers to go on a shopping spree in town, you'd actually sit down with some sage and figure out how to work around the middle-man (as there were no yellow pages of middle-men to work through).




I don't really see how, in practical terms, this is so different to adventuring to get vast piles of gold that you can spend to get a cool magic item. It's still killing monsters and taking their stuff, only the "stuff" is now fungible.



> I"m not sure D&D is better off in the end by boiling everything down to a simple formula for convenience's sake. Maybe things are fun when they're not convenient and predictable.




Well, things are still not entirely convenient nor predictable when treasure is convertible to gp. You don't know what you're going to find, nor how much you can sell it for. And hey, the DM might still surprise you and give you what you were planning to buy, on top of the dragon's treasure pile....


----------



## Agent Oracle (Mar 12, 2007)

Frankly, i think i solved this problem a long time ago.

I really roll on the random treasure tables.

Really.

Which is why my characters might end up with one of the six at any given time, but most often have several interesting wondrous items, potions and whatnot.


----------



## Felon (Mar 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I don't really see how, in practical terms, this is so different to adventuring to get vast piles of gold that you can spend to get a cool magic item. It's still killing monsters and taking their stuff, only the "stuff" is now fungible.



Embarking on an expedition to a lost ruin in search of legendary artifacts feels like a quest. Attacking a dungeon--and any dungeon will do, as long as its got money--to finance your next trip to the bling shop feels like a bank robbery. It ain't always practical, and YMMV, but to some DM's that fungibility of resources creates a level of convenience that they find undesirable.


----------



## Agamemnon (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Well, because that would force them to concede the fact that for the most part, despite all the good intentions, 3.5 is an inferior game to 3.0.  The first thing I think should happen on the way to 4e is kick back most of the 3.5 changes and make another try at it.




What they *should* do is chuck everything from 3.5, 3.0 and previous editions. Their process of building each edition atop the previous ones has resulted in 3.5 being the Michael Jackson of RPGs, desperately improving itself to ward off obsolescence but attaining only a kind of perverse lichlike state as a mockery of healthier games.

D&D needs to be rewritten from the ground up, making sure to slaughter all of the sacred cows of old. The system, the abilities, the lot of it. This isn't the 1900s anymore, the game should reflect it instead of trying to sell us on the same old nonsense in a new wrapper.


----------



## Felon (Mar 12, 2007)

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> What they *should* do is chuck everything from 3.5, 3.0 and previous editions. Their process of building each edition atop the previous ones has resulted in 3.5 being the Michael Jackson of RPGs, desperately improving itself to ward off obsolescence but attaining only a kind of perverse lichlike state as a mockery of healthier games.
> 
> D&D needs to be rewritten from the ground up, making sure to slaughter all of the sacred cows of old. The system, the abilities, the lot of it. This isn't the 1900s anymore, the game should reflect it instead of trying to sell us on the same old nonsense in a new wrapper.




I know I made an allusion to Michael Jackson earlier in the thread, so I want to establish for the record that I am not affiliated with this poster.


----------



## Agamemnon (Mar 12, 2007)

You really think someone would mistake me for your sockpuppet when I've been a member here several months longer than you (slightly over five years in total)?


----------



## hong (Mar 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Embarking on an expedition to a lost ruin in search of legendary artifacts feels like a quest. Attacking a dungeon--and any dungeon will do, as long as its got money--to finance your next trip to the bling shop feels like a bank robbery. It ain't always practical, and YMMV, but to some DM's that fungibility of resources creates a level of convenience that they find undesirable.




Nobody I know attacks a dungeon just to "get some money". There's always a reason for doing the quest, whether it's to save a village, kill the guy who killed your father, save the world, or whatever. Every published module that I've seen includes a hook to give the characters some in-game reason to jump in, apart from loot. An in-character motivation is not the same as an OOC motivation.

Now some players certainly take naked greed to the next level, where you have to ask just how sincere their characters really are about whatever quest it is they've agreed to undertake. But this was just as true with previous editions of the game, and they were just as annoying even if they didn't get what they want. Heck, they could be even MORE annoying because of that.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Mar 12, 2007)

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> You really think someone would mistake me for your sockpuppet when I've been a member here several months longer than you (slightly over five years in total)?




Actually, I think it was just a matter of distancing himself from your position.


----------



## charlesatan (Mar 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Nobody I know attacks a dungeon just to "get some money". There's always a reason for doing the quest, whether it's to save a village, kill the guy who killed your father, save the world, or whatever. Every published module that I've seen includes a hook to give the characters some in-game reason to jump in, apart from loot. An in-character motivation is not the same as an OOC motivation.




Not all the time. You could be mercenaries or you could be "hired explorers" sent to excavate/scout a dungeon. Altruism is fine. But not all adventures necessarily start out altruistic.


----------



## hong (Mar 12, 2007)

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Not all the time. You could be mercenaries or you could be "hired explorers" sent to excavate/scout a dungeon. Altruism is fine. But not all adventures necessarily start out altruistic.




Well, sure. But Felon was starting from the assumption of a stereotypical "save the world" party and contrasting that with the mercenary desires of the players.


----------



## charlesatan (Mar 12, 2007)

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> What they *should* do is chuck everything from 3.5, 3.0 and previous editions. Their process of building each edition atop the previous ones has resulted in 3.5 being the Michael Jackson of RPGs, desperately improving itself to ward off obsolescence but attaining only a kind of perverse lichlike state as a mockery of healthier games.
> 
> D&D needs to be rewritten from the ground up, making sure to slaughter all of the sacred cows of old. The system, the abilities, the lot of it. This isn't the 1900s anymore, the game should reflect it instead of trying to sell us on the same old nonsense in a new wrapper.




I agree, especially the part about sacred cows. The problem is that if you do it too much, you might want to stop calling it D&D...


----------



## BryonD (Mar 12, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> D&D is definitely balanced to include, not just "correct value of gear," but "correct gear."



I'll snip out the rest....
I do not disagree with anything you said.

However, as the systems stands right now the proces are such that use of anything outside the "big 6" is very much on the sideline.

You do not have to "balance" Murlynd's Spoon against a magic sword to determine that a lower priced Murlynd's Spoon would make it see play more often and wouldn't cause the character to become more powerful than a character built with just the big 6 under current pricing.

Or, to put it another way, you don't need to correctly determine that a +1 Sword is worth X Murlynd's Spoons.  But you may be able to determine that at a sufficiently lower price the Spoon sees play and more variety and more fun results.  I think that conclusion can co-exisit with the truth of everything you said.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 12, 2007)

Andy Collins:
"Ultimately, we realized that the greatest factor influencing the likelihood of a particular magic item being used by a character came down to its cost."

Naw, this just shows how much they have the wrong end of the stick.  The big problem is not pricing, but fungibility.  If you can reliably sell the rarely-useful exotic item, and buy the routinely useful-at-staying alive item, that's what you'll do, because  D&D players fear PC death.  Most would sell a Helm of Underwater Action for a +1 sword, if they didn't already have such a sword.  The only solution is not to have items regularly available to buy at all.


----------



## hong (Mar 12, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Andy Collins:
> "Ultimately, we realized that the greatest factor influencing the likelihood of a particular magic item being used by a character came down to its cost."
> 
> Naw, this just shows how much they have the wrong end of the stick.  The big problem is not pricing, but fungibility.  If you can reliably sell the rarely-useful exotic item, and buy the routinely useful-at-staying alive item, that's what you'll do, because  D&D players fear PC death.  Most would sell a Helm of Underwater Action for a +1 sword, if they didn't already have such a sword.  The only solution is not to have items regularly available to buy at all.




Bah.


----------



## hopeless (Mar 12, 2007)

*Reg: Big Six*



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> There was a link up there, you know.




You forgot Bags of Holding...


----------



## S'mon (Mar 12, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> How about "when's the last time you ALLOWED your players to sift through magic items and purchase them like it was Walmart?"
> 
> NEVER!
> 
> ...




Eh, the 3e DMG tells the GM to make all items freely available, up to 100,000gp value in a Metropolis.


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 12, 2007)

That's the real problem, the GP limit of cities and availability of items. That and the need for the "Big Six", so even if you do give a magic item to the players that is a bit odd, they go and flog it to share the gold between the party, so they can improve one of their Big Six items.

The Savage Tide adventure path is interesting since for much of the adventure the outposts and villages only have gp limits of less than 1000gp. So the players are at last forced to work with what they find. I think I'll make more of my adventures wilderness adventures in the future.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 12, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Andy Collins:
> "Ultimately, we realized that the greatest factor influencing the likelihood of a particular magic item being used by a character came down to its cost."
> 
> Naw, this just shows how much they have the wrong end of the stick.  The big problem is not pricing, but fungibility.  If you can reliably sell the rarely-useful exotic item, and buy the routinely useful-at-staying alive item, that's what you'll do, because  D&D players fear PC death.  Most would sell a Helm of Underwater Action for a +1 sword, if they didn't already have such a sword.  The only solution is not to have items regularly available to buy at all.



I think both sides of the stick are important.
And because in default D&D pretty much everyone _does_ already have the +1 sword, Andy is looking at the correct end of the stick because it is the end with an issue.


----------



## Greegan75 (Mar 12, 2007)

I think it is kinda funny that the biggest argument about magic items in D&D right now seems to be about how much they cost.


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 12, 2007)

Articles and discussions like this make me so glad I have completely divorced magical items from any kind of economy.


----------



## isoChron (Mar 12, 2007)

Many magic items have become what monosodium glutamate is for food ... ubiquitious and unnecessary. The most memorable moments in playing D&D are about character actions, not magic item actions. Don't you want to say "my character saved the world/town" instead of "my magic item composition was optimal, so I could save the world/town". Is D&D less D&D when there are less magic items or less of the "big six"?

What about magic items that have a drawback. I'm not talking about cursed items but something like a cloak of charisma slightly lowering the skills disguise or hide.
Helmets that lower the chance to spot something (or listen to someone)....
what would happen if there would be only 1 slot for stat boosting items ? 

Whatever DM's do to lower the influence of magic items, I think they all have the experience of finding an adequate encounter based on real party power instead of plain party level. So you are free to set limits where ever you want, just make it clear at the start of character building. 
Just my point of view, of course.


----------



## Psion (Mar 12, 2007)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Articles and discussions like this make me so glad I have completely divorced magical items from any kind of economy.




I don't think it's necessary to go that far... it's not a dichotomy. One can make the economy more limited without eliminating it entirely. To me, it's not rational to assume that magic items will never be bought, sold, or traded unless they are extremely scarce... but in D&D they are not.

At the same time, it's not rational to assume that unless items are mass produced and have an efficient distribution chain, they will have even and predictable availability or prices. And in D&D, the prevailing conditions in most campaigns suggest they could not.

So in my campaign, I have found it sufficient to:
1) Randomize availability of items
2) Make it difficult for PCs to sell items at their supposed cost. That way, they really have to think twice about whether the random item they found is really worth giving up for that shiny pair of Gauntlets of Ogre Power.


----------



## jmucchiello (Mar 12, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Naw, this just shows how much they have the wrong end of the stick.  The big problem is not pricing, but fungibility.  If you can reliably sell the rarely-useful exotic item, and buy the routinely useful-at-staying alive item, that's what you'll do, because  D&D players fear PC death.  Most would sell a Helm of Underwater Action for a +1 sword, if they didn't already have such a sword.  The only solution is not to have items regularly available to buy at all.



This is not true. I've played in 1e games with fully available magic items (usually on commission but cheap stuff was in the "adventurers' store"). The difference in 1e is there are less must have items. Want to improve your Con? Can't*. Int? Can't*. Dex? Well there's gauntlets of Dexterity that will raise a dex of 14 or higher by +1.

And they cost 10,000 gp. It's right there in the 1e DMG. Or that same 10,000 gp might yield the *Wand of Orcus*?!??!? Now granted the 1e DMG does not encourage free trade of magic items (or artifacts), but I can't imagine we were the only folks who saw the stuff had prices and made them available for sale in large cities.

Cloak of protection cost 10,000 gp per plus granted and it affected AC and saving throws. Sword +1 - +5 costs 2,000, 4,000, 7,000, 10,000, and 15,000 gp respectively. But a vorpal sword costs 50,000 gp. Armor is dependent on type chainmail +1 is 3,500 gp but platemail +1 is 5,000 gp. But unlike 3e, armor generally costs more than weapons.

* Oh yeah, Manual of Bodily Health. Read once, follow reginmen, gain +1 Con. Once. For all time. Costs 50,000 gp.

It isn't that the big six are available. It's that there are more than 3 must haves.


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 12, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I don't think it's necessary to go that far...





What I should have said is ". . . any kind of _codified_ economy."


----------



## Mighty Halfling (Mar 12, 2007)

I'm beginning to think that all "plus" items should just scale up with a character automatically. Just say that they hop up every four levels or so. 
A one-time buy in, and then focus the rest of the time on getting other more flavorful stuff. Or, alternatively, the PCs could seek to enhance them further to make weapons flaming, armor ethereal and add abilities to cloaks.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 12, 2007)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> What I should have said is ". . . any kind of _codified_ economy."



I see this differently.

You are certainly correct that for a lot of games and considerations on this topic the idea that magic items are part of an "economy" is a central point.  So I'm not disputing that.

BUT...
You can still use this data without getting hung up on that.
To me the idea of a benchmark level of gear that a PC of X level should have is a very useful tool.  That is not at all to say that a good game requires you stick to the rule.  But if you are running at 20% of design assupmtions, it is good to know that.  And if one session you jump from 20% to 80% because of a windfall, then that is good to know as well.

So to me it is all very useful to give thought to "What % of a tenth level characters standard gear should a helm of underwater action represent in order to maximize fun?"  
It isn't a question of how big a town do you need to go buy one.
And it isn't a question of how many helms are worth one +3 sword.
It is purely a matter of what fraction of standard gear makes this item useful and fun.
Nothing prevents one from tossing any of the guidelines aside when the game is better served by doing so.  But that doesn't make it less useful as a reference point.

If the correct answer is 6% for default D&D then that answer is true regardless of if your character has the only one in the campagin world or if he bought it off the clearance rack.


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 12, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> So to me it is all very useful to give thought to "What % of a tenth level characters standard gear should a helm of underwater action represent in order to maximize fun?"





I guess for me the only important question is, "How much underwater action am I planning for their future adventures?" (or as a variation, "How much underwater action am  Iwill to provide the group if they decide that the helm is a good reason to do some acquatic adventuring?")  

That is what determines how valuable the helm is compared to anything else they might have for me - as that is determining how practically valuable it is to them.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

Ealli said:
			
		

> My character uses a somewhat uncommon weapon.  If I ever want to upgrade, say from masterwork to magical because we are starting to encounter those enemies with /magic DR, there are basically six options.




IMO, it is the responcibility of the GM to ensure that players have access to the resources that they need to accomplish the task.  How a GM does that is a matter of personal style.  I'd rather do it with foils/villains that wield the same weapon as your character, or by hiding the resources in dungeons to be discovered by the attentive party, or by allowing players to trade favors with high level crafters, or by making thier own tools.  All of those seem far better solutions to me than treating magic items as commodities, because it robs magic items of thier mythic status, thier specialness, and the full measure of pride and satisfication that a player feels upon getting an item.



> 4)  Butter up the artificer/wizard and convince him that I need this upgrade more than the others in the party.  Possible too.  Banning purchase but leaving easy crafting seems like a little oversight though.




Not at all.  It is a deliberate decision.  It means that that player than can do his own crafting obtains the full measure of reward for pursuing that path, and has a character that is 'special' in a way that he would not be if he lived in a world were magic items were mundane commodities.  



> 5)  Change my character concept.  This one is very sad.  A central tenet in the character concept is the fighting style, and the fighting style is only feasible with a small group of weapons...




These sorts of statements irritate me.  I would hope that there is alot more to your character than what fighting style he adopts which to me is a tertairy trait of characterization at best.  The notion of 'weapon choice' = 'character concept' strikes me as CRPG lite at best.  As a DM if I asked you to submit a character concept for approval, I'd probably be irritated if any sort mechical issue like what weapon you wielded was mentioned, must less central to the character.  For one thing, the best and maybe only case I can think of for mentioning a weapon in your character concept is the 'legacy weapon inherited from family member' and that plot device is so well used now as to be hackneyed at best, and only slightly better than 'two scimitar wielding drow ranger' (which again, notice the irritating idea that weapon choice equal character concept).


----------



## hong (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Not at all.  It is a deliberate decision.  It means that that player than can do his own crafting obtains the full measure of reward for pursuing that path, and has a character that is 'special' in a way that he would not be if he lived in a world were magic items were mundane commodities.




Yes. He gets items at half price!



> These sorts of statements irritate me.




Oh well.



> I would hope that there is alot more to your character than what fighting style he adopts which to me is a tertairy trait of characterization at best.  The notion of 'weapon choice' = 'character concept' strikes me as CRPG lite at best.




You say this like it's a negative thing.


----------



## satori01 (Mar 12, 2007)

I am ultimately opposed to to Wealth by Level definitions in the DMG.  Wulf hit the nail on the head...if you power up the base classes the need for the DM to calculate detailed wealth spread sheets to determine if the group has enough cash to operate.  For me as a DM this is the most tedious part of adventure construction.

If you boost up the power level of players, than magic items are gravy and can be quirky, fewer in number and potentially more powerful.

People in general on this board do not like the idea of players just buying their magic items...I actually doubt most people actually play the Wallmart Magic Item way...but more a combination of the the two.  Realistically pricing has to be adjusted for some items because players do take Crafting Feats.

I would say that sadly games like Diablo and NWN 1&2 do a better job of making interesting magic items, with constant and situational powers than D&D.

The other thing I would say is that situational and quirking magic items can really change the outcome of an encounter.  I've seen a well placed Philter of Love or a judiciously used dollop of Sovereign glue totally alter the expected course of an encounter.

Frankly those moments are what I play for, so I do almost freely give out quirky magic items, especially w/ limited charges.

I would also say that staves are overpriced...maybe not for what they do, but for the simple fact that staves cost so much to give one to a wizard character you are talking a minimum of around 8th -10th level.  It strikes me their should be some 'discount' staves for 5 level + use.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Mar 12, 2007)

With all due respect to Andy Collins, this is a dumb argument.  Magic items are as wondrous or dull as a Dungeon Master makes them and it's up to the players to suss out just how much significance an item has.  So they "only" affect rules in any one given way: so what!  Injecting some color and some thought in to what they do or how they do it really isn't that hard to do.

If he's that concerned, perhaps he should consult *D&D* (the 1974 rules) and apply intelligence to his magic items as swords are in that august edition of the game and really give his players something to have fun with.

Frankly, I think this is another case of someone forgetting how to have fun with *DUNGEONS & DRAGONS* and wholly overthinking one tiny aspect of the game.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> This is just one of those bizarre D&Disms: even fairly low-level characters with a few hundred gold pieces to their names are wealthy by the standards of those living around them.




Actually, absurdly wealthy by the standards of those living around them.  If we assume the 1st edition wealth scale, then a gold peice ought to be worth about $1000 equivalent.  That means starting characters have managed to accumulate an inheritance of some $100,000.  



> PC's will eventually become as rich as the richest noble (those elite ones that invariably seem to be semi-retired adventurers themselves notwithstanding). If you're a trillionaire, you will find few doors get slammed in your face.




Well, that was pretty much exactly my point.  Wealthy characters can use thier wealth to obtain status, influence, political power, contacts, and resources other than stuff than hang on thier weapons belt.  They can build castles, hire hirelings, manage lands and merchantile companies.  Having established themselves in this way, I'd be much more willing to assume that the PC's have become legitimate brokers of power as well, and thus could make contacts with whoever it is that sells magic items.  But even then, it wouldn't be a Wal-Mart situation.  It would be more like me rolling up a few random items a month and allowing them to bid on them.



> For the model you describe to work, every item-hoarding organization has to exist in a perpetual state of financially solvency.




Not so much.  All you have to assume is that every item-hoarding organization liquidates last the instruments of its own power and security.  Again, assume that NPC act alot like PC's.  If the PC's hold lots of resources, and then run into problem and need liquidate resources to pay debts, I can promise you that the last thing that they'll get rid of is thier magic items.  If it comes to it, the PC's will scarf up their magic items and run rather than do that.  My assumption is that NPC's act in basically the same manner, and furthermore that when a brower broker falls, it's resources are invariably absorbed by one of its rivals, usually directly by some act of force.  Again, the assumption is not that there isn't a market, but rather that it is a closed market.   Even if there were an auction of magic resources, and this is unlikely except when several rival power brokers were forced to divy up the spoils, it wouldn't be one open to 'the public'.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> You say this like it's a negative thing.




If I wanted to play Diablo, I'd play Diablo.  An actual CRPG gives a far more enjoyable experience of a CRPG than playing D&D does.  If you are going to bother with pen, paper, and dice, it seems to me that you should focus on those things that pen, paper, and dice do better than a computer, not those things which a CRPG does better.


----------



## hong (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If I wanted to play Diablo, I'd play Diablo.  An actual CRPG gives a far more enjoyable experience of a CRPG than playing D&D does.




You say this like they were mutually exclusive.



> If you are going to bother with pen, paper, and dice,




Who cares about the pen, paper or dice? I'm here for the trash-talking! And the minis.



> it seems to me that you should focus on those things that pen, paper, and dice do better than a computer, not those things which a CRPG does better.




Indeed. There ain't nothing like playing Diablo with the opportunity to actually trash-talk the opposition, with minis of your own.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 12, 2007)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> And they cost 10,000 gp. It's right there in the 1e DMG. Or that same 10,000 gp might yield the *Wand of Orcus*?!??!? Now granted the 1e DMG does not encourage free trade of magic items (or artifacts), but I can't imagine we were the only folks who saw the stuff had prices and made them available for sale in large cities.




Those 1e DMG prices are sale prices - a guide to what adventurer PCs can actually sell the items for!  That's why the more powerful items are so cheap; because there isn't infinite wealth in the economy.  Gygax specifically says not to make items buyable.  I didn't then know why; I do now - no buying of MI may not be 'economically correct', but it is 'mythically correct'.  Have the ancient sage, noble lord or master weaponsmith *give* the PC the +3 sword, sure.  But don't have them sell it on demand.

I think, now, that Gygax probably did make a mistake setting specific values on items, it has led ultimately to the 3e situation of MI as commodity.  In my Moldvay B/X game there are no prices listed and this just doesn't arise.  Items are found, gifted, ocasionally made - usually by an NPC - but not bought and sold.  You *could* sell that +1 sword, but most places won't give you some huge amount of cash for it.


----------



## charlesatan (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If I wanted to play Diablo, I'd play Diablo.  An actual CRPG gives a far more enjoyable experience of a CRPG than playing D&D does.  If you are going to bother with pen, paper, and dice, it seems to me that you should focus on those things that pen, paper, and dice do better than a computer, not those things which a CRPG does better.




And I assume a CRPG is good at bartering, haggling, intimidating (and perhaps stealing from) magic item vendors?

If you don't want magic item Wal-Mart, that's fine. For other gamers, that's where they get their kicks. But even the "magic shop" experience can be a role-playing encounter. Heck in FR, the Red Wizards of Thay are plot hooks in themselves (do I buy from these guys even if I know they're ultimately villains?).


----------



## hong (Mar 12, 2007)

charlesatan said:
			
		

> And I assume a CRPG is good at bartering, haggling, intimidating (and perhaps stealing from) magic item vendors?
> 
> If you don't want magic item Wal-Mart, that's fine. For other gamers, that's where they get their kicks. But even the "magic shop" experience can be a role-playing encounter. Heck in FR, the Red Wizards of Thay are plot hooks in themselves (do I buy from these guys even if I know they're ultimately villains?).



 Cue turgid response on the mythical incorrectness of Red Wizards.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Cue turgid response on the mythical incorrectness of Red Wizards.




Wow, Hong sure has mellowed with age...


----------



## hong (Mar 12, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Wow, Hong sure has mellowed with age...



 Hey, S'mon, guess what?

ACHILLES DIED.

HAW HAW!


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Mar 12, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Eh, the 3e DMG tells the GM to make all items freely available, up to 100,000gp value in a Metropolis.




Just one of the many things I ignore from the 3e DMG.


----------



## Seeten (Mar 12, 2007)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> Frankly, i think i solved this problem a long time ago.
> 
> I really roll on the random treasure tables.
> 
> ...




Interesting to who? To you?

Figurine of owlish power might be interesting to the DM, or maybe a ranger, but my Sorcerer couldnt care less about it. Yet it still counts against my wealth as though it were a useful item, and the Colossal Red Dragon now is apparently a fair fight, since I meet the wealth by level guidelines...with my owl.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 12, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> perhaps....
> 
> So, discuss. Do most magic items in D&D suck? Are characters overly dependent on boring +x bonuses? Are Andy Collins, et al, encouraging munchkin min-maxing when they drop the price of some magic items by over half?




If you bothered to read what he stated, it was pretty clear that the items they are dropping in price are the crappy ones, in order to get people to consider using them, as their price was a design error.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 12, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> With all due respect to Andy Collins, this is a dumb argument.  Magic items are as wondrous or dull as a Dungeon Master makes them and it's up to the players to suss out just how much significance an item has.  So they "only" affect rules in any one given way: so what!  Injecting some color and some thought in to what they do or how they do it really isn't that hard to do.
> 
> If he's that concerned, perhaps he should consult *D&D* (the 1974 rules) and apply intelligence to his magic items as swords are in that august edition of the game and really give his players something to have fun with.
> 
> Frankly, I think this is another case of someone forgetting how to have fun with *DUNGEONS & DRAGONS* and wholly overthinking one tiny aspect of the game.





Everything new is bad! 

Please. No one ever gave 2 craps about a +1 sword. OOooooh, I hit 5% more of the time. I'll chuck it in the bag with my other horde of +1 weapons. Because if you played that dreadful edition, by the rules, thats what you'd have. A monstrous pile of items, if you went by the treasure charts and not the hypocritical chest thumping DM advice of "make your players wash your car to find a rusty bottle cap on a stick!". 

Its not forrgetting to have fun. Its applying logical design to the game. I'm glad its being done for the first time.

I'm sorry 3rd edition ran over YOUR dog.


----------



## Seeten (Mar 12, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Andy Collins:
> "Ultimately, we realized that the greatest factor influencing the likelihood of a particular magic item being used by a character came down to its cost."
> 
> Naw, this just shows how much they have the wrong end of the stick.  The big problem is not pricing, but fungibility.  If you can reliably sell the rarely-useful exotic item, and buy the routinely useful-at-staying alive item, that's what you'll do, because  D&D players fear PC death.  Most would sell a Helm of Underwater Action for a +1 sword, if they didn't already have such a sword.  The only solution is not to have items regularly available to buy at all.




Actually, in your hypothetical campaign, I'd give your ridiculous helm to charity, and walk around with my wooden longsword, and rusty platemail. You can keep your terrible items, thanks.

I was "lucky" enough to actually play in a game like this, too. My level 8 Barbarian had NO magical gear beyond a pair of "Boots of Survival" granting him a +10 survival skill. No magic weapon, no gauntlets of strength, nada. We fought demons with DR/magic, my ac was 15, no magic armor for me! We still fought giants who power attacked too.

But hey, I had my "cool and interesting" boots.

I love how DM's think they are so cool, and their treasure is just so wonderful players should be excited just at the thought of a pair of fur boots, but, uh, yeah. Whatever.


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 12, 2007)

Andy worked hard to point out two things:

1.  Magic items are too expensive, if you buy my book, they'll be cheaper here

2.  Your DM is obiously a scrooge for not giving enough items out, if you buy my book, your DM will have no choice but to let your wizard make dozens and dozens for you.

3.  If you buy my book, we'll have every combination possible so that you don't lose out on having to choose between two cloaks or three rings.

..if you buy my book.

Magic items are boring...that's the problem with magic items...but if you buy my book..they'll become exciting and new.


jh


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Interesting to who? To you?
> 
> Figurine of owlish power might be interesting to the DM, or maybe a ranger, but my Sorcerer couldnt care less about it. Yet it still counts against my wealth as though it were a useful item, and the Colossal Red Dragon now is apparently a fair fight, since I meet the wealth by level guidelines...with my owl.




Errr, I think he was making it fairly clear that he doesn't give a crap about the suggested wealth by level guidelines, and hense, he doesn't give a crap about caring whether his PC's meet some hypothetical and highly suspect absolute guidelines about what is an appropriate challenge for a party of a given character level.

Instead, he's suggesting that a 'random' assortment of items some of which are more powerful and some of which are less powerful than default for a character level makes for a more interesting time by all, because instead of a predictable suite of resources the players must use what they have at hand to meet the challenges.  And yes, that is interesting for everyone, especially if the DM adds just a small ammount of common sense as guidance when the dice falling where they may produces results that ruin the campaign.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Actually, in your hypothetical campaign, I'd give your ridiculous helm to charity, and walk around with my wooden longsword, and rusty platemail. You can keep your terrible items, thanks.




Actually, in his campaign, I doubt you'd be invited to play, so it would be a mute point anyway.


----------



## Seeten (Mar 12, 2007)

I wouldnt play if I were invited. Life is too short for crappy games. Also, its moot, not mute.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Mar 12, 2007)

Threads like this make me wonder if I should have even started the new 3.5 game.  "I got screwed since my wealth by level isn't the same as the book, plus my actual items aren't in the big six so they suck!".  I think it just requires a DM and the players to be on the same page moreso than ever.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 12, 2007)

edit: oh never mind.


----------



## MINI (Mar 12, 2007)

OK,

I read the article.  Its all wrong.  Equating cost to magic items isn't a be all end all nor is any character guaranteed to have more than 2 items from the big six.  It goes back to the fact that playing DnD is about knowing how to use you character and not just your magic items.  Cost is thrown out when you figure in use of the treasure tables an that characters will find some 'free' treasure they can resell or trade for more useful things or even keep.

I think every character above about level 3 should have a magic weapon.  Beyond that I don't care what kind of magic items they get.   If characters are slightly underfed on magic items they will use the pitiful items they have since its all they have or find a way to get better items (the mage might take a meta magic feat).  In the end all those useless items no one wants to put in print will get hocked off fro a good amount of gold or kept by someone-- maybe even traded for an item off the big six.  They still have use and sometimes can end up being really fun in the right situation (you get in a fight with weird one eyed flying bats and break out your windfan!).

So thats my 2 cents.....


----------



## Cheiromancer (Mar 12, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Also, its moot, not mute.




I was going to keep quiet about this, myself.   

I'm thinking it might be better to have an innate bonus for the "big six".  A level based system that automatically applies an enhancement bonus to your stats, weapons, etc..  And thereby free up treasure for more interesting items.

It'll be interesting to see how Andy tackles this problem.  I'm looking forward to seeing the book.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 12, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Everything new is bad!
> ...
> I'm sorry 3rd edition ran over YOUR dog.




I think most of us here are not going to be interested in this shifting to a partisan war aligned by edition.  So everyone, please, let's not slip in that direction.  While we are at it, let's remember that we should not be dismissive of each other's opinions and thoughts, okay?


----------



## helium3 (Mar 12, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I agree comletely - I find D&D's magic items to be dull, mechanical boosters,




Yeah, but from my experience this is how most players want it to be. They don't have the time or inclination to treat magic items as anything but that.


----------



## Belen (Mar 12, 2007)

I solved this problem in my game.  It was never a problem prior to 3e, so I just took away a few options and I was good to go.

1.) No item creation feats for players.  Mages or Mastersmiths/crafters must devote themselves to the creation of these items.
2.) Magic shops do not exist.  If you want to sell something, then you must find someone with the cash to buy it.  This usually involves a lot of time gathering info and finding those involved in secret markets.
3.) If you want a specific item, then you quest for it or for someone who can make it.

As for spending their money, they are free to buy land, title, etc.


----------



## MINI (Mar 12, 2007)

So basically buying and creating magic items diminishes magic items in some way is what your rules imply-- not that I disagree....


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Threads like this make me wonder if I should have even started the new 3.5 game.  "I got screwed since my wealth by level isn't the same as the book, plus my actual items aren't in the big six so they suck!".  I think it just requires a DM and the players to be on the same page moreso than ever.




There is nothing wrong with the rules of 3.x per se.  In fact, the third edition rules (3.0 moreso than 3.5) are by far the best rules set that the D&D game has ever had.  

What's wrong with 3.x is not the rules, but the presentation.  It's not the rules that suck, its the maturity of the advice that goes along with them.  If you read the 1st edition DMG, rulewise its an absolute mess, and some of the advice EGG gives is very suspect.   (In fact, he specifically mentions that thier were failures to communicate in earlier books that created problems, for example people taking too literally the random treasure charts, so its not like he's unaware of problems.)  But he never treats the DM as stupid, and he's clearly writing to the DM in a 'peer to peer' tone.  If you read the 3.x edition DMG, you get the impression that the writer thinks the reader is too stupid to conduct a game with the grace and elegance that the author himself most certainly does, and so instead of writing 'peer to peer', he lays down some really juvenile guidelines for how to run a campaign designed to get say a 12 year old kid up and running as a reasonable DM on his way to maturity.  I suppose they working with the assumption that most DM's are head strong creative people and will eventually grow out of any stricture you lay upon them, develop house rules, homebrews, and different styles of play.  But the problem with this is that 3.x is also a much more player oriented game in presentation than earlier editions (I'm fairly certain the justification for this is economic and not game value), and as a result it tends to foster DM/Player conflict.   There is an increasing assumption amongst players that 'grew up' on 3rd edition that if the DM's style doesn't exactly match that of the DMG, that he's somehow 'breaking the rules'.  

Witness the many posts of the sort, "If the DM gives me what my character needs, rather than what I the player want my character to have, then he's a power-tripping ego maniacal RBDM and I don't want to play with a jerk like that."  It strikes me as infantile whining, but its repeatedly what I've encountered from newer players on the board and IRL.  

So, for my part, I'm a huge fan of 3rd edition.  I think its great.  I think its alot better of an edition than any previous edition rules wise, and its basically the rules set I was trying to create with all my tweaks of earlier editions.  On the other hand, I loved playing BD&D and 1st edition, and I'm not interested in an edition wars thread.  To the extent that I can sympathize with the grognards that think earlier editions were a better game, I think 3rd editions sucks worse than any other edition as a guideline to running an interesting campaign, or being creative, or being a good roleplayer.  I don't know if it is the CRPG influence that earlier editions didn't have to cope with, or what (because no CRPG I know gives players what they want rather than what they need unless they enter cheat codes), but the number of "Cry me a river!  My DM didn't let me buy a +5 holy sword in the nearest town!" posts that EnWorld gets month after month, leads me to think that there is something very limited in the way people are encouraged to think about the game.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> There is nothing wrong with the rules of 3.x per se.  In fact, the third edition rules (3.0 moreso than 3.5) are by far the best rules set that the D&D game has ever had.
> 
> What's wrong with 3.x is not the rules, but the presentation.  It's not the rules that suck, its the maturity of the advice that goes along with them.  If you read the 1st edition DMG, rulewise its an absolute mess, and some of the advice EGG gives is very suspect.   (In fact, he specifically mentions that thier were failures to communicate in earlier books that created problems, for example people taking too literally the random treasure charts, so its not like he's unaware of problems.)  But he never treats the DM as stupid, and he's clearly writing to the DM in a 'peer to peer' tone.  If you read the 3.x edition DMG, you get the impression that the writer thinks the reader is too stupid to conduct a game with the grace and elegance that the author himself most certainly does, and so instead of writing 'peer to peer', he lays down some really juvenile guidelines for how to run a campaign designed to get say a 12 year old kid up and running as a reasonable DM on his way to maturity.  I suppose they working with the assumption that most DM's are head strong creative people and will eventually grow out of any stricture you lay upon them, develop house rules, homebrews, and different styles of play.  But the problem with this is that 3.x is also a much more player oriented game in presentation than earlier editions (I'm fairly certain the justification for this is economic and not game value), and as a result it tends to foster DM/Player conflict.   There is an increasing assumption amongst players that 'grew up' on 3rd edition that if the DM's style doesn't exactly match that of the DMG, that he's somehow 'breaking the rules'.
> 
> ...




I like 3e, there are some things I would have designed differently, but overall it's good.  And IME you are right about some of the assumptions that 3e tends to foster among players.  But its up to the DM and group to find a baseline for thier game and have fun.  I'm not going to have magic item shops, so I'll just have to work with that when doing the campaign.


----------



## jasin (Mar 12, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> 2.) Magic shops do not exist.  If you want to sell something, then you must find someone with the cash to buy it.  This usually involves a lot of time gathering info and finding those involved in secret markets.



How does this look in practice? If it's players saying "we spend a lot of time gathering info and finding those involved in secret markets" and you replying "OK, you found a guy who's willing to give you 18,000 for that +1 unholy greatclub" how is it different from just walking into a "magic shop"?

If it involves actually playing out all the conversations even though nothing exciting happens, isn't it just boring?

If it involves actually playing out all the conversations and interesting stuff happens, isn't this interesting just adventuring as usual, with occasional stop to buy and sell magic items (when you finally find these secret markets)? And isn't that how it usually looks in a game where people willing to buy and sell magic aren't secret?


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 12, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I think most of us here are not going to be interested in this shifting to a partisan war aligned by edition.  So everyone, please, let's not slip in that direction.  While we are at it, let's remember that we should not be dismissive of each other's opinions and thoughts, okay?




Why is my statement not ok, but his sig ok?

Given that his initial statement, which is loaded with edition war type messages, why is expressing the opposite opinion not allowed? I think 1st edition was a mediocre at best designed game, with poor internal consistency. Why is he allowed to state we should look to it for inspiration, but when I state the opposite opinion, its forbidden?


----------



## Felon (Mar 12, 2007)

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> You really think someone would mistake me for your sockpuppet when I've been a member here several months longer than you (slightly over five years in total)?




Go you beat by a couple of years, actually. They just deleted the account. 

But tenures aside, spew is as spew does. Why should WotC slash and burn a system that's achieved success and popularity amongst gamers? You should've received a thorough ridiculing for that diatribe. Don't know what's gotten into ENWorlders recently. They're slacking off.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Mar 12, 2007)

Its all about supply and demand.  Magic items that are always active, are useful 1000 times more often than others and don't take up item slots will be in much higher demand than those odd items that might be needed once in a while.  Since not every Tom, Dick and Merlin can create these items, and since they cost XP to create, you shouldn't expect to find +1 sword factories churning these items out to flood the market and drive the cost way down.  The result is most of those items on the "big six" should be among the more expensive items.  

Another option I have been considering is the elimination of items that just provide a combat, AC or ability boost.  Instead magic items would have other properties that would be the primary magical effect or effects.  The combat, AC or ability enhancements would be side effects of the primary effect(s) and would scale with the power of the primary.  I haven't worked out any kind of details yet, so I cannot provide them.  It's just an idea I've been kicking around in my head a bit.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 12, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I'm thinking it might be better to have an innate bonus for the "big six".  A level based system that automatically applies an enhancement bonus to your stats, weapons, etc..  And thereby free up treasure for more interesting items.




That makes three of us, now, in this thread. 

I think we're officially a conspiracy.


----------



## jasin (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If you read the 3.x edition DMG, you get the impression that the writer thinks the reader is too stupid to conduct a game with the grace and elegance that the author himself most certainly does, and so instead of writing 'peer to peer', he lays down some really juvenile guidelines for how to run a campaign designed to get say a 12 year old kid up and running as a reasonable DM on his way to maturity.



Is this necessarily a bad thing? Who needs the guidelines more, a 12 year old kid who thought it might be fun to try running a game of this "Dragons & Dungeons" thingy while he's grounded from WoW, or the mature, experienced and sophisticated 35 year old DM who played and ran all three editions?


----------



## Felon (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Actually, in his campaign, I doubt you'd be invited to play, so it would be a mute point anyway.





			
				Seeten said:
			
		

> I wouldnt play if I were invited. Life is too short for crappy games. Also, its moot, not mute.



Meeeow!


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 12, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Threads like this make me wonder if I should have even started the new 3.5 game.  "I got screwed since my wealth by level isn't the same as the book, plus my actual items aren't in the big six so they suck!".




Given that item creation is tied into the market price, I would expect that reducing the price of non "big six" items would encourage players making, buying or questing for items outside of that group. Because their value is more accurately calculated in relation to other items, they are more likely to see use.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> How does this look in practice? If it's players saying "we spend a lot of time gathering info and finding those involved in secret markets" and you replying "OK, you found a guy who's willing to give you 18,000 for that +1 unholy greatclub" how is it different from just walking into a "magic shop"?




Versimlitude.  The one of the many problems with 'Magic Item Wal-Marts' is that they encourage the player to think in ways that are anachronistic for the setting (or more precisely, I should say 'my setting', since for some settings - say Eberron - modernity is actually what you are going for to a certain extent).  By treating the RP universe as a model of the real world culture he is familiar with, he's limiting his emmersiveness from his perspective (and I'd hope that that is a loss) and from my perspective he's limiting the depth of his interactivness because he's unable to see a good portion of the game world as it exists (and for me thats a loss).  If I encouraged the player to think that he could just walk into a shop and buy anything (or even something) off the shelf, he'd be missing something.  It's not just with magic items.  You can't go in and buy platemail off the shelf.  For one thing, it takes a year to make.  For another thing, there may be laws prohibiting its sale in much the same way that people can't just go buy M1-A2 main battle tanks off the shelf.  I won't the player to think about the fact that going around with a sword, lance, mail, and a warhorse looks alot like what we'd think of as riding down main street with an M-1 tank.  I want the player to understand why he's conspicious and what social role and status he currently occupies, so that for example, when his social status improves as a result of these heroics he's engaged in he can experience the difference.

So, he's losing something and its just going to confuse him if doesn't get started accepting the conventions of the setting if for example when he goes strolling up to the gates of the nearest town and the guy at the gate says something like, "Halt! Why is that you go about bearing in such fell arms?  What business have you in this city that you are arrayed in such ironmongery, for know now that no one may enter our peaceful city wearing such warlike gear without the consent of our Lord.  Now, speak your names strangers, or else prepare yourself for the taste of steel!" 

In other words, I'm drawing on things like Beowulf, and the Illiad, and medieval epics and all sorts of other things, and I expect the players to get into that.  I'm not drawing on Diablo, and if you want to play Diablo, I suggest we have a LAN party and not bother with pen, paper, and imagination.



> "If it involves actually playing out all the conversations even though nothing exciting happens, isn't it just boring?"




I guess that depends.  I love dungeon crawling.  I love wilderness adventures.  I love urban adventures, murder mysteries and epic campaigns to save the world.  But, I also think that slowing down and doing dialogue and letting the PC's and NPC's characterize themselves is a big part of role playing.  To give it an analogy, maybe someone thinks of that part of the 'feast' as 'broccolli', and they hate 'broccolli' and I can sympathize with that.  'Broccolli' isn't everyone's thing, and I certainly wouldn't waste alot of time on it if we were eating 'fast food' instead of a 'feast'.  I'd get right down to the entree, whatever it was.  But, if I'm going to take my time and enjoy the meal, I'd like some well prepared vegetables to go with everything else - whether I'm a DM or a player.

To use a somewhat imperfect example, consider the campaign laid out in the popular web comic - 'The Order of the Stick'.  Is it your contention that all that interaction with NPC's are things were 'nothing is happening' and that those parts of the story are 'just boring'?  What would happen to the comic if we cut out every panel about character maintenance, equipment maintenance, character development, and non-combat NPC interaction?


----------



## Garnfellow (Mar 12, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I'm thinking it might be better to have an innate bonus for the "big six".  A level based system that automatically applies an enhancement bonus to your stats, weapons, etc..  And thereby free up treasure for more interesting items.




Rather than have these innate bonuses come from class levels, maybe a slightly better way to enact this concept would be to have the big six all act fundamentally as bonded/leveled/growth items: items that grow in power along with the characters. The more time spent with the item and the more powerful the character, the more and mightier powers are unlocked. 

A key piece would be to make the investment non-transferable: the sword might be +5 in the hands of the fighter who inherited it from his father and wielded it for the last 10 years of game time, but it's only worth +1 to the brigands who stole it last week.

This idea was really popularized in Earthdawn, and has been tried several times in 3e (Weapons of Legacy, Swords of Our Fathers, etc.) but (IMHO) never successfully. My biggest problem with all implementations I've seen -- be it feats, prestige classes, or raw XP costs -- was that they were just too expensive to be really enticing for a player. My players cleaned out the WotC revision of White Plume Mountain, and none of them had any interest in keeping any of the legacy weapons.

Making the big six all bonded items might solve a LOT of problems, actually. Take hong's problems with NPCs loaded with too much magic gear. That conundrum largely goes away if his stuff is all bounded, and thus worth far less to the PCs than to the NPC.


----------



## Seeten (Mar 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Meeeow!




*Flashes Claws*


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> Is this necessarily a bad thing? Who needs the guidelines more, a 12 year old kid who thought it might be fun to try running a game of this "Dragons & Dungeons" thingy while he's grounded from WoW, or the mature, experienced and sophisticated 35 year old DM who played and ran all three editions?




No, its not necessarily a bad thing.  I completely understand why they did it, both from a technical writing standpoint, and an economics standpoint.  The game isn't going to last if they don't bring new blood in, and the player/user you have to write to the most is the one that has the least experience.   I'm just saying that there is a cost, and I wish that they would have found the space for a few more sidebars - not so much for the DM - but for players that might be reading the DMG, so that they'd maybe understand more along the lines that this part of the game they neither have nor should want any sort of control over.  Not knowing the secrets of the game and the setting, not having the same game experience with each DM, not approaching the same challenges in the same ways, and using the resources that you are presented with are big parts of enjoying the game.  So many players seem to think that the game is only fun if they know the secrets of the game and the setting, if the game experience is exactly that specified by the default guidelines, if they can choose and customize thier resources however they like, and so forth.  But this seems to me exactly backwards, and far more suited to the sort of 'tool tweaking/tactical gaming' experience associated with CRPGs - were roleplay is light to non-existant - than it is in face to face pen and paper gaming where the main advantage that you have over a tactical wargame or a board game or a computer game is the ability to indulge in heavy RPing.


----------



## Eridanis (Mar 12, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Why is my statement not ok, but his sig ok?
> 
> Given that his initial statement, which is loaded with edition war type messages, why is expressing the opposite opinion not allowed? I think 1st edition was a mediocre at best designed game, with poor internal consistency. Why is he allowed to state we should look to it for inspiration, but when I state the opposite opinion, its forbidden?




1. You'll note that Umbran said ALL, not just you.
2. One of the rules of ENworld is that moderating decisions are not discussed in-thread. Please email me, Umbran, or any of the mods or admins if you have any questions.


----------



## Shazman (Mar 12, 2007)

Gooba42 said:
			
		

> The ability to create my own content and play flexibly with a group of players all free to do the same is why I play this instead of D&D Online, EverQuest or any of a handful of competitors in the market.
> 
> I'm sure it's better for WotC's bottom line this way but honestly I'd love to see them focus on mechanics rather than implementations.
> 
> ...




That's great if you've got gobs of free time to come up with your own soulmelds, vestiges, etc. Knock yourself out.  There are a lot of us DM's that barley have time to read an adventure once during the week before the weekly game.  If I have to do the work to create all of this stuff,  it isn't going to happen, because the time simply isn't there.  Thankfully, WotC's done enough of the work for us so we can get by.  There's still nothing to stop you from making your own custom material if you have the time, creativity, and energy.


----------



## Seeten (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> No, its not necessarily a bad thing.  I completely understand why they did it, both from a technical writing standpoint, and an economics standpoint.  The game isn't going to last if they don't bring new blood in, and the player/user you have to write to the most is the one that has the least experience.   I'm just saying that there is a cost, and I wish that they would have found the space for a few more sidebars - not so much for the DM - but for players that might be reading the DMG, so that they'd maybe understand more along the lines that this part of the game they neither have nor should want any sort of control over.  Not knowing the secrets of the game and the setting, not having the same game experience with each DM, not approaching the same challenges in the same ways, and using the resources that you are presented with are big parts of enjoying the game.  So many players seem to think that the game is only fun if they know the secrets of the game and the setting, if the game experience is exactly that specified by the default guidelines, if they can choose and customize thier resources however they like, and so forth.  But this seems to me exactly backwards, and far more suited to the sort of 'tool tweaking/tactical gaming' experience associated with CRPGs - were roleplay is light to non-existant - than it is in face to face pen and paper gaming where the main advantage that you have over a tactical wargame or a board game or a computer game is the ability to indulge in heavy RPing.




The problem here is somehow assuming that people who want magic weapons, better ac and better saves are somehow bad roleplayers who read the DMG and the MM.

For the record, I've read the PRC's in the DMG, and the feats in the Monster books, and thats IT. I dont know the monster abilities without making my knowledge check, and I roleplay quite well, thanks.

That said, I also have more than just the first clue in what keeps a character alive. Helm of Opposite Alignment doesnt help my fort save when a Basilisk stares at me, or my will save when the Lich casts Horrid Wilting, it doesnt help me hit a dragons outrageously high AC. Magic weapons are factored into the difficulty of fighting a dragon, or a demon, and until you fight one with DR 10/Magic with a toothpick and a rusty pipe, you dont appreciate that balance. You might think it makes little difference, and then you tell you tell your players, "I'm sorry, I had no idea it'd be a TPK, stupid rules" and the players go home, muttering, "....Helm of Underwater action..."


----------



## Technik4 (Mar 12, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> For the record, I've read the PRC's in the DMG, and the feats in the Monster books, and thats IT.






			
				Seeten said:
			
		

> Helm of Opposite Alignment doesnt help my fort save when a Basilisk stares at me, or my will save when the Lich casts Horrid Wilting, it doesnt help me hit a dragons outrageously high AC.




Heh. 

I think in non-module run 3e magic items aren't much of a problem because of competent DM'ing and black market magic item trade (or regular markets, for that matter). And in module-run 3e, you get an appropriate amount of treasure and usually have the same. The extremes of fighting with no magical items seem to crop up in threads like this, but not in actual d&d games...


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Mar 12, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Given that item creation is tied into the market price, I would expect that reducing the price of non "big six" items would encourage players making, buying or questing for items outside of that group. Because their value is more accurately calculated in relation to other items, they are more likely to see use.




Good idea.  Maybe the big six should cost more and the rest cost less?  Factor in more than just straight mechanical effects in cost and factor in frequency of use?


----------



## Seeten (Mar 12, 2007)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> Heh.
> 
> I think in non-module run 3e magic items aren't much of a problem because of competent DM'ing and black market magic item trade (or regular markets, for that matter). And in module-run 3e, you get an appropriate amount of treasure and usually have the same. The extremes of fighting with no magical items seem to crop up in threads like this, but not in actual d&d games...




Grats on post 1337.

My barbarian was level 8 with boots of +10 survival as his only magic item. We fought a Demon with DR10/magic, and we died.

So, not only does it happen, it happened to me.

I'm a big boy, and I can make new characters, and I didnt shed a tear, but I did feel like I didnt get a fair shake, considering how and why we died.


----------



## Seeten (Mar 12, 2007)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> Heh.
> 
> I think in non-module run 3e magic items aren't much of a problem because of competent DM'ing and black market magic item trade (or regular markets, for that matter). And in module-run 3e, you get an appropriate amount of treasure and usually have the same. The extremes of fighting with no magical items seem to crop up in threads like this, but not in actual d&d games...




To get at your apparent dig at my use of monsters and there abilities, our Level 6 party lost 2 of our 3 members to petrification when a basilisk killed them. My character escaped by fleeing.

In our level 17 game, a Lich killed half the party with horrid wilting. I survived, due to being immune to death effects.

Our level 17 party also fought a red dragon. We won that one, but we won based on my magical might, not our fighters skill at arms, since he never hit the dragon in the entire fight.

I do appreciate the dig, though. Also, that level 17 game culminated in me becoming a lich, and I do frequent D&D message boards, so I've also heard that Medusa's turn people to stone, and high level mages cast disintegrate, and even that drow have spell resistance. Call me crazy.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> The problem here is somehow assuming that people who want magic weapons, better ac and better saves are somehow bad roleplayers who read the DMG and the MM.




I don't think that that follows from what I wrote.  I assume that all players, bad roleplayers and good ones, want better AC and better weapons and better saves.  Naturally, you want things that increase your players survivability.  What I'm pointing out as annoying to me is the demand that they recieve these things (and exactly these things), else they just aren't going to play.  

For example, I'd have absolutely no problem with a DM that made magic hideously rare, so much so that a 12th level character prized his ring of +2 bonus to stealth and masterwork battleaxe.  That's perfectly sane and interesting as far as I'm concerned, so long as the DM also understands that the longer such a campaign goes on, the more that it will lag magic heavy campaigns in the challenges it can cope with.  But, there is nothing at all inherently wrong with not getting magic items and having to solve problems with ropes, 10' poles, small sacks, lock picks, spikes, hammers, a trusty battleaxe and your wits.



> That said, I also have more than just the first clue in what keeps a character alive. Helm of Opposite Alignment doesnt help my fort save when a Basilisk stares at me, or my will save when the Lich casts Horrid Wilting, it doesnt help me hit a dragons outrageously high AC. Magic weapons are factored into the difficulty of fighting a dragon, or a demon, and until you fight one with DR 10/Magic with a toothpick and a rusty pipe, you dont appreciate that balance.




And until you are forced to fight one with little more than rusty pipe, you aren't really forced to think outside the box either.  It's not incumbant on the DM to give you the tools you want to have to win the challenge.  It's only incumbant on the DM to give you the tools that you need to win the challenge.   



> You might think it makes little difference, and then you tell you tell your players, "I'm sorry, I had no idea it'd be a TPK, stupid rules" and the players go home, muttering, "....Helm of Underwater action..."




Your complaints are directed toward entirely the wrong problem.  The problem here is not that the DM decided to deprive you of magic Wal-Marts, and your prized 'big six'.  It's that he presented you with a challenge that he also didn't equip you to handle.  This is a problem whether or not the DM has magic Wal-Marts or hands out the 'big six' like candy.  Magic Wal-Marts do not gaurantee balanced and appropriate challenges.  The CR system doesn't guarantee balanced and appropriate challenges.  Only a DM can do that.  True, the RAW and guidelines encourage balanced an appropriate challenges and an inexperienced DM may be doing well to stick by them until he learns thier deficiencies and how to game them, and what exactly those CR numbers assume, but at no point is the problem the DM departing from the assumptions of the rules.  The problem is, whether the DM stuck to the guidelines or didn't, poor DM judgment.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 12, 2007)

I'm sorry to threadjack, but...



			
				thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> * Captain America will slap to death the next person who mentions 3rd Edition. Test me on this.*




Well, seeing as though Captain America is dead... (http://www.comicbookbin.com/captainamerica025.html)

_
*3rd Edition. 3rd Edition. 3rd Edition. 3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.3rd Edition.*_

There, I got it off my chest. Continue with your conversation as normal...


----------



## Mr. Patient (Mar 12, 2007)

Add me to the list of people who would like to see the classes altered to include built-in bonuses to stats, AC, etc., Iron Heroes-style, so that the Big Six become less important, or go away entirely.  I think the current system is most irritating when statting up classed villains.  They're almost always going to need stat-boost items to be appropriately challenging, and the end result is that the party accumulates a dozen headbands of intellect +2.  It's tedious for everyone.


----------



## Rolzup (Mar 12, 2007)

I've a simple philosophy, me: Maximize the Fun.

The key, mind you, is that one man's fun might be another man's...well, non-fun.  So what worked with Gaming Group Alpha might not be viable with Gaming Group Beta.

What I've seen, though, is this: _By and large_, players like magic items.  They like being able to get them, and quite often they have something specific to their character that they would like to obtain.

Therefore, it's in my best interests as GM to allow players to do this.  Even if I myself am not altogether fond of the notion of magic shops (largely a logistical matter, although the aesthetics are part of it as well...I'm an old school AD&D DM at heart, I think), I want the PLAYERS to be able to buy magic items, if that's what _they_ want.

I know that, as a player myself, I like being able to buy the items that strike my fancy.  No matter how much it makes the DM in me wince at times.  Bit of a paradox, I know, but there you have it.


----------



## Deekin (Mar 12, 2007)

Belen said:
			
		

> I solved this problem in my game.  It was never a problem prior to 3e, so I just took away a few options and I was good to go.
> 
> 1.) No item creation feats for players.  Mages or Mastersmiths/crafters must devote themselves to the creation of these items.
> 2.) Magic shops do not exist.  If you want to sell something, then you must find someone with the cash to buy it.  This usually involves a lot of time gathering info and finding those involved in secret markets.
> ...





Right now I am running an artificer in an Eberron game, and I have found that the opposite also fixes magic items. Whenever I near a level, I always go flipping through books looking for situational usefully items to craft to use up the last of my craft reserve. Since the party already has maxed out big 6, I end up crafting items that you rarely see in game use, but tend to save our ass when we do need them. 

There is nothing like the look on a DM's face when you pull an unexpected trick out of your hat, like a deck of illusions. I cannot count how many times that thing has saved my life.


----------



## GSHamster (Mar 12, 2007)

One interesting solution to the problem might be to rule that all magical items must have one combat function AND one non-combat function.

So no more vanilla longsword +1, maybe it's a longsword +1 of alignment detection.  No more Helm of Underwater Breathing, but a helm that grants +2 Wisdom and Underwater Breathing.

This way you still get the combat effectiveness, but you get a lot of the weird effects.  And it makes two +1 swords very different from each other.


----------



## drothgery (Mar 12, 2007)

Err... I'd like to know where these supposed magic item Wal-Marts exist at. If any item below a town's gp limit is available, it doesn't mean they're all in one super-store. It just means that you can get them somewhere. The weaponsmith might have some enchanted blades; the armorer a wide selection of mithral shirts (he does know his customers, after all), the church of the goddess of healing offers cure wands and potions for a donation, and the artificer's guild will make unusual items on commission. But since this is Dungeons & Dragons not Merchants & Magic Items, spending a lot of time in-game on exactly who has what for sale in a given city is usually not all that important.


----------



## Agamemnon (Mar 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Go you beat by a couple of years, actually. They just deleted the account.
> 
> But tenures aside, spew is as spew does. Why should WotC slash and burn a system that's achieved success and popularity amongst gamers? You should've received a thorough ridiculing for that diatribe. Don't know what's gotten into ENWorlders recently. They're slacking off.




Hardly surprising, considering the kind of stock of posters we get here these days. Not like the ones we had back in the AD&D days, when every race, class, alignment and hair color had their own XP tables, class caps and secret hand wriggles and _we liked it_. Today's gamer's don't even know what weapon speeds, THAC0 or 3/2 attacks per turn means...

I've always thought that if I'm to make an ass out of myself in public, I should gon for the the whole hog. Mind you, I really have no love for the current incarnation of D&D and think it could stand to lose excess baggage such as the notion of clerics as hybrid casters/fighters instead of a purely priestly class, certain problematic spells and so on and so on. 

I just chose to elaborate my point rather poorly. You must pardon me, it's really not my fault, I'm just too stupid to get it right all at once.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> To get at your apparent dig at my use of monsters and there abilities, our Level 6 party lost 2 of our 3 members to petrification when a basilisk killed them. My character escaped by fleeing.




Let me explain to you part of my theory of dungeon design.  If the party is expected to face something like a Basilisk, that can and will arbitrarily 'kill' players, and can result in a TPK if the dice fall the wrong way, then it is incumbent on me to ensure that players have the resources to deal with it so that an alert and careful party can overcome the challenge with a fairly small ammount of risk.  This DOES NOT mean that I have to give them Cloaks of Resistance and access to magical wal-marts, and quite frankly, neither of those things really addresses the real problem.  

So, for example, I might present the party with various oppurtunities to gain clues and resources:


There is a goblin in the dungeon that knows of the 'big lizard with killer eyes', if captured and interogated about the rest of the level the PC's can learn about the creature and with good diplomacy/intimidate rolls and RP, perhaps also a secret back entrance to the 'big lizard lair'.
There is a scroll case somewhere in the dungeon with 'stone to flesh' or some similarly effacious spell that acts as a 'get out of jail' free card should someone get unlucky with the dice or the party misses other clues.
A friendly ally is on hand back in the haven that will sell a 'stone to flesh' scroll.
In the most likely approach to the big lizard lair, there are a large number of 'remarkably lifelike statues', which will clue any experienced party into looking around corners with a mirror - the sort of mundane but useful equipment that any experienced party will keep in thier pack.
There is a room in the dungeon that contains a number of mirrors.  These can be used to improvise defenses (especially if the party was foolish enough to enter a dungeon without a mirror), or the party can attempt to lure the 'big lizard' into this room to trap it.

After doing that, if I TPKed a party with a Basilisk, I wouldn't blame myself.  I'd chalk it up to a learning experience, and have the party try the dungeon again hopefully having learned something about dungeoneering from the experience.  Likewise, the more resources that a party accumulated, the fewer clues I'd expect myself to provide to them.



> In our level 17 game, a Lich killed half the party with horrid wilting. I survived, due to being immune to death effects.




That's pretty typical of a level 17 game no matter how it was run.  The first question is 'Why wasn't everyone immune to death effects if you were a 17th level party?'.  Death ward is not that hard to come by.  The second question is, "Since when do death wards effect horrid wilting, since it doesn't have the [Death] descriptor?"   



> Our level 17 party also fought a red dragon. We won that one, but we won based on my magical might, not our fighters skill at arms, since he never hit the dragon in the entire fight.




Again, this can be unfortunately fairly typical of level 17 no matter how it is run.


----------



## Agamemnon (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Let me explain to you part of my theory of dungeon design.  If the party is expected to face something like a Basilisk, that can and will arbitrarily 'kill' players, and can result in a TPK if the dice fall the wrong way, then it is incumbent on me to ensure that players have the resources to deal with it so that an alert and careful party can overcome the challenge with a fairly small ammount of risk.  This DOES NOT mean that I have to give them Cloaks of Resistance and access to magical wal-marts, and quite frankly, neither of those things really addresses the real problem.




This all sounds perfectly reasonable. Things like basilisks, dragons, demons, high-level wizards and other monsters don't exist in a vacuum. They create ripples, if you will, in the world around them. The PCs should be able to read these "ripples" to learn something of the creature they're facing, before it comes time to face them.

Not always, mind you. Sometimes you just stumble onto a nest of cockatrice.


----------



## Monte At Home (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If you read the 3.x edition DMG, you get the impression that the writer thinks the reader is too stupid to conduct a game with the grace and elegance that the author himself most certainly does, and so instead of writing 'peer to peer', he lays down some really juvenile guidelines for how to run a campaign designed to get say a 12 year old kid up and running as a reasonable DM on his way to maturity.




Maybe he felt that the 12 year old needed the advice more than the 30 year veteran did. It would certainly seem that there are worse things to do with a core book than to get "a 12 year old kid up and running as a reasonable DM on his way to maturity." In fact, I'm not sure I could come up with better wording for a goal for the basic book on DMing.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Mar 12, 2007)

This is certainly one of the nastier threads I've seen on ENWorld in a while.  If I wanted to enjoy this level of Schadenfreude I would've lurked the World of Warcraft forums.



			
				Agamemnon said:
			
		

> Hardly surprising, considering the kind of stock of posters we get here these days. Not like the ones we had back in the AD&D days, when every race, class, alignment and hair color had their own XP tables, class caps and secret hand wriggles and we *walked up hill both ways in the snow and* liked it.




Fixed that for you.



> Today's gamer's don't even know what weapon speeds, THAC0 or 3/2 attacks per turn means...




And have no idea how lucky they are.


----------



## Agamemnon (Mar 12, 2007)

Indeed. The Core Rulebook is supposed to cater to everyone. Not you, not me, not Bob down the street. *EVERYONE*. In large, friendly letters. I'm surprised they didn't write "DON'T PANIC" on the inside cover of the DMG. It'd be helpful advice for every starter-up in the path to DM-ness.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

Monte At Home said:
			
		

> Maybe he felt that the 12 year old needed the advice more than the 30 year veteran did. It would certainly seem that there are worse things to do with a core book than to get "a 12 year old kid up and running as a reasonable DM on his way to maturity." In fact, I'm not sure I could come up with better wording for a goal for the basic book on DMing.




I believe that I already agreed with that point back in post #148, but I'm flattered that you are following along.

My point was not so much that this was a bad idea, but that it had an unintended consequence.


----------



## Belen (Mar 12, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> How does this look in practice? If it's players saying "we spend a lot of time gathering info and finding those involved in secret markets" and you replying "OK, you found a guy who's willing to give you 18,000 for that +1 unholy greatclub" how is it different from just walking into a "magic shop"?
> 
> If it involves actually playing out all the conversations even though nothing exciting happens, isn't it just boring?
> 
> If it involves actually playing out all the conversations and interesting stuff happens, isn't this interesting just adventuring as usual, with occasional stop to buy and sell magic items (when you finally find these secret markets)? And isn't that how it usually looks in a game where people willing to buy and sell magic aren't secret?




Usually, it involves them actually finding someone.  They may have to grease a fews hands with gold etc.  I always connect them to an adventure/encounter of some sort.  Most of the time, they cannot find a buyer.

I give out plenty of cash though and magic items are just rare in my world.  I have not had anyone willing to part with one in a long time.  

For most treasures, I give out other items like art, jewels, deeds to land, mundame items that are fairly cool.

My campaigns are not low-magic either.  The PCs usually find items that tend to grow more powerful or start our fairly powerful.

It works for me.


----------



## Felon (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I don't think that that follows from what I wrote.  I assume that all players, bad roleplayers and good ones, want better AC and better weapons and better saves.  Naturally, you want things that increase your players survivability.  What I'm pointing out as annoying to me is the demand that they recieve these things (and exactly these things), else they just aren't going to play.
> 
> For example, I'd have absolutely no problem with a DM that made magic hideously rare, so much so that a 12th level character prized his ring of +2 bonus to stealth and masterwork battleaxe.  That's perfectly sane and interesting as far as I'm concerned, so long as the DM also understands that the longer such a campaign goes on, the more that it will lag magic heavy campaigns in the challenges it can cope with.  But, there is nothing at all inherently wrong with not getting magic items and having to solve problems with ropes, 10' poles, small sacks, lock picks, spikes, hammers, a trusty battleaxe and your wits.




The big problem with this whole line of thinking as I see it is this: most DM's just aren't that polished. They don't have their heads in the game deep enough to grasp the full consequences of all their little off-the-cuff house rules. They don't come to ENWorld and read threads about the way a good DM should think. Your bar is unrealistically high.


----------



## Agamemnon (Mar 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> The big problem with this whole line of thinking as I see it is this: most DM's just aren't that polished. They don't have their heads in the game deep enough to grasp the full consequences of all their little off-the-cuff house rules. They don't come to ENWorld and read threads about the way a good DM should think. Your bar is unrealistically high.




I think it's beside the point if the DMs aren't up to the task. I'd rather we didn't have a game that had to bend over backwards to cater to the lowest common denominator. 

The bar might be high, but no matter where we put it, there always will be bad DMs and bad players. So why not put it high enough to make sense for the rest of us?  Although I do admit that's rather Darwinian of me to say.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 12, 2007)

Rolzup said:
			
		

> Maximize the Fun.



Stop making sense.



> What I've seen, though, is this: _By and large_, players like magic items.  They like being able to get them, and quite often they have something specific to their character that they would like to obtain.



On the other hand, players also like to use magic items in odd, inventive, and ... who am I kidding... idiotic ways. They love the freedom to use the wrong tools to solve a problem. This happens more often in campaigns where they can't always buy the right ones.

Oh, and by 'solve' I mean 'kill'.

I've nothing against playing D&D in the manner of Tom Clancy-fancying accountants, but that approach has it's own share of  drawbacks. The way I see it, it's not denying players the items they want, it's offering them a kind of enjoyment they didn't know they wanted.

Which may be arrogant of me. Oh well...



> Even if I myself am not altogether fond of the notion of magic shops...



Try giving them names that are obnoxious puns.


----------



## The Human Target (Mar 12, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Interesting to who? To you?
> 
> Figurine of owlish power might be interesting to the DM, or maybe a ranger, but my Sorcerer couldnt care less about it. Yet it still counts against my wealth as though it were a useful item, and the Colossal Red Dragon now is apparently a fair fight, since I meet the wealth by level guidelines...with my owl.




I think you just won the thread.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> The big problem with this whole line of thinking as I see it is this: most DM's just aren't that polished. They don't have their heads in the game deep enough to grasp the full consequences of all their little off-the-cuff house rules. They don't come to ENWorld and read threads about the way a good DM should think. Your bar is unrealistically high.




It's not unrealistically high.  My bar is realistically high.  My bar was set high by playing with and being mentored by good players.  

Is it unrealistic to think that a 12 year old can do that without help?  Yeah, definately.  My adventure designs at age 12 were really immature (to say nothing of what they were at age 9 when I first grabbed up a red box set and played with my 3rd grade friends).  My DMing style was nonexistant and defaulted to pretty much hack-and-slash, rince repeat, dicing sessions.  My RP ability didn't exist until an older DM coaxed it out of me, and showed me how to run an emmersive story and taught me by example how much better a game could be if ran in that fashion.  Not that I wasn't having fun before hand, but the bar did go up...

I would have just liked a little more mention of rule 0 and where the game can head from its default guidelines.  That's all.  The problem is in a way that 3rd edition suffers from its own good design, in that its such a good design, new players tend to be of the opinion that its holy canon or something rather than just pretty good guidelines.


----------



## shmoo2 (Mar 12, 2007)

Andy Collins said:
			
		

> I’m talking about the hundreds upon hundreds of never-used magic items littering sourcebooks throughout the last six-plus years of the game.




This is true of every single character resource presented in D&D source books.

How many players choose feats like Animal Affinity, Breath Control, True Believer, Tunnel Rat, or Grenadier instead of Power Attack, Weapon Specialization, Empower Spell, Spell Focus, Quicken Spell or Improved Critical?

This is true of spells also- Clerics are given free access to their class spell list to allow them to take the limited application but sometimes vital spells like Remove Disease or Remove Curse when needed. 
Most sorcerer builds probably have a 'big 6' list of spells taken.

Players will always try to choose optimal choices from a set of limited resources- in fact that is part of the fun of the game for most players, I would bet.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Mar 12, 2007)

My own solution to the Big Six problem is as follows.

1)  I try to base encounters more on what I know of my players then what the CR guidelines dictate.  Generally, I try not to make the lack of specific types of items a Death Penalty offense.

2)  I tend to let my players purchase appropriate magic items within reason.  Past a certain point, it will take more then showing up somewhere with a bunch of cash to get certain items.

3)  I will usually avoid throwing around +X weapons or Armour, instead throwing around +y Items with secondary abilities (Such as bane or burst weapons).  This gives you the same tuning options you have with respect to Clerics vs Undead.

4)  While I wont strip magic items, I will not hesitate to bust out with Sunder, or to have a Villain disarm then have a lackey steal a weapon in combat and then run off.  Player gear is not entirely sacred.

Still, I will admit that I have not yet had any campaigns get to a point where item saturation starts to become a problem.

Anyway, I consider this problem to be not much of a surprise.  3rd edition did a great job of making the stats tie into the game better.  But given that the game is heavily combat driven, it should be of no surprise that items that have the most impact on combat are the most effective?

The only way I can see to break up the big 6 is to introduce items that compete against them slot wise but provide wildly different (but still useful abilities).  Items that do the following either dont exist or are hard to find:

- Provide Damage Reduction
- Provide Spell Resistance
- Provide Fast Healing
- Provide a bonus feat or a +X bonus if you have that feat already when equiped
- Provide extra attacks (ie:  A sword that gives a free attack vs some Monster subtype)
- Cast spells on opponent on some hits (ie:  Daze, Slow, Charm Person, Heat Metal, Reduce Person)

Another way to cure this is to give some of the big 6 tradeoff properties.  A cloak that lets someone drop Bab into Saves is a no brainer for Wizards, but for a Front liner?  Gain Str at the cost of Dex or Int?  That is a harder choice.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Schmoe (Mar 12, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That makes three of us, now, in this thread.
> 
> I think we're officially a conspiracy.




If you would please look to your left, the men in black suits would like a word with you.


----------



## Technik4 (Mar 12, 2007)

> I do appreciate the dig, though. Also, that level 17 game culminated in me becoming a lich, and I do frequent D&D message boards, so I've also heard that Medusa's turn people to stone, and high level mages cast disintegrate, and even that drow have spell resistance. Call me crazy.




Crazy. 

It's silly to try and tell people you don't read books and therefore don't have any knowledge of what capabilities items and monsters have and then _in the same post_ outline how certain items have no applicability against certain monsters' special attacks.

This isn't a thread arguing about your ability (or lack thereof) to roleplay, it's about magical items. Some people want a campaign where they may only have 1 magic item by level 10. It's true. The fact that you were in such a campaign and didn't properly convey to the DM that you were unhappy is your problem, not 3rd edition's. Other people want campaigns where they have the amount of wealth outlined by the DM when they hit each level, and the ability to barter/trade/sell/create an item build to their specifications. When they whine, it is not the books (and the guidelines in the books) that are the problem, its the expectations the player may have after reading said books. There's a good reason the wealth by level chart is in the DMG, not the PHB (along with Prestige Classes).

The system can handle both situations, but the first (low magical item distribution with limited access to 'magical shops') puts the onus of Challenge balancing even more on the DM than usual. A rule can't be created to make everyone happy - it takes everyone present and their willingness to compromise for that to happen. If you and your DM can't find common ground, find a new DM.

I think you can see what Andy Collins is talking about if you take a look at any of the 'notable' NPCs found in campaign sourcebooks (like FRCS, Eberron, etc). Rarely will such characters have narrow items (owl figurines), and almost always will they have magical weapons and armor, and a few potions. This is so that if a DM picks them from the book for a fight, they're ready to go (generally speaking).

Much like Mr Cook outlined on his site with regards to spells (that certain spell effects are balanced many times per day, but others should be picked each day and then used up) the item balancing needs a deep analysis. In one sense a magical item that lets you teleport three times per day is powerful. But, no one is going to feel that way until they are happy with their basic gear for their level (ie- a 10th level barbarian whose sole item is a Cloak of Teleportation will not be too powerful, especially against foes with DR). The whole structure of loot (beyond rule 0 of course, DMs should always have the right to distribute as they see fit) needs to be restructured to better reflect what it means to be a certain level.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Mar 12, 2007)

So, since I play in pretty non-convetional settings/games, explain something to me:

Your characters all have to toe some invisible line on wealth? You have this glass cieling, right? And ALL of it goes in for magic items, whether or not they are useful? If you meet a certian wealth, a red dragon is suddenly a viable opponent?

What's he doing, running credit checks on characters before attacking them?

"Is that Gorgo the Destroyer with one O or two?"


I thought the wealth by level for for creating a high level NPC, as a rough guide. It's in the NPC section, isn't it for the NPC's?

Do characters really have to abide by this wealth by level table? What about investing in a stronghold or manor? What about spreading around the juice to bribe officials, to make contacts, to outright OWN a member of the King's Military Procurement Board?

Is all of that taken into acoount? Did the $5K spent on bribing officials to allow the Necromancer to keep tabs on every corpse coming through the Grand Mortuary count toward this total wealth?

Is that ALL the wealth the PC's are supposed to be able to gain by that level?

I'll admit, I ignore the wealth by level for the PC's, and use it when making the basic NPC's, but you mean to tell me that people seem to think that the wealth table applies to PC's?

If so, then were is the NPC wealth by level? You can't tell me that Jongo the 10th level Commoner should even have CLOSE to the wealth of Gorgo the 10th Level fighter.

Jongo hasn't braved crypts, Gorgo hasn't had to give 80% of his income and harvest to Lord Imadoofus.

Trying to put wealth by level *restrictions* is ridiculous.

You're trying to tell me that a 10th level commoner should have the same wealth as a 10th level aristocrat, and both of them should be equal in wealth to a 10th level fighter who has braved the unknown and looted forgotten tombs.

And when you look at it like that, it's just plain stupid.


----------



## Nifft (Mar 12, 2007)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> What's he doing, running credit checks on characters before attacking them?
> 
> "Is that Gorgo the Destroyer with one O or two?"




That would make an excellent Loremaster spell. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Mallus (Mar 12, 2007)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> ...for creating a high level NPC, as a rough guide.



It is. But if people stopped pretending that 'wealth by level' is something that its not then there wouldn't be anything to talk about in this thread.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 12, 2007)

> It is. But if people stopped pretending that 'wealth by level' is something that its not then there wouldn't be anything to talk about in this thread.




There's actually two different wealth-by-level tables. One for the NPC's. One for the PC's. 

So


----------



## S'mon (Mar 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Hey, S'mon, guess what?
> 
> ACHILLES DIED.
> 
> HAW HAW!




That'll teach him to mess with War-1s carrying Tanglefoot bags, eh?


----------



## S'mon (Mar 12, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Just one of the many things I ignore from the 3e DMG.




Probably a smart move.  The game seemed to work better when the GM just placed MI, and you had Fighter-8s carrying vorpal swords.  The balanced approach of 3e seems to make spellcasters far more powerful than warrior types for some reason, I guess the Collinsian analysis would be that Fighter gear is too expensive.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 12, 2007)

> The balanced approach of 3e seems to make spellcasters far more powerful than warrior types for some reason, I guess the Collinsian analysis would be that Fighter gear is too expensive.




I'm not sure if you notice that the spellcasters are only more powerful than warrior types if you don't allow warrior types to get the phatty lewt they need to swing and beat stuff up and protect themselves.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 12, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> I wouldnt play if I were invited. Life is too short for crappy games. Also, its moot, not mute.




Well my example with the +1 sword would only be relevant IMC in roughly the 3rd-5th level range, by 6th or so you hopefully have +2 gear.  I'm not a big fan of zero-item games, I like MI, I just don't like how in 3e I hand out some cool powerful item and the PCs always sell it for lots of little boring items.


----------



## Seeten (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I don't think that that follows from what I wrote.  I assume that all players, bad roleplayers and good ones, want better AC and better weapons and better saves.  Naturally, you want things that increase your players survivability.  What I'm pointing out as annoying to me is the demand that they recieve these things (and exactly these things), else they just aren't going to play.




I'm suggesting that not every DM is some "Master of Balance" and that they ignore the fact that CR's assume these things willy nilly, and continue throwing the same challenges at their party whether the level 12 barbarian has a Cloak of Resistance +5 or 23 Murlynd's Spoons.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> For example, I'd have absolutely no problem with a DM that made magic hideously rare, so much so that a 12th level character prized his ring of +2 bonus to stealth and masterwork battleaxe.  That's perfectly sane and interesting as far as I'm concerned, so long as the DM also understands that the longer such a campaign goes on, the more that it will lag magic heavy campaigns in the challenges it can cope with.  But, there is nothing at all inherently wrong with not getting magic items and having to solve problems with ropes, 10' poles, small sacks, lock picks, spikes, hammers, a trusty battleaxe and your wits.




Thats perfectly sane and interesting if he tells me its a low-magic game from day 1, so I know to play a character thats fun in a low magic game. Do I want to be a fighter in a low magic game? No. I'd rather chew off my own face, thanks, since being a fighter in a low magic game means being awful.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> And until you are forced to fight one with little more than rusty pipe, you aren't really forced to think outside the box either.  It's not incumbant on the DM to give you the tools you want to have to win the challenge.  It's only incumbant on the DM to give you the tools that you need to win the challenge.




Oh, but as we know, not all DM's are the "Masters of Balance" and so they just open the MM and throw random CR 12 monster at the party, regardless. What, the Petrify effect is a DC 20 save and your saves are +2, +1 and +2 and the magic items in the group are 3 helms of underwater action and a folding boat, and we're in a desert? Sorry, I rolled it on the random encounter table.   



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Your complaints are directed toward entirely the wrong problem.  The problem here is not that the DM decided to deprive you of magic Wal-Marts, and your prized 'big six'.  It's that he presented you with a challenge that he also didn't equip you to handle.  This is a problem whether or not the DM has magic Wal-Marts or hands out the 'big six' like candy.  Magic Wal-Marts do not gaurantee balanced and appropriate challenges.  The CR system doesn't guarantee balanced and appropriate challenges.  Only a DM can do that.  True, the RAW and guidelines encourage balanced an appropriate challenges and an inexperienced DM may be doing well to stick by them until he learns thier deficiencies and how to game them, and what exactly those CR numbers assume, but at no point is the problem the DM departing from the assumptions of the rules.  The problem is, whether the DM stuck to the guidelines or didn't, poor DM judgment.




The complaint is that many DM's just play the game, and assume balance is there, or good tactics will out, or any number of other poorly constructed arguments I can think of, and have NO CLUE how it all fits together. They therefore not only close off the Wal-Marts, they think they are having an "Oh so cool" stingy low magic game, but find it perfectly acceptable to throw pit fiends at the party with ac 14 and a masterwork greataxe at level 12. Then its a tpk, and they just dont know why.

Well, I know why. I understand why. And for everyone on here who claims he's a tactical genius, who sends just the right challenge at everyone, despite mucking with magic item balance, and probably every other balance 2, I bet %50 kill players all the time because they had to draw their Guisarme +1 to fight the demon, while having Weapon Focus: Greataxe, Weapon Specialization: Greataxe, and Improved Critical: Greataxe. Or like my barbarian, who died to the demon without so much as a dagger +1.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 12, 2007)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> I guess for me the only important question is, "How much underwater action am I planning for their future adventures?" (or as a variation, "How much underwater action am  Iwill to provide the group if they decide that the helm is a good reason to do some acquatic adventuring?")
> 
> That is what determines how valuable the helm is compared to anything else they might have for me - as that is determining how practically valuable it is to them.



Come on now.....

Being picky about the specific example has nothing to do with the point.
I clearly specified that the guidelines could be ignored at will to better the game.  And a game with a great amount of underwater activity or none at all would clearly qualify in this specific case.   It seems to me it is quite simple to imagine a standard level of usefulness of whatever item you are considering and quickly scale to the game you have in mind.

But that has nothing to do with the point.


----------



## Gooba42 (Mar 12, 2007)

Shazman said:
			
		

> That's great if you've got gobs of free time to come up with your own soulmelds, vestiges, etc. Knock yourself out.  There are a lot of us DM's that barley have time to read an adventure once during the week before the weekly game.  If I have to do the work to create all of this stuff,  it isn't going to happen, because the time simply isn't there.  Thankfully, WotC's done enough of the work for us so we can get by.  There's still nothing to stop you from making your own custom material if you have the time, creativity, and energy.




I didn't say they should stop publishing items for individuals in your situation. I'd just like to see a separation between the mechanics and the canonical items. Players use, and expect, the big 6 items in every game because they're in every book. It's also not like there wouldn't be anyone stepping in to publish all the items you'd care to buy. 

No one expects you to spend more time or thought on your game than you do now.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 12, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if you notice that the spellcasters are only more powerful than warrior types if you don't allow warrior types to get the phatty lewt they need to swing and beat stuff up and protect themselves.




I let them get the phat lewt as per wealth-per-level guidelines, sure. But 8,350 gp for a +2 sword or 18,350 gp for +3 sword doesn't compare to what a Wizard can get for that cash per RAW.  Wand of Web per RAW 750x2x3 = 4,500 gp.  Wand of Fireballs 750x3x5 = 11,250 gp.  
The worst thing is, if I do give the Fighters truly cool gear (say a +3 Vorpal) the party just sells it and loads the Wizard up with more Wizard stuff!  Efficient, but not 'balanced'.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Mar 12, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> The complaint is that many DM's just play the game, and assume balance is there, or good tactics will out, or any number of other poorly constructed arguments I can think of, and have NO CLUE how it all fits together. They therefore not only close off the Wal-Marts, they think they are having an "Oh so cool" stingy low magic game, but find it perfectly acceptable to throw pit fiends at the party with ac 14 and a masterwork greataxe at level 12. Then its a tpk, and they just dont know why.
> 
> Well, I know why. I understand why. And for everyone on here who claims he's a tactical genius, who sends just the right challenge at everyone, despite mucking with magic item balance, and probably every other balance 2, I bet %50 kill players all the time because they had to draw their Guisarme +1 to fight the demon, while having Weapon Focus: Greataxe, Weapon Specialization: Greataxe, and Improved Critical: Greataxe. Or like my barbarian, who died to the demon without so much as a dagger +1.



Your problem is a crappy GM. Plain and simple. The rules are fine, as written, for playing, as long as your GM has the apparently Epic Level Feat: "COMMON GODDAMN SENSE!" when he runs a game.

He ran his oh-so-gritty Hovels & Hernia's game, set in a dreary medieval world where the PC's are always the bottom of the food  chain, the wizard was limited in everything he did, and nobody had magical items, and you got killed.

Your GM was a tool. Plain and simple.

Don't blame the equipment, blame the guy using it.


----------



## Rolzup (Mar 12, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Stop making sense.




Oh, it shan't last, I assure you.  And perhaps we should add Talking Heads inspired Hero Cards, eh?



> On the other hand, players also like to use magic items in odd, inventive, and ... who am I kidding... idiotic ways. They love the freedom to use the wrong tools to solve a problem. This happens more often in campaigns where they can't always buy the right ones.




A point.  Years and years ago, I was a player in a post apocalyptic RPG.  We met two or three times a week, gamed until Far Too late O'Clock, and generally had a really good time.  And we started out with damned near NOTHING.  We were poor farm boys, with maybe one rusty old .22 rifle among us.

And in the first session, we found a police car that had been buried uner a rockslide.  We took EVERYTHING.  Not just the pistol and shotgun, but the rear-view mirror (signaling device), the hubcaps (shields), the jack handle (club), and so forth.  Lot of creativity, and stupidity, involved...and man, that was fun.



> I've nothing against playing D&D in the manner of Tom Clancy-fancying accountants, but that approach has it's own share of  drawbacks. The way I see it, it's not denying players the items they want, it's offering them a kind of enjoyment they didn't know they wanted.
> 
> Which may be arrogant of me. Oh well...




You're denying Burne his Erebus-givien right to design Weapons of Mass Conflagration, by the way.  But I have a tendancy to see something neatish, or just plain silly, and base a sudden character concept around it.  The fellow who brachiats from place to place with a pair of immovable rods, say, or your own idea for a halfling riding a war-dog with a collar of Spider-Climbing....



> Try giving them names that are obnoxious puns.




You have a gift for that.  Urbane Outfitters indeed!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 12, 2007)

shmoo2 said:
			
		

> This is true of every single character resource presented in D&D source books.




It's true, and they already tried to fix it in PHB2. If you check back at the design notes, you'll notice they were aiming for a bunch of really good feats. (Not entirely successful, but anyway...)

Cheers!


----------



## S'mon (Mar 12, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> I
> Oh, but as we know, not all DM's are the "Masters of Balance" and so they just open the MM and throw random CR 12 monster at the party, regardless. What, the Petrify effect is a DC 20 save and your saves are +2, +1 and +2 and the magic items in the group are 3 helms of underwater action and a folding boat, and we're in a desert? Sorry, I rolled it on the random encounter table.




I like how C&C handles this - all saves go up +1 per level, so there is far less need for protective items.  In C&C a monster of similar HD is pretty much always a moderate to tough challenge.  Magic weapons & armour help a lot, but C&C combat lethality is less (basically same as 1e) so you can at least usually retreat if necessary.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If you read the 1st edition DMG, rulewise its an absolute mess, and some of the advice EGG gives is very suspect.   (In fact, he specifically mentions that thier were failures to communicate in earlier books that created problems, for example people taking too literally the random treasure charts, so its not like he's unaware of problems.)  But he never treats the DM as stupid, and he's clearly writing to the DM in a 'peer to peer' tone.




Unfortunately, Gary is also writing for someone who is telepathic and can read his mind. He very clearly states that you've got steer a middle course between "no treasure" and "monty haul treasure". It took until 3e for someone to work out what that actually *means* and put it in the rulebook.


----------



## Seeten (Mar 12, 2007)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Your problem is a crappy GM. Plain and simple. The rules are fine, as written, for playing, as long as your GM has the apparently Epic Level Feat: "COMMON GODDAMN SENSE!" when he runs a game.
> 
> He ran his oh-so-gritty Hovels & Hernia's game, set in a dreary medieval world where the PC's are always the bottom of the food  chain, the wizard was limited in everything he did, and nobody had magical items, and you got killed.
> 
> ...




The story was fine. Lots of his ideas are good. He has no clear sense of balance. Does that make him crappy? It makes him crappy at balancing, yes. Part of the problem is he has the same ideas many people here have. 

"Players dont need all this magic stuff, its ridiculous. No magic shops, thats ridiculous" and then the hard encounter shows up, half or more of the party dies, he's frantically fudging rolls, its awful. Easily fixable by dropping the attitude and including magic items like the rules expect you to, whether you flavor it as "Magic shops" or just asking what they want, and magically its in the treasure pile instead of 20,000gp of "Art objects".

If we had to beat up all bad GM's, when they could come to this very thread and read you guys advising them to just KEEP DOING WHAT THEY ARE DOING, I dont see the leg to stand on. If you plan to give people a folding boat and a helm of underwater action, while in a desert, and not allow them to sell it, and not give them magic weapons, first, I'm sorry, like the DM we're discussing, you're bad, and second, why? Does it give you a perverse thrill?

Someone's sig is something like, "I have a place to go, advance slowly, get no recognition for my efforts, and get very little rewards for my efforts, and its called work" and thats oh so true.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 12, 2007)

If I had magic shops in my campaign, my players would never bother with dungeons again.
"He's got a vicious, vorpal _what_ for sale?  We gotta loot this place."


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> If we had to beat up all bad GM's, when they could come to this very thread and read you guys advising them to just KEEP DOING WHAT THEY ARE DOING, I dont see the leg to stand on. If you plan to give people a folding boat and a helm of underwater action, while in a desert, and not allow them to sell it, and not give them magic weapons, first, I'm sorry, like the DM we're discussing, you're bad, and second, why? Does it give you a perverse thrill?




As far as I can tell, you've got a chip on your shoulder; you are going to rant about this regardless of what anyone says to you, and you aren't going to actually listen to a darn thing anyone says to you.  On top of that you are going to completely misrepresent anything anyone says to you, and you are going to be content sit here and knock down strawmen of your own creation while insulting anyone else around.  So I for one am done.  Go find some new DM's.  Get some new experiences.  Run your own games.  Come back later.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, Gary is also writing for someone who is telepathic and can read his mind. He very clearly states that you've got steer a middle course between "no treasure" and "monty haul treasure". It took until 3e for someone to work out what that actually *means* and put it in the rulebook.




QFT.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 12, 2007)

The whole Big 6 goes back to me wanting to find things that were alternatives to stat-boosting items in a previous thread.

We tried to come up with ideas such as incantations with permanent effects, grafts, permanent tattoos, alchemical mixtures, oaths/blessings, letting permanency work on the stat boosting spells, and simply changing the way that characters in general raise their ability scores.

I have no problem with the bonuses these items give, it just seems like the system makes them too important and that their needs to be more creative options involved with the bonuses these items give.


----------



## Deekin (Mar 12, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> If I had magic shops in my campaign, my players would never bother with dungeons again.
> "He's got a vicious, vorpal _what_ for sale?  We gotta loot this place."




But what if he keeps the best items for himself?


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Mar 12, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> This is certainly one of the nastier threads I've seen on ENWorld in a while.  If I wanted to enjoy this level of Schadenfreude I would've lurked the World of Warcraft forums.




Oh, don't worry.  We'll get around to talking about how (poster 1)'s class was nerfed, and how (insert other class name) is overpowered and needs nerfing bad and makes playing the game badwrongfun soon enough.

Brad


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Mar 12, 2007)

OOOooooh, I gots me a new ENWorld Chewtoy.

Wonder how long this will last.




			
				Seeten said:
			
		

> The story was fine. Lots of his ideas are good. He has no clear sense of balance. Does that make him crappy?



Yes.

Being able to fly is cool.
Leaping off a cliff in your Batman outfit like you're Wiley Coyote makes you a moron.

Being able to come up with ideas is cool.
Not being able to balance that idea, and killing everyone because of an oversight a 9 year with the incredible power of LITERACY might possess as mutant ability would be able to avoid makes him a crappy GM.



> It makes him crappy at balancing, yes. Part of the problem is he has the same ideas many people here have.



Not everyone here is a good GM in the eyes of everyone here. 



> "Players dont need all this magic stuff, its ridiculous. No magic shops, thats ridiculous" and then the hard encounter shows up, half or more of the party dies, he's frantically fudging rolls,



Then he's an idiot for not reading the monster before he dropped it in because the illustration looked cool. If it states that something is needed to bypass DR, then you either give them the ability to do damage over the DR and seriously injure it, or you make sure they have a way to harm it.



> its awful. Easily fixable by dropping the attitude and including magic items like the rules expect you to, whether you flavor it as "Magic shops" or just asking what they want, and magically its in the treasure pile instead of 20,000gp of "Art objects".



Say what?

So, to be a good GM, we have to ask you what you want and give it to you?

Talk about entitlement.

Did you even ask him about the demon? How you could have beaten it? Did he make a mistake, or did you?

Oh, no, it's all the fault of the evil Magic Items of Mass Destruction!

The rules expect a certain amount of magic items, either made the party or looted from the cold dead claws of fearsome wee beasties. Potions and MAYBE wands/rods/staves (IE: consumables) are about the only thing that MIGHT be purchasable.

Or you might have to find them in the temples of evil Gods after you've put all the worshippers to the sword.

Ask what you want and give it you?

No. There's the door.



> If we had to beat up all bad GM's, when they could come to this very thread and read you guys advising them to just KEEP DOING WHAT THEY ARE DOING, I dont see the leg to stand on.



How about all the advice about making sure that an encounter possesses an opportunity of success?

You're GM obviously didn't understand ensuring the encounter was possibly survivable.

Or you're not telling the whole story.



> If you plan to give people a folding boat and a helm of underwater action, while in a desert, and not allow them to sell it, and not give them magic weapons, first, I'm sorry, like the DM we're discussing, you're bad, and second, why? Does it give you a perverse thrill



Wait? I did what?

No I didn't. The only  time they found a folding boat and a helm of underwater action was exploring the ruins of a river-side city that had since been swallowed by the desert, and...

You know what, maybe I should have asked the poor put upon players what they wanted, instead of putting logical treasure in a logical place.

I'm a GM with a group that has been playing nearly 5 years. Sometimes magic items are scarce, and every combat is the last resort, other times magic items are plentiful and it's g leeful kill & loot time.

I don't know where you got the idea that I did the idea in the above, but I'll be glad to return the favor:

If you would have used the helm of underwater action to check what was in the well, you would have found the bodies of foriegn messengers the king put to death by kicking them into the well, and you would have found the magical weapons.

Instead, you got killed by engaging a demon who was supposed to be scenery, and strutting his stuff. You should have cut and run, but instead, you just had to toss your cojones on the t able and try to beat every monster, going on the typical battle call of poor players: "EVERYTHING ENCOUNTERED SHOULD BE DEFEATABLE!" and got your butt handed to you.

Next time: RUN!


> Someone's sig is something like, "I have a place to go, advance slowly, get no recognition for my efforts, and get very little rewards for my efforts, and its called work" and thats oh so true.



If that's gaming for you, find a new hobby. D&D is a hobby, not a lifestyle, and sure as hell not a job.


----------



## hong (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I would have just liked a little more mention of rule 0 and where the game can head from its default guidelines.  That's all.




Well, you know, maybe the writer didn't think the reader was too stupid to conduct a game without needing the hand-holding of an explicit mention of rule 0. Why do you need a rulebook to tell you that you can change things to suit yourself? Are you 12 years old, insisting on doing everything by the book?


----------



## jasin (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> In other words, I'm drawing on things like Beowulf, and the Illiad, and medieval epics and all sorts of other things, and I expect the players to get into that.  I'm not drawing on Diablo, and if you want to play Diablo, I suggest we have a LAN party and not bother with pen, paper, and imagination.



But neither are you drawing on Vance or Leiber, where magic is for sale for the right people with the right amounts of money.

Not that it's wrong to prefer Beowulf to Leiber, obviously, but neither is the opposite preference, and a preference for plentiful magic and/or magic for sale isn't necessarily a sign of lack of imagination or a perference for computer games over literature. And neither is a preference for literature over computer games (at least as applied to a game where people pretend to be elves) a sign of a superior intellect.



> To use a somewhat imperfect example, consider the campaign laid out in the popular web comic - 'The Order of the Stick'.



The example is indeed imperfect, since I don't think that OotS is ultimately the same form of entertainment (or art, if we can be so presumptuous) as a RPG campaign: OotS is about the funny, RPGs are about vicarious experience. The fact that Rich has lately been neglecting the funny in favour of elements like plot, which are more at home in a RPG, has only detracted from my enjoyment of the comic.

But I got your point, so...



> Is it your contention that all that interaction with NPC's are things were 'nothing is happening'



Of course not. By "nothing exciting is happening" I didn't mean "combat is not happening", I meant "nothing exciting is happening". And I don't think playing out in detail the search for the dealer willing to buy a +1 sword for the fifth time in the campaign sounds very exciting. I suppose it could be, if set up well, but then, that's true of most anything. As a default, I'd prefer to play out the adventure where I get the +1 sword in detail, and only gloss over the selling, on the assumption that in a big city (the kind where you can sell expensive magic items under the DMG guidelines) some wizard or adventurer or itinerant merchant will have a need for it and give me the appropriate amount of money.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 12, 2007)

Deekin said:
			
		

> But what if he keeps the best items for himself?



So at low levels we got a guy selling about 100K worth of magic items. 
At high levels it's probably closer to 1M.

Is El Minister the guy who sells items?  I guess I don't have so much of a problem with that.  

The difficulty comes in with pricing based on scarcity and need.  Bartering is probably far more likely and genre appropriate.

Of course, there's the NPCs act like PCs question: Why doesn't he just blow you away and take your stuff?


----------



## Seeten (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell, you've got a chip on your shoulder; you are going to rant about this regardless of what anyone says to you, and you aren't going to actually listen to a darn thing anyone says to you.  On top of that you are going to completely misrepresent anything anyone says to you, and you are going to be content sit here and knock down strawmen of your own creation while insulting anyone else around.  So I for one am done.  Go find some new DM's.  Get some new experiences.  Run your own games.  Come back later.




A chip on my shoulder? Probably a boulder.

Just like you, and your fellow posters will rant about trying to give as little as possible to the players.

I do run my own game, its called, "Mutants and Masterminds" and I bet if I did run D&D, it'd be very well balanced. Though it'd have purchaseable magic, so people could spend the gold they find, and it'd be fun to play, both for me and the players alike. I think of D&D as a collaborative effort, not "DM tell me a story". Maybe thats just me.

I'll leave the rest of your personal insults on the table, where they lie.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> If I had magic shops in my campaign, my players would never bother with dungeons again.
> "He's got a vicious, vorpal _what_ for sale?  We gotta loot this place."




Also QFT.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 12, 2007)

My work-around for buying magic items is that I require the PCs to commission them - so they have to wait 1 day per 1000 gp to have them made. Assuming they can find someone to make the item in question.

Cheers!


----------



## jasin (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> What I'm pointing out as annoying to me is the demand that they recieve these things (and exactly these things), else they just aren't going to play.



Just for the record, I have never seen anything like this.

I've seen players bitch and moan if they're behind the guidelines on wealth, and I've even done it myself, but I've never seen anyone stop playing (or even consider it) because he at 10th-level fighting CR 8 demons with a mw longsword rather than CR 14 demons with a +1 cold iron holy longsword.

But it's a fact that it's not really much fun to be fighting CR 14 demons with a mw longsword at 10th-level, and it's a fact that at least a certain fraction of people how reduce magic item amounts in their games overlook the purely game effect these reductions have and seemingly expect their players to do just that.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Mar 12, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> My work-around for buying magic items is that I require the PCs to commission them - so they have to wait 1 day per 1000 gp to have them made. Assuming they can find someone to make the item in question.
> 
> Cheers!



I use the same workaround a lot of times.

"OK, we've got to defeat the Demon of the Red Hills, we know he's vulnerable to ice. Wizard, can you make something to defeat him?"

"No, sorry."

"OK, then we go see Artificer Gillgraunt. And we better bring out wallets."

"Ah, it is good to see you, loyal customers. I should assume that those 12 mules with loaded saddlebags contain my payment?"


----------



## hong (Mar 13, 2007)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> I use the same workaround a lot of times.
> 
> "OK, we've got to defeat the Demon of the Red Hills, we know he's vulnerable to ice. Wizard, can you make something to defeat him?"
> 
> ...



 Ditto for the game I play in. This makes for some _long_ intervals between adventures....


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 13, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> My work-around for buying magic items is that I require the PCs to commission them - so they have to wait 1 day per 1000 gp to have them made. Assuming they can find someone to make the item in question.
> 
> Cheers!




I use the same format. Typically, my group takes a few weeks between adventures, so crafting gear, scribing spells, and purchasing magic from priests and wizards can all be done "off camera". They're pretty low level, so they can't afford magic yet, but soon they will (the cleric is eyeing a cloak of charisma for some reason...)


----------



## molonel (Mar 13, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> How about "when's the last time you ALLOWED your players to sift through magic items and purchase them like it was Walmart?"
> 
> NEVER!
> 
> ...




High level players who can Plane Shift and then Teleport to Sigil or the City of Brass have absolutely no reason NOT to be able to find the items they need. In a village or city, no, but high-level players have an entire multiverse at their disposal.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> My work-around for buying magic items is that I require the PCs to commission them - so they have to wait 1 day per 1000 gp to have them made. Assuming they can find someone to make the item in question. Cheers!




Yup. That's what I do, too.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Mar 13, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Just like you, and your fellow posters will rant about trying to give as little as possible to the players.



Not everyone. Nice broad brush stroke.



> I do run my own game, its called, "Mutants and Masterminds"



I too run a game, it's called "Year of the Zombie" and there are no magic weapons.

What's you point?



> and I bet if I did run D&D, it'd be very well balanced.



As talked about in other threads on this board:

Balance != Good



> Though it'd have purchaseable magic, so people could spend the gold they find, and it'd be fun to play, both for me and the players alike. I think of D&D as a collaborative effort, not "DM tell me a story". Maybe thats just me.



And here's the high horse.

"I think of D&D... blargle argle argle."

Wow, you could be more insulting, but you'd have to try harder.

Spend the gold they find? What, are they only spending it on magic items? never on clothing, property, bribes, hookers, and ale?

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't notice the Diablo d20 handbook in your hands. Sorry.



> I'll leave the rest of your personal insults on the table, where they lie.



Then you better delete your post, hotshot, because that was pretty insulting.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 13, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> But neither are you drawing on Vance or Leiber, where magic is for sale for the right people with the right amounts of money.
> 
> Not that it's wrong to prefer Beowulf to Leiber, obviously, but neither is the opposite preference, and a preference for plentiful magic and/or magic for sale isn't necessarily a sign of lack of imagination or a perference for computer games over literature.




No, it most certainly not.  I'm sorry that you took what I wrote to mean that, though I can sorta see why you might especially if you were just browsing over the thread.  



> And neither is a preference for literature over computer games (at least as applied to a game where people pretend to be elves) a sign of a superior intellect.




I'm fairly certain that you could not say that I even implied that.  Now, you are off on a straw man, because I clearly enjoy computer games quite well thank you very much.  The most I suggested is that different artistics formats lend themselves more appropriately to different styles and means of experession.  And that's something I'm willing to defend.

As for what I'm willing to defend, regarding the buying and selling of magic items, it is pretty straight forward.  If your world is one in which you are comfortable with magic items being treated as commodities, to be freely bought, sold, and traded, then you are being really disengenious to complain about the fact that they are treated as commodities.  After all, the treating of magic items as commodities is what you set up in the first place, and you shouldn't then be surprised that the mystery, oddity, diversity, quirkiness, and sometimes down right inconveinance of magic items outright disappears in such a setting because its the logical consequence of your setting choice.

And as for Vance or Leiber, I'm more well read than just the ancient classics and you are making not only an imperfect point to site them as examples of settings where magic is freely traded, you are making a highly misleading point because the magic of Vance and Leiber is generally only mysterious, odd, diverse, quirky and often down right inconveinent.  Simply functional magic items as they commonly exist in D&D don't really exist as such in either setting.  It's more half-way between Cthullu and D&D.  The easiest way to achieve that sort of thing would be to apply random quirks on a random result table to all magic items, something like the artifacts table in 1st edition (which is highly Vancian), with the ammount of quirks increasing with the power of the object.



> Of course not. By "nothing exciting is happening" I didn't mean "combat is not happening", I meant "nothing exciting is happening". And I don't think playing out in detail the search for the dealer willing to buy a +1 sword for the fifth time in the campaign sounds very exciting.




In my experience, +1 swords end up being horded and then dolled out to favorite retainers as rewards for thier loyalty and initiative.  In other words, the PC's start acting alot like the NPC's back when they were low level.  It's also good roleplaying, and it tends to create a more effective cadre to surround the player.  Eventually, favored retainers can rise to the level of PC's in thier own right, replacing dead or semi-retired PC's.

However, generally by the time that players are selling a magic item for the fifth time (and I can't recall this happening very often), they've established a report with one or more buyers in the city who they can feel that they trust and who (because of repeated good diplomacy checks now has a favorable reaction to them), and selling something is a matter of, "I'll take the sword down to Virigard's and see what he'll offer." or even, "Jeeves.  Have this sword taken to Virigards and exchange it for whatever credit he offers."

But again, I've never had a problem with selling magic items.  It's the assumption that if you want to buy one it will be available that I have a problem with.  Again, this is the assumption of 1st edition, and its the one I've always used, and in my experience with such an assumption in place, magic items don't get sold anyway because they are to a certain extent irreplacible.


----------



## Seeten (Mar 13, 2007)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> And here's the high horse.
> 
> "I think of D&D... blargle argle argle."
> 
> ...




Whats this, a 20,000gp hooker and night on the town? I bet that will help kill the BBEG and Demon.

Perhaps if I buy a nice enough house, the BBEG wont kill the innocent villagers, or ressurect the dead God?

Perhaps if you try harder, I'll be insulted instead of amused.

Hotshot, though. I like it.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Mar 13, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Whats this, a 20,000gp hooker and night on the town? I bet that will help kill the BBEG and Demon.



What's this? You expect my character to just buy magic items, and never enjoy the fruits of adventuring? Where's the ale and whores from the legends?

Did Conan lie to me that treasure == hot babes and cold ale?



> Perhaps if I buy a nice enough house, the BBEG wont kill the innocent villagers, or ressurect the dead God?



Perhaps if there was more to your campaign setting than Kill/loot/repeat ad infinatum, then you might understand the basic concept that PC's like to own nice stuff too.

Where's he going to keep his extra equipment? in a hovel, buried under the dirt floor? Where's he going to do his research? Where's he going to store his trophies? Where is he going to frame the signet ring sealed pronouncement that he's a hero of the kingdom after stopping Lord Eviljerk?

Oh, wait, adventurers should never leave the dungeon or forest, and should carry everything around in magic bags, because apparently PC's never want to enjoy themselves with some of the money.

"OK, I got 10 gp left, I better buy.... a dagger! Yeah! You know the rule of the gods, every CP we don't spend on equipment is taken from our next horde!"



> Perhaps if you try harder, I'll be insulted instead of amused.



Awww, aren't you cute, being all amused.

You know, for someone who has never GM'd a game of D&D, you sure are opinionated on what makes a good game.

Tell ya what, skippy, GM a game of D&D, just one, and come back and tell us how easy it is again.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 13, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> My work-around for buying magic items is that I require the PCs to commission them - so they have to wait 1 day per 1000 gp to have them made. Assuming they can find someone to make the item in question.




That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.


----------



## hong (Mar 13, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'm fairly certain that you could not say that I even implied that.  Now, you are off on a straw man, because I clearly enjoy computer games quite well thank you very much.  The most I suggested is that different artistics formats lend themselves more appropriately to different styles and means of experession.




Piffle. It's all about killing monsters and taking their stuff.



> As for what I'm willing to defend, regarding the buying and selling of magic items, it is pretty straight forward.  If your world is one in which you are comfortable with magic items being treated as commodities, to be freely bought, sold, and traded, then you are being really disengenious to complain about the fact that they are treated as commodities.




Only DMs too unimaginative to add their individual touch to a rules framework could complain about magic items being "commodities".



> After all, the treating of magic items as commodities is what you set up in the first place,




By "you" you mean "I", yes?



> and you shouldn't then be surprised that the mystery, oddity, diversity, quirkiness, and sometimes down right inconveinance of magic items outright disappears in such a setting because its the logical consequence of your setting choice.




What a good thing the only people complaining about this have been those too unimaginative to add their individual touch to a rules framework.


----------



## jasin (Mar 13, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I'm not a big fan of zero-item games, I like MI, I just don't like how in 3e I hand out some cool powerful item and the PCs always sell it for lots of little boring items.



But the thing is, these cool items usually aren't very powerful (for their price i.e. the money you get for selling them). Figurines of wondrous power are among the cooler items in the DMG for me, but many people will be selling a bronze griffon (10,000 gp) to make a +2 sword. If the bronze griffon cost 50,000 gp, so you could make a +5 sword, you can bet _everyone_ will be selling it. But if it cost 2,000 gp... I think many more people would keep it.


----------



## hong (Mar 13, 2007)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Perhaps if there was more to your campaign setting than Kill/loot/repeat ad infinatum, then you might understand the basic concept that PC's like to own nice stuff too.




You say this like there's something wrong with killing and looting ad infinitum.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Mar 13, 2007)

*SPENDING 20,000 GP ON WHORES AND A NIGHT ON THE TOWN*
_By T-Willard_

1,500gp Piece of jewelry to bribe female guild head to meet for dinner
25gp Vellum invitation to female guild head.
250gp Renting a carriage big enough for 8, with show horses and gilded carriage.
500gp Hiring temporary retainers for carriage
2,500gp Shimmer-silk mage robes
5,500gp New jewelry.
150gp New hairstyle
100gp bribe to maitre-de to get seats.
3,500gp 350 year old Elven Wine
14,500gp Red Dragon Steaks, exotic fruits and vegetables, exotic special order dessert.
200gp Doorman bribe at Inn of the Painted Lady
1,900gp for Female Guild Head to "indulge herself"
200gp for 2 glasses of exotic brandy while waiting on Female Guild Head


I think that probably tops your 20K

And now I have blackmail on the female guild head, or maybe just a patron to join the guild, or someone to advance my career and give me access to the "Vault of Deeper Secrets" so I can get a few scrolls in order to take on the BBEG.

Everything for a reason and the right tool for the right job.


----------



## hong (Mar 13, 2007)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> *SPENDING 20,000 GP ON WHORES AND A NIGHT ON THE TOWN*
> _By T-Willard_
> 
> 1,500gp Piece of jewelry to bribe female guild head to meet for dinner
> ...




Bad Warlord Ralts! Reducing female guild heads, red dragon steaks and 350-yr-old elven wine to the status of commodities!


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 13, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Err... I'd like to know where these supposed magic item Wal-Marts exist at. If any item below a town's gp limit is available, it doesn't mean they're all in one super-store. It just means that you can get them somewhere. The weaponsmith might have some enchanted blades; the armorer a wide selection of mithral shirts (he does know his customers, after all), the church of the goddess of healing offers cure wands and potions for a donation, and the artificer's guild will make unusual items on commission. But since this is Dungeons & Dragons not Merchants & Magic Items, spending a lot of time in-game on exactly who has what for sale in a given city is usually not all that important.




I'm confused. You start by saying that there are no magic item Wal-Marts, then go on to give examples of the various small shops where you could sell/buy any magic item you want, but then say you don't spend in-game time on that, so basically turning any town effectively into a magic item Wal-Mart.

Which case were you trying to prove?


----------



## Seeten (Mar 13, 2007)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> What's this? You expect my character to just buy magic items, and never enjoy the fruits of adventuring? Where's the ale and whores from the legends?
> 
> Did Conan lie to me that treasure == hot babes and cold ale?
> 
> ...




Ales and Whores are cheap. Coppers dont impact the wagonload of treasure that come out of any written adventure, let alone "old style" dungeons. I recall Gary Gygax telling the Tomb Of Horrors story where the PC's had to cart the treasure out in 4 wagons, there was so much.

Conan didnt need a magic sword, he played Iron Heroes.

Nobody said GMing was easy, except maybe you guys. You claim DM's who are new, or not so great, ought to be able to jury rig encounters on the fly while giving out helms of underwater action and floating boats. I'm the one who called you on it, now DM'ing suddenly ISNT easy, when its convenient for your argument? Heh.

Skippy? Thats a new one. I think I heard it from the kid at the FLGS while he played Magic. Least we've moved on from "Hotshot" that one was pretty hurtful.


----------



## Seeten (Mar 13, 2007)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> *SPENDING 20,000 GP ON WHORES AND A NIGHT ON THE TOWN*
> _By T-Willard_
> 
> 1,500gp Piece of jewelry to bribe female guild head to meet for dinner
> ...




Amazing. Congratulations. You win the intarwebz.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Mar 13, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Ales and Whores are cheap.



Only if you're cheap.

Good ale, and good whore, well, they cost.


> Coppers dont impact the wagonload of treasure that come out of any written adventure, let alone "old style" dungeons. I recall Gary Gygax telling the Tomb Of Horrors story where the PC's had to cart the treasure out in 4 wagons, there was so much.



So, what do you expect them to spend it all on?



> Conan didnt need a magic sword, he played Iron Heroes.



Not according to my issue of Dragon magazine. According to this, he played 1E.



> Nobody said GMing was easy, except maybe you guys. You claim DM's who are new, or not so great, ought to be able to jury rig encounters on the fly while giving out helms of underwater action and floating boats.



Yes, if they can read.



> I'm the one who called you on it, now DM'ing suddenly ISNT easy, when its convenient for your argument? Heh.



Wow, talk about flip-flopping. You're worse than a flapjack, hero.

Look, all I said was why don't you come back after GMing a game, and tell us what you think.

Right now, since you've never even GM'd anything that is part of the topic, you come across like someone's little brother running into the room because he wants people to pay attention to him.

I said that the sections where your GM failed, he GM'd because he didn't read. Something I'm believing you may have in common with him, Spandex Boy.

I told you to come back when you have some experience GMing the subject at hand.

Understand yet?



> Skippy? Thats a new one. I think I heard it from the kid at the FLGS while he played Magic. Least we've moved on from "Hotshot" that one was pretty hurtful.



While he played Magic?

Arrrgh, I am stricken by your wit!

How will I ever survive the barbed attacks of the internet equivelant of a retarded lemur? How shall my manhood ever be redeemed after the vicious attack of such a grand wit! My poor widdle feewings have been hurt by such an obvious display of internet manhood!

SAVE ME JEEBUS!

If you're trying for the insults game, you suck.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 13, 2007)

> 5,500gp New jewelry.




!!!!!

If any of my D&D characters are blowing that kind of dough on glittery trinkets for saucy bints, they deserve to get their butts handed to them by the Great Red Dragon.

They're adventurers, for cripes, not foppish nobles who don't know the true value of a gp!

If a member of my party spent that on basically a free gift of herpes, I'd revoke his treasure privileges on the grounds of being a sodding twit with more sex drive then sense!

Talk about a awful magic item! 5,500 gp?! Why?!


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Mar 13, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Amazing. Congratulations. You win the intarwebz.



Amazing. Congratulations. You used a catch phrase from 1998.

Your mom must be proud.

Not as proud as if you got a job and moved out of the basement, but proud nonetheless.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Mar 13, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> !!!!!
> 
> If any of my D&D characters are blowing that kind of dough on glittery trinkets for saucy bints, they deserve to get their butts handed to them by the Great Red Dragon.
> 
> ...



Because they sold the last haul of jewelry they captured on their last adventure for gold?

I don't know.

Hey, 5,500 gp of jewelry isn't that much if your setting has some seriously exotic metals, some of which with inherent mystical properties.


I will admit, that's more from an Epic game, where dropping a couple grand on jewelry, or footman's livery, or new horses, is no big deal, and seen as part of having a noble title.

And while they may not be foppish nobles, showing up for a Grand Balle in bloody rags and dented armor isn't going to help in the diplomatic side of an Epic Game.

---EDIT----

I've gotta head home from the lab, so I'll firmly explain it later.

We're not talking Saduul Cortez buying jewelry, we're talking about a game where public appearance is just as important as combat ability. Where diplomacy ranks right up there with swordplay.

They actually hire lower level adventurers to handle some things, and take care of the big things themselves.


----------



## Seeten (Mar 13, 2007)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Amazing. Congratulations. You used a catch phrase from 1998.
> 
> Your mom must be proud.
> 
> Not as proud as if you got a job and moved out of the basement, but proud nonetheless.




Wow, the personal attacks just keep coming. 

So far you've proved you can throw insults around, and you've proved that you claim you can GM, and beyond throwing insults around and making wild statements, I see nothing else.

Come back when your ability is proven. Probably find a new set of insults, too. These ones arent doing the job.

Until then, you can spend the 20k on whores and ale, in the game you dont GM, and attack the BBEG with your folding boat, maybe the female guild head will come save you in your floating castle.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 13, 2007)

> We're not talking Saduul Cortez buying jewelry, we're talking about a game where public appearance is just as important as combat ability. Where diplomacy ranks right up there with swordplay.




....right, because that's totally been what D&D has been about. Buying JEWELRY to look good at the QUEEN'S BALLROOM. So you can, you know, avoid going on adventures. Like a PANSY.







Nah, the game's about killing monsters and taking their stuff...and their stuff is used to kill MORE monsters. And sometimes there's a cool story attached, and sometimes the bard has such a high Diplomacy it doesn't matter if he shows up in his underpants with a ferret tied to his rumpus, he will win them over and start a new trend in the city.

Even a noble's outfit doesn't cost more than a few hundred gp. So whatever game you're talking about, I'm glad it ain't D&D.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Mar 13, 2007)

cthulhu_duck said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that the big six is missing bags of holding or other such devices.
> 
> They seem to be amid the top three in my local gaming.




God, yes. 

Heward's Handy Haversack, and a supply of 10' poles, 250' of rope, caltrops, alchemist's fire, lamp oil, clay jugs of water, and a climber's kit all go in it ASAP.


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 13, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Ditto for the game I play in. This makes for some _long_ intervals between adventures....




But unless you actually roleplay all that down time it actually makes no effective difference than walking into the town and picking it up from the first merchant you come across. 

Time taken is rarely a useful balancing factor in RPGs since the players just say "Fine we wait until it is ready." To roleplay out that would be like roleplaying out every single day of a three month sea voyage to Farshore, after awhile of reporting on the weather and players going "are we there yet?" you just focus on the encounters that matters.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 13, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.




Something reasonable in this thread? Isn't that against the law or something? 

One thing I find interesting is whether "the Big Six" items are actually desirable to have in the game.

Let's have a look:

*Magic Weapon*
A key part of fantasy mythology. You can't really get rid of this one. 

*Magic Armour and Shield*
Perhaps not a key part of fantasy mythology, but a key part of D&D play over the years. Getting rid of them might be desirable to keep ACs lower, but I wouldn't want to do it.

*Ring of Protection*
In earlier editions of D&D, assuming I recall correctly, _rings of protection_ did not stack with magical bonuses to AC, and gave bonuses to saving throws. I'd prefer them not stacking, just to keep AC under control.

*Cloak of Resistance*
Cloaks have the saving throw function of the old Rings of Protection. What is different in 3e is how the difficulty of saving throws increases. These are fine.

*Amulet of Natural Armour*
Totally new. I don't really like them that much, as they continue with AC escalation.

*Ability-score boosters*
Increasing stats is fun. It's essential to 3e D&D. It's also massively problematic as their are so many things that depend on ability scores. I'd be tempted to remove them (or have only +2 versions) in a new edition. However...

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 13, 2007)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> God, yes.
> 
> Heward's Handy Haversack, and a supply of 10' poles, 250' of rope, caltrops, alchemist's fire, lamp oil, clay jugs of water, and a climber's kit all go in it ASAP.




Read the next paragraph. The Bag of Holding is there. However, you buy one and forget about it... it's not where the bulk of your money is spent.

Cheers,
Merric


----------



## hong (Mar 13, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> But unless you actually roleplay all that down time it actually makes no effective difference than walking into the town and picking it up from the first merchant you come across.




It makes a difference if you're one of those who whinge about PCs going from incompetent to demigod in 6 weeks.

It also makes a difference if you're one of those who whinge about PCs being able to walk into a shop and buy anything they want. In particular, adventures might happen while you're waiting for your item to be finished.

The fact that real-time isn't expended is irrelevant, just as you don't bother playing out the 8 hours of rest that the wiz needs to prepare spells. It's a flavour thing, where you say "let's pretend that our characters, who exist only in our heads anyway, have to spend several weeks waiting for X to happen rather than having everything they want occur at the drop of a coin".


----------



## VirgilCaine (Mar 13, 2007)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> And now I have blackmail on the female guild head, or maybe just a patron to join the guild, or someone to advance my career and give me access to the "Vault of Deeper Secrets" so I can get a few scrolls in order to take on the BBEG.




That's amazing. 20,000gp spent in like six hours. 
90% of people make less than that in ten lifetimes. 

Most of it on Red Dragon Steaks. Which is a concept so inane I can hardly believe it. 

And not-that-old-to-elves-Elven Wine. 

Blackmail material? For 20,000 gp, I think a more...thrifty character could find a way to _become_ the guild leader for 20,000 gp. 

"A few scrolls"? 
Of what, Wish? Spells no one has ever seen outside the "Vault of Deeper Secrets"?


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 13, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Piffle. It's all about killing monsters and taking their stuff...Only DMs too unimaginative to add their individual touch to a rules framework could complain about magic items being "commodities"...By "you" you mean "I", yes?




No, by "you" I mean the third or second person non-specific, which is informally used in English in place of the much stiffer 'one'.  

But since you insist, "If one's world is one in which one is comfortable with magic items being treated as commodities, to be freely bought, sold, and traded, then one is being really disengenious to complain about the fact that they are treated as commodities."



> What a good thing the only people complaining about this have been those too unimaginative to add their individual touch to a rules framework.




Take it up with Andy.  He's the one that started all the complaining about it.  Of course, when he takes it on himself to add his individual touches to the rules framework, they are 'official' as opposed to the more individual takes the rest of us make on the rules framework.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 13, 2007)

Seeten, Ralts, you both know better.  In three days, remember the rules about civility.

Everyone else, learn from the misfortune of others.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## MerricB (Mar 13, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> But unless you actually roleplay all that down time it actually makes no effective difference than walking into the town and picking it up from the first merchant you come across.




It depends greatly on the situation. If you have a time-dependent plotline, then, yes, it does matter.

If you don't, and commissioning magic items still bothers you, then make up the stats of the high-level NPCs who can create the items, and display that they don't have the feats/spells/skills to make the requested item... thus it isn't available.

The DMG recommends that items of X value can only be found in a Y-sized town or city. I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that *all* items of X value can be found in that settlement. That is up to DM judgement.

If DMs _do_ in fact say they all are available, then they have only themselves to blame for the consequences. Mind you, I often say, "yes you can find it", because I'm not bothered by magic stores.

Cheers!


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 13, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> "let's pretend that our characters, who exist only in our heads anyway, have to spend several weeks waiting for X to happen rather than having everything they want occur at the drop of a coin".




I think I have to steal that.


----------



## hong (Mar 13, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> No, by "you" I mean the third or second person non-specific, which is informally used in English in place of the much stiffer 'one'.




No, no, by "you" you mean "I" as opposed to "one" or "we", yes?



> But since you insist, "If one's world is one in which one is comfortable with magic items being treated as commodities, to be freely bought, sold, and traded, then one is being really disengenious to complain about the fact that they are treated as commodities."




No, no. "If my world is one in which I am comfortable with magic items being treated as commodities, to be freely bought, sold and traded, then I am being really disingenuous to complain about the fact that they are treated as commodities".

See, that makes MUCH more sense.



> Take it up with Andy.  He's the one that started all the complaining about it.




Piffle. He simply acted to fix the problems.



> Of course, when he takes it on himself to add his individual touches to the rules framework, they are 'official' as opposed to the more individual takes the rest of us make on the rules framework.




Tell me why I should care a whit about "officialness".


----------



## Set (Mar 13, 2007)

> Originally Posted by MerricB
> My work-around for buying magic items is that I require the PCs to commission them - so they have to wait 1 day per 1000 gp to have them made. Assuming they can find someone to make the item in question.




Particularly with the 3.x linking of magic item creation to XP expenditures, I can't imagine a crafter making something for which he hasn't already got a buyer.

"Yes, I'm going to sacrifice some of my own personal power, *permanantly*, to make something that's going to sit on the shelf of my shop..."


----------



## hong (Mar 13, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> But the thing is, these cool items usually aren't very powerful (for their price i.e. the money you get for selling them). Figurines of wondrous power are among the cooler items in the DMG for me, but many people will be selling a bronze griffon (10,000 gp) to make a +2 sword. If the bronze griffon cost 50,000 gp, so you could make a +5 sword, you can bet _everyone_ will be selling it. But if it cost 2,000 gp... I think many more people would keep it.




I think people are also conflating "cool" ( = flavourful, quirky, original) with "useful" ( = gets used a lot, applicable in many situations). Gp value measures the latter. It really doesn't have much to do with the former.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Mar 13, 2007)

Set said:
			
		

> Particularly with the 3.x linking of magic item creation to XP expenditures, I can't imagine a crafter making something for which he hasn't already got a buyer.
> 
> "Yes, I'm going to sacrifice some of my own personal power, *permanantly*, to make something that's going to sit on the shelf of my shop..."




Which is exactly why you'll see new and different useful items made, not useless crap or the same thing that's been made for 5000 years (i.e. Heward's Handy Haversacks, flying items, magic swords, cloaks of resistance, etc.) because there's already enough of those around.
Or there should be.


----------



## drothgery (Mar 13, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> I'm confused. You start by saying that there are no magic item Wal-Marts, then go on to give examples of the various small shops where you could sell/buy any magic item you want, but then say you don't spend in-game time on that, so basically turning any town effectively into a magic item Wal-Mart.




No more than towns are mundane item Wal-Marts because we don't roleplay out every individual transaction there, either. Buying items under a town's GP limit for full DMG list price and selling them for half of that is simply abstracting away the mercantile part of the game because it's not what the game is really about. And not allowing the transactions by which treasure PCs can't use (or can only rarely use) becomes treasure the PCs can use is both illogical and frustrating as a player.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 13, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Something reasonable in this thread? Isn't that against the law or something?




I won't tell anyone if you don't.



> *Ring of Protection*
> In earlier editions of D&D, assuming I recall correctly, _rings of protection_ did not stack with magical bonuses to AC, and gave bonuses to saving throws. I'd prefer them not stacking, just to keep AC under control.




Yes, rings of protection were more or less an armor enhancement.  Only the most powerful and rare ones gave bonuses to saving throws.  I never had one that did in 15 years or so of play.  



> *Cloak of Resistance*
> Cloaks have the saving throw function of the old Rings of Protection.




Cloaks were essentially the more powerful version of rings.  They stack with rings and non-magical leather armor, and they give saving throw bonuses equal to thier AC bonus.  Between these, rings, and bracers of defence, you could go around almost naked and have the maximum possible armor class (or close to it).  



> *Amulet of Natural Armour*
> Totally new. I don't really like them that much, as they continue with AC escalation.




AC is not nearly as much of a problem as in older editions because monsters have Str bonuses and monsters aren't capped at 16 effective HD.  Plus there are touch attacks, incorporal attacks, and so forth.  Thus, its much harder for a PC to rely entirely on a high AC to protect them in combat compared to earlier editions.  This is mostly for the good, but it does make PC's more fragile.



> *Ability-score boosters*
> Increasing stats is fun. It's essential to 3e D&D. It's also massively problematic as their are so many things that depend on ability scores. I'd be tempted to remove them (or have only +2 versions) in a new edition...




There were ways to stat boost in 1st edition, but they were rarer and because almost nothing depended on your stats until you got them really high, so they weren't really problematic.  Oddly, even though they are more powerful and maybe even more desirable (in the since of being more immediately effective) in 3rd edition than 1st, they are also cheaper.  I've often wondered whether this is a good idea, but I've not played enough high level 3rd edition D&D to feel confident in my opinion of them.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 13, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No, no, by "you" you mean "I" as opposed to "one" or "we", yes?




No. 'You' can mean alot of different people, but when I say 'you', 'you' doesn't mean me.



> No, no. "If my world is one in which I am comfortable with magic items being treated as commodities, to be freely bought, sold and traded, then I am being really disingenuous to complain about the fact that they are treated as commodities".
> 
> See, that makes MUCH more sense.




If it wasn't you speaking, I'd wonder who you were arguing with or what you were trying to say.  But since it is you, I just put it down to you trying to be cute and failing this time.



> Piffle. He simply acted to fix the problems.




Fitting don't you think, since his name is on the document that created them?  I also find it interesting how that problem you say I have, you say is no longer my problem when you stumble over your next sentence.  Figure out where the problem is, then your jokes might actually hit the target.



> Tell me why I should care a whit about "officialness".




Care?  Why would I want you to care?  I believe you'd see once you got the piffle out of your eye that I wasn't elevating 'official' above anything else, and was in my own fashion being as sarky about it as you.  Only, my sarkiness wouldn't make into my official seven sentence NPC, unlike some other more famous comedians here.


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 13, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But that has nothing to do with the point.





It has everything to do with the point.  It is all the "economy of magic items" I ever need, and I am glad that it allows me to ignore what appears to be a headache to players and DMs alike from how often this comes topic comes up.


----------



## RedFox (Mar 13, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> My work-around for buying magic items is that I require the PCs to commission them - so they have to wait 1 day per 1000 gp to have them made. Assuming they can find someone to make the item in question.
> 
> Cheers!




Oh, this I rather like.  If nothing else, just to avoid the "let's loot the magic shop!" scenario.

I may have magic shops have an "on hand" limit about 1/10th (Maybe I'll tweak that.  S'just off the top of my head.) the gp limit of the city that they're located in, too.  It seems unreasonable to expect _nothing_ to be on-hand at Gargool the Great's Imporium of Wonders, after-all...



			
				Bagpuss said:
			
		

> But unless you actually roleplay all that down time it actually makes no effective difference than walking into the town and picking it up from the first merchant you come across.
> 
> Time taken is rarely a useful balancing factor in RPGs since the players just say "Fine we wait until it is ready." To roleplay out that would be like roleplaying out every single day of a three month sea voyage to Farshore, after awhile of reporting on the weather and players going "are we there yet?" you just focus on the encounters that matters.




It can alleviate the "why don't we just loot the magic shop?" problem, and it can also serve as a bit of verisimilitude.  Not every decision has to be made purely for concerns of play-balance.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> It makes a difference if you're one of those who whinge about PCs going from incompetent to demigod in 6 weeks.
> 
> It also makes a difference if you're one of those who whinge about PCs being able to walk into a shop and buy anything they want. In particular, adventures might happen while you're waiting for your item to be finished.
> 
> The fact that real-time isn't expended is irrelevant, just as you don't bother playing out the 8 hours of rest that the wiz needs to prepare spells. It's a flavour thing, where you say "let's pretend that our characters, who exist only in our heads anyway, have to spend several weeks waiting for X to happen rather than having everything they want occur at the drop of a coin".




Precisely.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 13, 2007)

*1,500gp * Piece of jewelry to bribe female guild head to meet for dinner 
OR _Brooch of Shielding (absorbs 101 points of magic missile damage from evil mages)_

*25gp *Vellum invitation to female guild head.
OR _Divine Scroll of Cure Light Wounds (to heal your buddy dropped into negatives)_

*250gp *Renting a carriage big enough for 8, with show horses and gilded carriage.
OR _Potion of Enlarge Person (to deal properly with those oncoming fire giants)_

*500gp *Hiring temporary retainers for carriage
OR _Elixir of Truth (for interogating the orc guards on where the captives are hiding)_

*2,500gp* Shimmer-silk mage robes
OR _Cloak of the Elvenkind (+5 to hide checks against the ogre guardian)
_
*5,500gp *New jewelry.
OR _+1 glamered Full Plate (useful for sneaking into the queen's ball in the latest attire while watching for assassins)_

*150gp *New hairstyle
OR _Arcane Scoll of Eagle's Splendor (great for diplomacy checks AND boosting the sorcerer's Charm Person DCs)_

*100gp*bribe to maitre-de to get seats.
OR _Two vials of Universal Solvent (to stop the devious trap Xaxor the Mad used on his sanctum's door)_

*3,500gp *350 year old Elven Wine
OR _Dust of Disappearance (to keep the rogue safe while exploring the Tomb of Amon Rul)_

*14,500gp *Red Dragon Steaks, exotic fruits and vegetables, exotic special order dessert.
OR _+2 Adamantine Breastplate (to keep the barbarian safe against the Frost Giant Jarl)_

*200gp* Doorman bribe at Inn of the Painted Lady
OR _Arcane Scroll of Silence (to protect against the harpies of the Juun Pass)_

*1,900gp *for Female Guild Head to "indulge herself"
OR _A Quiver of Ehlonna (for keeping those silver, adamantine, and cold iron arrows ready)_

*200gp *for 2 glasses of exotic brandy while waiting on Female Guild Head
OR _Four Potions of Cure Light Wounds (to keep your allies from a TPK against the Barghest)_

What kind of D&D world is this? 150 gp for a haircut? 200 gp bribes for doormen? 25 GP for PAPER? How much does a longsword cost; 10,000 gp? Plate mail for a cool million gold? Jeez, I bet Rope is 10gp/foot!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 13, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Yes, rings of protection were more or less an armor enhancement.  Only the most powerful and rare ones gave bonuses to saving throws.  I never had one that did in 15 years or so of play.




I think you'll find that the default did both, but there were some rings that had different values for AC and save bonuses.

Cheers!


----------



## painandgreed (Mar 13, 2007)

Some thoughts on this stuff,

I don't think you can really get rid of the basic seven (because magic bags are just as much of a demanded item and more so than half those items to many players) unless you play low magic or low level and limit those things. Even then, if the PCs can get the feats to make those magic items, they will. Those are simply the main items that are needed in combat which is a large part of this game.

If you want player to pay attention to other items, then the other items have to be used. One thing that became obvious to me in the last game I was in that made it to 13th level or so, is that mind sheilding devices are a must for kings, wizards, politicians, merchants, and just about anybody with a decent amount of money and power. If they didn't exist, bluff and diplomacy would quickly be worthless, plans couldn't be kept, secrets wouldn't exist, and intrigue would always fail. In a world of scrying magic users, mind reading monsters, lie decerning clerics, and detecting paladins, defences to protect your secrets becomes pretty valuable fairly quickly. I've seen that one clever succubus could quickly unhinge civilization if the people in power weren't protected though a savage species campaign. Similarly, other segments of civilization will have different requirements. Around ports and coasts, water breathing and swimming items will probably be very common amoung the NPCs at least. If you want PCs to use other things besides combat items, then pose those other conditions as threats to the PCs. In a sea going campaign, see how much they value a swimming trinket if they have to make an effective save or die roll not to get washed off the deck into the ocean during a storm. If in the mountains or desert, pull out the environment rules and start making them fear killing cold, heat, or dehydration. Once the PCs are faced with a need for items other than the basic seven, you'll see them obtain them.

One thing that is hard to do, and you sort of have to let the PCs do it on their own, are all the minor items that would be in big demand that players never buy because they don't actually have to live those lives. Magic items that made decent tasting food, cloaks that keep the wearer warm and dry magically, items that make you appear clean and well kept. The clever DM could add in lots of misc modifiers here and there which might make the PCs want them, otherwise they're just sort of flavor items even though lots would exist in any world where they could be made.

But still, I have issues with saying that changing the price is an option to bringing these items into use. By that, they're saying the prices weren't properly blanaced to begin with, and it still won't matter because they'll still buy the big seven because they still won't need those other items. If they never needed a wand of enemy detection at 23.5k, they're still not going to need one at 12k. If the prices were balanced, and you lower them, trust me when I say that some enterprising soul WILL exploit the new price. They'll yank out those wands of enemy detection and blow the entire adventure path in the first session as they wander around town preforming sting operations to find out who is behind everything and skip the big dungeon dwelve to uncover the identities of the evil clerics.


----------



## bowbe (Mar 13, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> No more than towns are mundane item Wal-Marts because we don't roleplay out every individual transaction there, either.



 Respectfully Snipped.

I for one Role Play EVERY single indivdual transaction in my encounter laden local Wally World "Discount" store. 

Gm in my Mind: "After finding an item that was supposedly on sale locked in a "theft protection case" you notice 5 red-jacketed "Senior Sales ASSociates" congregated around a "help" kiosk. What do you do?"

Me: "I carefully approach the kiosk, attempting to make eye contact with the senior Sales Associates" and proclaim "Excuse me, I need some Nicorette, but it's all locked up. Do any of you fine people have a key which would unlock the item which I have a $5 dollar off coupon for?"

Reality: The associates eye one another shiftily, two proclaim that they are on break and take a double move to the "employees only break area".  A third looks to the fourth and the fourth looks to the fifth, before the fifth replies "I'm sorry, the manager is out, and he is the only one with the key to that...what was it you wanted?"

Me (in my mind): Ooh the blood doth boil, wroth and gall fill my throat, I wish only to reach for the rubber mallet in my shopping cart and beat these three goons into rightous submission, if only some magic could make these knaves understand my need and desire to purchase this item of my desire...

Me: Out loud, and quite obviously...draw forth the only magic which modern might has attained, brandish my trusty cellular phone and dial 411 send. It rings, I put it on speaker phone...so that the knaves can here

They "What are you doing sir?"

Me: Excuse me, 411, yes I would like the managers number for Wal-mart in ******, located at *****

They: Scatter like leaves in the wind.

Me, calling after them: "Don't worry, I memorized your name badges, have a nice day and thank you for helping me at Wal-mart"

411 Operator: Your call is connecting bla bla bla... phone connects, ... bla bla bla if you would like to speak with an operator please stay on the line....bla bla bla


5 Minutes later: The manager is summoned as if by magic to my exact location, bowing and scraping voiciferously as the power of my summoning is enhanced by my feats "Cut the BS" and "The Customer is Always Right" and my Nicorette is happily in my cart and I am on to the next adventure.


"The Checkout Line"

If you can't have fun and RP at Wal-mart... why worry about overpriced or over-powered magic items. Your the DM. Give em what for baby!

Case


----------



## painandgreed (Mar 13, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> What kind of D&D world is this? 150 gp for a haircut? 200 gp bribes for doormen? 25 GP for PAPER? How much does a longsword cost; 10,000 gp? Plate mail for a cool million gold? Jeez, I bet Rope is 10gp/foot!




One that probably mirrors the real world. Look at even some of the prices in the real world, let alone the costs of past nobles and aristocracy. Nobles spend money.* If you want to hob nob with them, let alone be one, you'll have to spend money also. Show up at a gambling hall to try and meet some big with with an ale house hooker and your 'good' pair of adventuring clothes rather than a well paid cortesean who can hold her own in a conversation and make you the envy of other men and a 10,000 GP outfit made with spun gold and pearls, and you probably won't even get in the door. Of course, a real adventurer will be going there to make a deal or gain information that will make him money back, but I don't think the prices for quality items are something that really bears criticism if one is trying to be a high roller.

*Which in itself is a type of defense mechanism. If they spend money and require all those around them to spend money also, they not only have a judge of the persons wealth and abilty by how they spend their money, but they also weed out all those who can't and there fore have nothing to offer. Otherwise, they'd be constantly surrounded by people who want things of them while pretending to be equals.


----------



## hong (Mar 13, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> No. 'You' can mean alot of different people, but when I say 'you', 'you' doesn't mean me.




No, but you do mean "I" even if you don't know it. Trust me, I'm a statistician.



> If it wasn't you speaking, I'd wonder who you were arguing with or what you were trying to say.  But since it is you, I just put it down to you trying to be cute and failing this time.




Yes, yes, that's what they all say.



> Fitting don't you think, since his name is on the document that created them?




If it stops people complaining, then hey, I'm all for it. Not that that's likely to happen, since complaining for its own sake is one of the purest forms of self-expression that can be found.



> I also find it interesting how that problem you say I have, you say is no longer my problem when you stumble over your next sentence.  Figure out where the problem is, then your jokes might actually hit the target.




Stumbling into incoherence is we. Are we? Am us?



> Care?  Why would I want you to care?




Ah, so in other words, you were just talking to hear yourself speak! I have figured out your CUNNING PLAN, "Celebrim", if that IS your REAL PANSY ELF NAME!



> I believe you'd see once you got the piffle out of your eye that I wasn't elevating 'official' above anything else, and was in my own fashion being as sarky about it as you.  Only, my sarkiness wouldn't make into my official seven sentence NPC, unlike some other more famous comedians here.




Geez, if you just wanted to say that I do this better than you, why not just come out and say it.

WHY DO I HAVE TO DO ALL THE THINKING AROUND HERE?


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Mar 13, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Trust me, I'm a statistician.




Wow, that's only slightly less ironic than "Trust me, I'm a Politician."


----------



## hong (Mar 13, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Wow, that's only slightly less ironic than "Trust me, I'm a Politician."



 Politicians get all the lovin'.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 13, 2007)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> But still, I have issues with saying that changing the price is an option to bringing these items into use. By that, they're saying the prices weren't properly blanaced to begin with, and it still won't matter because they'll still buy the big seven because they still won't need those other items. If they never needed a wand of enemy detection at 23.5k, they're still not going to need one at 12k. If the prices were balanced, and you lower them, trust me when I say that some enterprising soul WILL exploit the new price. They'll yank out those wands of enemy detection and blow the entire adventure path in the first session as they wander around town preforming sting operations to find out who is behind everything and skip the big dungeon dwelve to uncover the identities of the evil clerics.




It's a little more complicated than that. The cost isn't just in the gold spent; it's also on the action used to activate the item, and on the slot needed to use it.

Using magic to overcome challenges - as shown in your _wand of enemy detection_ example - is a quite different issue. The pricing of wands needs to be appropriate to the spells that can cast them; thus you're not going to get a _wand of enemy detection_ until you can cast the spell as well (and possibly not for a couple of levels later).

No, the problem with many items comes down to the slot it uses. Why wear an amulet of proof against poison when the amulet of natural armour is just far better in most circumstances? At this point, the _gold cost_ of the amulet is irrelevant. To fix this, you need another solution. You can see one solution in the augment crystals: you augment the amulet of natural armour with a crystal that gives proof from poison. Another solution is to have a dual-amulet: it gives natural armour *and* proof from poison, and at a reasonable cost.

That's the slot problem.

The next problem is the activate action problem. You only have a certain number of actions each combat before the combat ends. If the magic item's ability is weaker than your other options, why would you use it? That's the problem identified by Andy for the _rod of grievous wounds_.

(Incidentally, magic items normally become obsolete as you level up. A _wand of fireballs_ just doesn't cut it at high levels. A Ring of the Ram probably is obsolete at the moment you can craft it. The best part of the redesign to staves in 3.5e was that they pay attention to the caster level of the user, rather than the staff).

One-shot items (potions and elixirs, especially) pay a lot more attention to their actual *gold cost* Limited-use as well. The formula for wands is really wacky in D&D - it's great for a general formula, but should a wand of cure moderate wounds really cost six times the cost of a cure light wounds wand? Probably not. D&D really needs case-by-case adjucation of magic item cost... which is why there isn't a new set of formulas in the MIC.

Cheers!


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 13, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Geez, if you just wanted to say that I do this better than you, why not just come out and say it.




If 'this' is 'act like a twerp', as it seems to be, I'll gladly concede your superiority in that arena and stand aside for your public display of twerptitude.

But, just to be clear, what said was not that you were better at sarcasm, but that you were more tedious.  

'Better' and 'more consistantly' are not the same thing.  And while we are at it, one does not equal to two - not even for small values of one.   And, you does not equal to me - not even for the alternate definitions of you.  Plug that into your statistics, incense boy - if that IS your real exotic ethnic name.

PS: Of course I'm just talking to hear myself speak.  It's a good habit.  Always speak to the wisest person present.  You didn't actually think I was addressing you did you?  That would be silly!  Everyone knows better than to waste thier breath responding to one of your trolls!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 13, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> AC is not nearly as much of a problem as in older editions because monsters have Str bonuses and monsters aren't capped at 16 effective HD.  Plus there are touch attacks, incorporal attacks, and so forth.  Thus, its much harder for a PC to rely entirely on a high AC to protect them in combat compared to earlier editions.  This is mostly for the good, but it does make PC's more fragile.




If I may note, the problem with the escalation of AC isn't related directly to monsters. My problem comes with the larger gap between ACs as the levels rise. The AC keeps pace (or is slightly slower) than the attack bonus of the fighter, but unfortunately the attack bonus of the Clerics and Rogues begins to lag, and the Wizards don't even have a chance of hitting. A 20th level Fighter will have a +40 bonus to hit or so. A Wizard has a +10. That gap is problematic.

Cheers!


----------



## hong (Mar 13, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If 'this' is 'act like a twerp', as it seems to be, I'll gladly concede your superiority in that arena and stand aside for your public display of twerptitude.




Oh, no, no, in that we are clearly equals. Please, do continue.



> But, just to be clear, what said was not that you were better at sarcasm, but that you were more tedious.




Ah, right. So when you said

I wasn't elevating 'official' above anything else, and was in my own fashion being as sarky about it as you​
You were in fact saying that you were being as tedious as me. WELL, WHO AM I TO GAINSAY SUCH INSIGHT?



> 'Better' and 'more consistantly' are not the same thing.




And this is relevant to anything... how?



> And while we are at it, one does not equal to two - not even for small values of one.




I do this better than you.



> And, you does not equal to me - not even for the alternate definitions of you.




But, but directly below you say

Of course I'm just talking to hear myself speak.​
I do wish you'd make up your mind, whatever state it happens to be in at this moment.



> Plug that into your statistics, incense boy - if that IS your real exotic ethnic name.




Incense is exotic, yes, but I dispute your description of it as ethnic.



> PS: Of course I'm just talking to hear myself speak.  It's a good habit.  Always speak to the wisest person present.




Shilsen does this better than you.



> You didn't actually think I was addressing you did you?  That would be silly!  Everyone knows better than to waste thier breath responding to one of your trolls!




I fully agree.

Do it again!


----------



## ruleslawyer (Mar 13, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Yes, rings of protection were more or less an armor enhancement.  Only the most powerful and rare ones gave bonuses to saving throws.  I never had one that did in 15 years or so of play.



That is incorrect.

The 1e/2e ring of protection gave bonuses to both AC and saves from +1 to +3. The progression then broke to yield a ring that gave +4 AC, +2 saves, and one that gave +6 AC, +1 saves. Given that saves weren't nearly as big a deal to boost in prior editions, the high-end rings were still the best. 

Back to your regularly-scheduled debate.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 13, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> One-shot items (potions and elixirs, especially) pay a lot more attention to their actual *gold cost* Limited-use as well. The formula for wands is really wacky in D&D - it's great for a general formula, but should a wand of cure moderate wounds really cost six times the cost of a cure light wounds wand? Probably not. D&D really needs case-by-case adjucation of magic item cost... which is why there isn't a new set of formulas in the MIC.




The problem with 'case by case' basis is that it is no more likely to solve the problem than any other thing.  

Wands were priced cheaply by design to deal with the fact that otherwise low to midlevel spell casters would spend - as they often did in prior editions - a great many rounds doing nothing and watching the action from the back row.  If you make wands more expensive, what then?  Have you really solved the problem or just rearranged people’s priorities?  Are we to be eternally tweaking the price list so as to be continually shifting around what the most optimal selection of items is for a particular wealth level?  Because that's all you are going to do if you treat this as purely an economic problem.  So long as magic items are simple functional commodities and treated that way by design that is all they are going to be and all the price tweaking in the world won't deal with that.  Heward's Handy Haversack would be a sought after item at twice or three or five times its book price.  Changing the price would just change the priorities.

So the real question becomes, what do you really want to do away with?  Tweaking the price of a wand of cure light wounds up won't change its utility or desirability.  If you tweak it to the point of inefficiency, or tweak something else's price down to the point it is a bargain, then people will just switch to some new bargain.  Is trading wands of cure light wounds for wands of cure moderate wounds really all that worth it?

There are at least two good reasons for not wanting ad hoc prices. 

First, ad hoc prices pretty much break the crafting system.  If you take the crafting system back to fiat, in practice you might as well not have it.  The only way to retain the crafting system in a functional form is to list a crafting price for every spell ever created or introduced.  That's way more trouble than its worth barring a new edition, and its more trouble than I'd like to go to if there isn't going to be a new edition (which if the next one is as bad as 3.5 I'll largely ignore anyway).  I like players being able to make and design thier own tools.  I like it as both a DM and as a player, because I like PC's and NPC's on a level playing field, I like to as a player to use my creativity, and I like to see players use thier creativity.  It has good aesthetics.  A system is aesthetically pleasing.  

Secondly, there is no reason to suppose that ad hoc prices are going to be any better than those produced by a system.  There will still be comparitive bargins.  There will still be things more efficient than other things, and the utility of and attractiveness boosts to attributes and to commonly used rolls will not go away.  Players will always want to rely more on things that are 'always effective' rather than things which are situational (and which a bad DM may metagame) regardless of price.  Balance is not going to be achieved.  It never has in any price list or point buy in the hobbies history, so why expect it now?  So we will ugly up the system for no good purpose.

We are fighting a phantasm here.  It's a creation of the default setting, most people aren't really unhappy with it anyway, and the spectre has been raised pretty much solely for the purpose of selling books.

I disbelieve.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 13, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> First, ad hoc prices pretty much break the crafting system.  If you take the crafting system back to fiat, in practice you might as well not have it.  The only way to retain the crafting system in a functional form is to list a crafting price for every spell ever created or introduced.  That's way more trouble than its worth barring a new edition, and its more trouble than I'd like to go to if there isn't going to be a new edition (which if the next one is as bad as 3.5 I'll largely ignore anyway).  I like players being able to make and design thier own tools.  I like it as both a DM and as a player, because I like PC's and NPC's on a level playing field, I like to as a player to use my creativity, and I like to see players use thier creativity.  It has good aesthetics.  A system is aesthetically pleasing.
> 
> Secondly, there is no reason to suppose that ad hoc prices are going to be any better than those produced by a system.  There will still be comparitive bargins.  There will still be things more efficient than other things, and the utility of and attractiveness boosts to attributes and to commonly used rolls will not go away.  Players will always want to rely more on things that are 'always effective' rather than things which are situational (and which a bad DM may metagame) regardless of price.  Balance is not going to be achieved.  It never has in any price list or point buy in the hobbies history, so why expect it now?  So we will ugly up the system for no good purpose.




While I agree with you, to a point, that this "problem" isn't nearly as big as it's been made out to be, I have to disagree with the points I quoted above.

Or rather, I don't disagree per se; I just think they aren't applicable. See, they assume that the prices already in place actually _use_ a system.

The truth is, even the DMG says that the system is a loose guideline, at best, and a great many of the items--not just in more recent books, but in the DMG itself--don't use that system to price themselves. What he have, then, are not magic items developed by a system, but ad hoc prices that are, at best, _ballparked_ via the use of a system.

Add to that the fact that even the system itself is based on some assumptions that are now being challenged, such as the relative worth of certain types of items, and I'd argue that what's being discussed isn't any more ad hoc than what we already have.


----------



## hong (Mar 13, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> That's way more trouble than its worth barring a new edition, and its more trouble than I'd like to go to if there isn't going to be a new edition (which if the next one is as bad as 3.5 I'll largely ignore anyway).  I like players being able to make and design thier own tools.  I like it as both a DM and as a player, because I like PC's and NPC's on a level playing field, I like to as a player to use my creativity, and I like to see players use thier creativity.  It has good aesthetics.  A system is aesthetically pleasing.




Psst, elfy person. Aesthetics != utility.



> Secondly, there is no reason to suppose that ad hoc prices are going to be any better than those produced by a system.  There will still be comparitive bargins.




Pshaw. Perfection is the enemy of good enough. The current system is manifestly not good enough.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 13, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> If I may note, the problem with the escalation of AC isn't related directly to monsters. My problem comes with the larger gap between ACs as the levels rise. The AC keeps pace (or is slightly slower) than the attack bonus of the fighter, but unfortunately the attack bonus of the Clerics and Rogues begins to lag, and the Wizards don't even have a chance of hitting. A 20th level Fighter will have a +40 bonus to hit or so. A Wizard has a +10. That gap is problematic.




Oh.  That.  Well, there really nothing to be done about that.  It's a feature of every system that it begins to break down as bonuses near its numerical range.  GURPS begins to break down as bonuses approach 15.  D% systems break down when bonuses get near 100.  D20 will always break down as bonuses get near 20.  Dice poll systems begin to break down when the average exceeds the most difficult of challenges.  The problem is that a system like this depends on its random factor, and eventually as the bonuses get large the random factor is dwarfed by the bonus.  The system becomes non-random.  It becomes deterministic.

In the example you site, a Wizard could already have a +25 bonus or so if they worked on it.  But what would be the point?  As the bonuses get large, pure specialization becomes more and more attractive.  Why bother being good at something you don't do when you can be so overwhelming at something that you do do?  Why rely on something you could randomly fail at, when you could succeed at something almost every time?  

And the thing is, its an absolute you are fighting here.  There isn't a tweak to the system you can do.  Oh, you could change the size of the dice, but the problem would just show up elsewhere then.  The gap is problimatic, but there isn't a darn thing to be done about it.

And really, this problem isn't just confined to the game.  The dice are what limit games at a mechanical level, but there is a real world issue that this corresponds to.  Suppose you take two ordinary youths.  They play chess and ping pong together.  They have different dispositions and skills and so one is slightly better than the other in one game or another, but because they've both just picked up both games, the contests are interesting.  One wins most of the time at chess, but occassionally picks up a game through a bit of luck.  The other wins most of the time at ping pong, but its still a close contest and the outcome isn't gauranteed.  But what happens when the two players begin to hone thier natural talents?  A problem, that's what.  Soon the contest is no longer interesting.  One youth plays ping pong all the time.  The other is devoted to chess.  In a very short amount of time, the two players are no longer adequate contests for the other.  The outcome becomes predictable.  The match becomes one sided.  It becomes boring.  And what's worse, neither player is a good match for the sort of challenges that is a strong challenge for the other.  This one can't play ping pong against the rivals of the other.  The ping pong player can't play chess with the international masters that the chess player faces.

Lastly, this isn't a new issue with the D20 system.  It's always been a part of D&D.  In a prior edition I had a thief with a -4 AC.  Even with a magic weapon, I could barely a hit -4 AC.  But the fighter in the party with a -4 AC could barely miss a -4 AC.  If anything, the problem has gotten to be alot less of a problem than it was because at least now it isn't just fighters that get multiple attacks.  

There isn't alot to be done about it unless you are willing to assume universal competance in everything on the part of all players, and that has its own problems.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 13, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The DMG recommends that items of X value can only be found in a Y-sized town or city. I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that *all* items of X value can be found in that settlement. That is up to DM judgement.




No, the 3e DMG I have recommends that all items up to the gp limit be available, not an interesting selection of items etc.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 13, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> No, the 3e DMG I have recommends that all items up to the gp limit be available, not an interesting selection of items etc.




I'll check mine; I may just be using Rule 0. 

Cheers!


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 13, 2007)

(Skipping to the end of this discussion...)

I think that the basic problem is that the formula for spell effects in items is too expensive relative to the price for simple, always on numeric boosts.

1st level spells: 2000 (or 1800)
2nd level spells: 12000
3rd level spells: 30000
4th level spells: 56000
etc.

+1 item 1000
+2 item 4000
+3 item 9000
+4 item 16000
etc.

That has to be a pretty impressive 3rd level spell effect at 30000 gp to compete with a +4 or +5 item.  Of the top of my head, I can only think of the Ring of Blinking (27000 gp) that is even in the same league -- that it as pretty extreme example as it is both a 1rd/lvl duration spell and a spell normally not available in potions.

Already potions and scrolls and wands are looking really, really, really attractive.  I could get 10-20 very useful emergency scrolls for the price of a 2nd level effect.  I better use that effect practically every day or it looks like a dud.

Even discounted down to 7500 gp, Boots of Levitation look pretty weak.

Interesting multifunction items require at least one 3rd level of higher effect to be interesting, practically by definition.  Unless you are throwing down a tedious number of 1st level effects, the official cost is simply astronomical no matter how aggressively you discount.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 13, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> (Skipping to the end of this discussion...)




I think you are basically on the right track.  I think the problem with the current pricing system is its based to much on absolutes, when the spells that it is based on aren't absolute but have varying durations.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 13, 2007)

I think we could come up a better formula with curves that will less easily break (but never can be expected to be perfect).  Plus some additional fudge factors.


----------



## prosfilaes (Mar 13, 2007)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> If you want to hob nob with them, let alone be one, you'll have to spend money also.




At any serious level, though, it's pretty exclusive of being an adventurer. People like that, and people who hang out with them, don't hang out with people who show up in town wearing adventurer's clothes carrying the body parts of a dragon like a common butcher. It may be cool for a short period, but it won't be long before it's retro.

It's a side note, and probably not what you meant to imply, but that was not the behavior pattern of a lot of nobles historically.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Mar 13, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> At any serious level, though, it's pretty exclusive of being an adventurer. People like that, and people who hang out with them, don't hang out with people who show up in town wearing adventurer's clothes carrying the body parts of a dragon like a common butcher..




I don't carry the body parts, those go in the bag of holding on my flying carpet.


----------



## Agamemnon (Mar 13, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> ....right, because that's totally been what D&D has been about. Buying JEWELRY to look good at the QUEEN'S BALLROOM. So you can, you know, avoid going on adventures. Like a PANSY.
> 
> Nah, the game's about killing monsters and taking their stuff...and their stuff is used to kill MORE monsters. And sometimes there's a cool story attached, and sometimes the bard has such a high Diplomacy it doesn't matter if he shows up in his underpants with a ferret tied to his rumpus, he will win them over and start a new trend in the city.
> 
> Even a noble's outfit doesn't cost more than a few hundred gp. So whatever game you're talking about, I'm glad it ain't D&D.




What the hell is it with sanctimonious twits like you defining what is and isn't "allowed" in games? The point of RPGs is that they let the player decide what he wants to do. If you take away that freedom, you might as well be playing chess, Risk or go.

Maybe not all of us are half-brained troglodytes who like slaughtering monsters and taking their stuff? I'm sorry, but you lack the right to unilaterally exclude us from doing what we like, and calling it D&D.

This isn't the 1970's. There's more to the game than what's lurking in the next dungeon. Maybe your limited mindset just can't grasp it?


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 13, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Oh.  That.  Well, there really nothing to be done about that.  It's a feature of every system that it begins to break down as bonuses near its numerical range.




This isn't just a problem with roleplaying games, its a problem with every model in existance. Take any math equation or any scientific model that works well, and then stretch it to encompass some new things. Now stretch it again, again....again. The more you push the model, the more the results break down.

Dnd does a remarkable job of modeling characters through a huge range in power levels. It can model commoners and epic gods with the same basic numbers. However, pushing the model towards those high levels and you start to see the system break down. And you cannot help this. There's no one model that will be perfect. The only real way to do it "well" is to create several models. In essence, the game resets at 10th level or 20th level, and completely new numbers and rules are put in. Basically you create a brand new game for different levels. However, I don't many people would want this, so we are stuck creating the best single model we can.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 13, 2007)

You know, when I said to learn from others' misfortune, I was talking to hong as well... listen next time.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## jasin (Mar 13, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> No, the problem with many items comes down to the slot it uses. Why wear an amulet of proof against poison when the amulet of natural armour is just far better in most circumstances? At this point, the _gold cost_ of the amulet is irrelevant. To fix this, you need another solution. You can see one solution in the augment crystals: you augment the amulet of natural armour with a crystal that gives proof from poison. Another solution is to have a dual-amulet: it gives natural armour *and* proof from poison, and at a reasonable cost.



I think it might not be a bad idea to cut down on the number of slots available, but also waive (or at least significantly cut down on) the extra charge for multiple effects on a single item. It doesn't help the magic for sale problem for people who think it's a problem, but at least people would be putting more effects on fewer items, making at least somewhat original and personalized magic items the default.

Instead of a generic cloak of resistance, generic headband of intellect and a generic ring of protection, you'd have your own Cloak of Cunning Defense which grants +4 Int, +2 deflection to AC and +3 to saves.

But then, you might also call your generic cloak of resistance a Cloak of Cunning Defense, and that kind of thing goes a long way towards making it mysterious and quirky rather than a routine commodity, but the fact is that much of the time, it's just the DM who wants people to sigh in wonderment at cloaks of resistance, while players just want to treat it as a commodity and get on with killing dragons.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 13, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I think people are also conflating "cool" ( = flavourful, quirky, original) with "useful" ( = gets used a lot, applicable in many situations). Gp value measures the latter. It really doesn't have much to do with the former.




((Somewhat ironic given the above.   ))

This, I think, is really telling.  The price of an item should have very little to do with how cool it is.  I believe Ridley's Cohort was on the same track as well.  For an item of a given price, it has to compete with other items of the same price.  Sure, that ring of feather fall might be really useful, but, it's nowhere near as useful as a +1 lumpy metal thing.

Either the lumpy metal thing +1 has to go up in price, or the ring has to come down.  Me, I figure the ring should come down.  WAY down.  We're talking about an item of very, very limited use that may very well never be used by the PC.  A contingency spell costs what?  A few hundred GP?  A ring of feather fall should be on par with that.  As should many of the very limited use items.  Particularly items with a fixed slot.


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 13, 2007)

It doesn't really matter if the price of non-big six items come down, if there is still a market for them players will sell them in order to spend the money on the big six. I've seen it with pretty much every item, even currently cheap stuff. Lowering the cost will just mean more places to sell where they are able to sell them.


----------



## jasin (Mar 13, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> It doesn't really matter if the price of non-big six items come down, if there is still a market for them players will sell them in order to spend the money on the big six.



Players don't buy the big six because they want boring items and hate interesting ones. They buy them because that's the best bang for buck, and in a typical D&D game, you either have the bang, or you get banged by gangs of monsters you face in deadly combat day after day.

If the discounted price makes players say "hey, we could still get a +2 sword for this _and it'd be much more useful_" that just means the prices are still off, since the +2 sword is _still much more useful for the same money_.

If Daern's instant fortress cost 5,500 gp instead of 55,000, you can bet almost every party would have one, just like almost every party (IME) has a couple of Quaal's feather tokens and at least one hat of disguise, because Quaal's feather tokens and hats of disguise are about as useful as boring mechanical items that cost about the same.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 13, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> ....right, because that's totally been what D&D has been about. Buying JEWELRY to look good at the QUEEN'S BALLROOM. So you can, you know, avoid going on adventures. Like a PANSY.




Because God knows nobody ever gets out of the dungeon and adventures in a city, or creates a campaign that deals with nobles and politics, or has better things to do with the the treasure they bled for than chunk it down the magic item creation rat-hole. I've had a few characters that accomplished more good, saved more lives, and won more honor over _dinner _ than others accomplished by spending their lives plundering dark pits and ancient ruins and cutting down waves of orcs.

But then you get adventures and campaigns like that when you step back and consider a game world as you would a living, breathing setting rather than just a backdrop. I certainly don't want to go back to the days where The City or The Town was just a place to get healed up and buy some extra pitons.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 13, 2007)

On the whole "Let's go to the ball" thing.

I don't have the link, but, a recent poll here on EnWorld placed most campaigns at about 70% combat.  If combat outnumbers non-combat by more than 2:1, then you can bet that the players are going to spend their money in at least that ratio.  Considering your PC doesn't die at the ball (usually), it's not hard to figure out why the players want utility items over "cool" stuff.

jasin has the right of it IMO.  Given the choice, people are going to maximize their spending.  That's perfectly natural.  If your choice is a better weapon or a thing that makes you fall slower, it's not a big jump to think that people are going to take the better weapon.

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that the proliferation of utility items is perfectly mirrored in feats and in spells.  Again, that makes sense.  Sure, that skill bonus feat might be useful in the 30% of non-combat, but, again, twice as much time is spent in combat, so power attack becomes much, much more attractive.

For any given thing in the game, be it a feat, spell, or magic item, to be equal, it has to be as useful as other things of the same value.  How many clerics memorize water breathing unless they absolutely know they need it today?  How many clerics memorize Searing Light?  IME, every cleric will take Searing Light before Water Breathing.  If we want people to take Water Breathing, we should one of two things  - make it easier to cast (ie. lower level) or make it more powerful (such as also granting a swim speed, perhaps freedom of movement while underwater).

Magic items are no different.  If we want people to take a Ring of Chameleon Power (12 700 gp), we have to make it at least as useful as +1 Flaming Lumpy Metal Thing plus Gauntlets of Ogre Power.  Add in a minor displacement ability perhaps, or a Hide In Plain Sight ability.  Something like that.

Otherwise, players are going to take the bonus that best helps them.  +2 to hit and damage as well as the extra benefits of a +2 strength is pretty hard to ignore.


----------



## Schmoe (Mar 13, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> If I may note, the problem with the escalation of AC isn't related directly to monsters. My problem comes with the larger gap between ACs as the levels rise. The AC keeps pace (or is slightly slower) than the attack bonus of the fighter, but unfortunately the attack bonus of the Clerics and Rogues begins to lag, and the Wizards don't even have a chance of hitting. A 20th level Fighter will have a +40 bonus to hit or so. A Wizard has a +10. That gap is problematic.
> 
> Cheers!





I don't think it's a very large problem, though.  Fighters have enough options to put a high attack bonus to work (Power Attack, Combat Expertise, iterative attacks, etc), that even an opponent with an AC the rogues can hit will still be interesting for the fighter players.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 13, 2007)

Rolzup said:
			
		

> And perhaps we should add Talking Heads inspired Hero Cards, eh?



Definitely! That would give us Psycho Killer, Burning Down the House, Slippery People, and one that might become relevant soon; Life During Wartime.



> You're denying Burne his Erebus-givien right to design Weapons of Mass Conflagration, by the way.



I wouldn't dream of doing that. But then again, I don't need to. The CITY campaign is already heady mix of utility and idiocy, besides, I should have mentioned that I'm currently trying  a more additive approach; throwing strange items your way that can't really be sold, that exist outside of D&D 'power economics' --how much is Phillip worth?-- and player purchased/invented items.

Which, in fact, may be the best advice I can give; mix it up. Simply introduce items into the game that have no practical 'cost'. Rather than sweat the macroeconomics of magic, just un-monetize some of the less useful stuff/quirky stuff.



> But I have a tendancy to see something neatish, or just plain silly, and base a sudden character concept around it.



I approve of this message. 



> You have a gift for that.  Urbane Outfitters indeed!



I'm going to get hit one session, I just know it...


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 13, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> It doesn't really matter if the price of non-big six items come down, if there is still a market for them players will sell them in order to spend the money on the big six. I've seen it with pretty much every item, even currently cheap stuff. Lowering the cost will just mean more places to sell where they are able to sell them.




No, they buy the Big Six because the Big Six are more useful than most other items that cost twice as much.

If they are selling a garbage bag full of items priced at 32000 gp total to buy a +4 Str item, it is because that +4 Str item is simply more useful overall, not because players prefer to be boring.

The 50% mark down for selling is not a sufficient disincentive to habitually cashing in.  That should be telling us something about the price structure.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 13, 2007)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> One that probably mirrors the real world. Look at even some of the prices in the real world, let alone the costs of past nobles and aristocracy. Nobles spend money.* If you want to hob nob with them, let alone be one, you'll have to spend money also. Show up at a gambling hall to try and meet some big with with an ale house hooker and your 'good' pair of adventuring clothes rather than a well paid cortesean who can hold her own in a conversation and make you the envy of other men and a 10,000 GP outfit made with spun gold and pearls, and you probably won't even get in the door. Of course, a real adventurer will be going there to make a deal or gain information that will make him money back, but I don't think the prices for quality items are something that really bears criticism if one is trying to be a high roller.
> 
> *Which in itself is a type of defense mechanism. If they spend money and require all those around them to spend money also, they not only have a judge of the persons wealth and abilty by how they spend their money, but they also weed out all those who can't and there fore have nothing to offer. Otherwise, they'd be constantly surrounded by people who want things of them while pretending to be equals.




I dunno, if the common commoner earns 2 sp/week (or 10 gp year) then 150 gp for personal grooming is outragous. Think; A PC goes into town for shave and a haircut and plops down 15 X the amount the barber would make in a year. In the real world, that's like going to Bo Rics and paying for an $11 haircut with a $100 bill and telling the cutter keep the change. 

My point was, those prices Ratt posted were inflated for inflations sake. No PC would nor should pay the equivalents of +2 adamantine armor for STEAK AND FRUIT. Pretty soon, gold's value deflates in game so that GP is the lowest denomination and copper is worthless.

Expensive jewels? Sure. Throwing money around on clothes and women? Ok. 20 K worth on one evening? I don't think so...


----------



## Hussar (Mar 13, 2007)

I would point out a historical note about aristocracy.  In many countries, the aristocracy rarely paid for anything, but would expect many things to be "gifted" to them.  Artisans would possibly be given patronage, but, paid on a one for one basis?  Not always.

For those who talk about PC's blowing huge amounts of money on non-magic gear, how often do your artisans gift anything to them in return for their patronage?


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Mar 13, 2007)

Wow, this thread isn't locked yet?

Smart-assery aside, when players are limited in their choices, they're naturally going to pick the most useful options.  This is especially true for feats.  When you only get seven to choose from, you are pretty limited in what you can pick.  Sure, it makes sense for a mounted character to pick Trample, but how does that preclude and limit his later choices?  If he's a Fighter, Trample is just a drop in the bucket.  But as a Paladin, Ranger, or Druid, that feat slot is a lot more valuable.

This kind of thinking applies to _any_ kind of game.  When your game is centered around political intrigue and social duplicity, and more than 75% of encounters do not result in combat, what's more useful:  a _+2 flaming longsword_ or a ring that adds a +15 to my bluff checks?  I know which item I'll be picking.

I think people really get hung up on the "magic item price" thing.  In reality that doesn't mean anything.  You can call it whatever you please:  power limit, item gauge, potato chips, squirrel-to-badger ratio.  Makes no difference.  It's simply a gauge of relative character power.  And since many adventurers adventure for wealth and glory (and since glory is sorta intangible), it would make sense wealth by, wow, gp value would be a nice limiting factor.  3rd edition designers have been saying for years that the magic item creation guidelines are just that:  guidelines.  Hell, Ari came in here and said it himself, though he didn't really have to; isn't the very statement written in the frikkin DMG?

So you don't want magic item shops littering the countryside?  Great, then they don't exist!  And you don't want players decked out like Santa Claus?  Cool, double all magic item prices.  Or triple them.  Or remove them entirely and create your own system.  Maybe you want your PCs to be schmucks always scraping for the next down payment on their bar tabs.  Bam, magic items are no longer a form of currency.  They are not useful enough to common folk or maybe outlawed.  Hell, maybe it's a barter economy, and a gold-filigreed sword that slays demons and pants rainbows in the sky is totally useless to the innkeeper who brews his own beer and needs other crops and meats to feed his family.

I don't see how the rules in the DMG preclude anyone from making these kinds of changes.  Isn't a big part of playing this game making it our own?


----------



## painandgreed (Mar 13, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I dunno, if the common commoner earns 2 sp/week (or 10 gp year) then 150 gp for personal grooming is outragous. Think; A PC goes into town for shave and a haircut and plops down 15 X the amount the barber would make in a year. In the real world, that's like going to Bo Rics and paying for an $11 haircut with a $100 bill and telling the cutter keep the change.




No, in the real world, it's like going to a real salon and getting your hair done right with some decent product rather than going to the mall Supercuts.


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 13, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> So you don't want magic item shops littering the countryside?  Great, then they don't exist!  And you don't want players decked out like Santa Claus?  Cool, double all magic item prices.  Or triple them.  Or remove them entirely and create your own system.




Sure you can do that but unfortunately published material assumes that PCs have wealth appropriate to there level and that they are able to and have spent that wealth reasonably wisely. If that isn't the case, like with any of the changes you've mentioned above, then you are also throwing out the CR system, and the ability to use any published adventures and the like, without major work converting them to your system and power level.



> I don't see how the rules in the DMG preclude anyone from making these kinds of changes.  Isn't a big part of playing this game making it our own?




Also a big part of why this game is so popular is because it is so well supported and a familiar ruleset for a lot of players the more you deviate from the 'norm' the less useful the brand of D&D becomes and you might as well play something else.


----------



## Voadam (Mar 13, 2007)

Hmm, my 16th level eldritch knight in a solo game:

+3 Bastard sword (weapon)
Robe of the archmagi- white (armor, resistance bonus)
Ring of protection +4 (ring of protection)
Cloak of Charisma +6 (stat booster)*
Boots of Flying
Gloves of Arrow Deflection
Monk's Belt
Ring of Evasion
Hand of Glory
Ring of Freedom of Movement
Boccob's Blessed Book
Heward's Handy Haversack
Hat of Disguise
Wand of Cure Light Wounds

So I'm just missing the natural armor amulet. I like my third ring and hand of glory better. Particularly since I took the ring and crafted the Hand off the guy who had betrayed me and stolen all my stuff previously.

* My character is a wizard, his intelligence circlet was taken by a warlock who sold it and got a charisma cloak. We switched to recharge magic in the campaign and the DM modified that so high int does not give bonus slots so I've been happy to not replace the circlet and go with the cloak for now.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 13, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Also a big part of why this game is so popular is because it is so well supported and a familiar ruleset for a lot of players the more you deviate from the 'norm' the less useful the brand of D&D becomes and you might as well play something else.



So the tag line for the new editions should have been 'Restrictions, not options'?


----------



## LightPhoenix (Mar 13, 2007)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> No, in the real world, it's like going to a real salon and getting your hair done right with some decent product rather than going to the mall Supercuts.




I don't know about you, but I don't pay fifteen times my annual salary on a haircut, or even being generous and saying I used to make three times what a "commoner" would, that's still on the order of a hundred-thousand dollars.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 13, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> So you don't want magic item shops littering the countryside?  Great, then they don't exist!  And you don't want players decked out like Santa Claus?  Cool, double all magic item prices.  Or triple them.  Or remove them entirely and create your own system.  Maybe you want your PCs to be schmucks always scraping for the next down payment on their bar tabs.  Bam, magic items are no longer a form of currency.  They are not useful enough to common folk or maybe outlawed.  Hell, maybe it's a barter economy, and a gold-filigreed sword that slays demons and pants rainbows in the sky is totally useless to the innkeeper who brews his own beer and needs other crops and meats to feed his family.  I don't see how the rules in the DMG preclude anyone from making these kinds of changes.  Isn't a big part of playing this game making it our own?




Calm down nothing here to get that worked up over.

And I think you may be missing the point, a large part of the discussion has not been about getting rid of magic items.  It's been about the way most magic items pc actually end up getting fit into a few categories of optimum attack/defense/or stat boosters leaving a lot of interesting but less vital items unused.  Largely the discussion has been about how to modify things so that you maintain the assumed power curve while encouraging players to branch out more with their character's magic items.

Personally I favor something along the lines of what is being done with FF Zero or Hong's imbued magic items.  Roll the big six into character progression, make them inherent.  In one homebrew I do this, then go further.  All the bonuses usually associated with permanent items(not wands, potions, or other expendables) are inherent and apply to whatever is appropriate.  Weapon bonuses apply to any weapon the character uses including natural, armor bonuses apply to any armor including their skin.  All these effects are considered an inherent part of their person.  But aside from expendables the only items that are magic in and of themselves are legacy items and powerful artifacts.  This frees me from following the existing wealth guidelines, I still give out wealth to the PCs in game, and it's still a lot comparitively but since it's no longer tied to magic items and character power I can tailor it as appropriate for the campaign or situation.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Mar 13, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Sure you can do that but unfortunately published material assumes that PCs have wealth appropriate to there level and that they are able to and have spent that wealth reasonably wisely. If that isn't the case, like with any of the changes you've mentioned above, then you are also throwing out the CR system, and the ability to use any published adventures and the like, without major work converting them to your system and power level.




I agree, but I don't think it's as absolute as you make it sound.  Adventures for 3.5 assume that characters are at or around the maximum wealth limit.  That does not mean that they assume there are shops about town where one could purchase a holy avenger with the right amount of cash.

I'd argue that the assumption that players are at or around the wealth limit for level is less an assumption about the magic items they have and more an assumption about their relative power level.  There are a number of suggestions in this thread alone that offer options for severely limiting magic items while keeping PC power level relatively the same.

I was hyperbolizing to a degree; yes, limiting or removing magic items will definitely require changes in other areas.  Maybe PCs need to be boosted.  Maybe monsters above CR 12 have their CRs increased by 2 to 4.  Maybe it requires even more than that.



			
				Bagpuss said:
			
		

> ...the more you deviate from the 'norm' the less useful the brand of D&D becomes and you might as well play something else.




I absolutely agree, but does limiting the purchase of magical items really deviate from the "brand of DnD"?  I don't think it does.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Mar 13, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Calm down nothing here to get that worked up over.




I'm not nearly as worked up as you think I am.  Again, hyperbole and all that.  Actually, the thing that most upsets me is when a community of generally pleasant and friendly folks turn an otherwise interesting debate into flame war and name-calling contest.  Not everyone is doing this, of course.  But there's something about this topic that really polarizes people.  It's ridiculous.



			
				HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> And I think you may be missing the point, a large part of the discussion has not been about getting rid of magic items.  It's been about the way most magic items pc actually end up getting fit into a few categories of optimum attack/defense/or stat boosters leaving a lot of interesting but less vital items unused.  Largely the discussion has been about how to modify things so that you maintain the assumed power curve while encouraging players to branch out more with their character's magic items.




Nah, I didn't miss the point.  I liked that part of the discussion.  I was more ranting about the other part of the topic, which dealt mostly with magic item "Wal Marts" and how much of a problem they cause.  This of course confuses me.  For whom are these Walmarts a problem?  To the DM who disallows such "nonsense" in his games?  No, because it's a nonfactor.  Is it a problem for the DM who allows these conveniences?  Obviously not, because it seems to be working for him.  To the player who runs in either of these games?  Maybe, because one might not be his style of play.  If that's the case, that player needs to either 1) discuss it with the DM and maybe find a compromise or 2) move on and find another game.

Some of the attitude in this thread points to:

More magic items = less "mature" game
Less magic items = more "mature" game

I don't think anyone's openly stated it this way.  But it's been implied plenty of times, by any number of people.  It's an absurd notion; no one's game is better than the other.



			
				HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Personally I favor something along the lines of what is being done with FF Zero or Hong's imbued magic items. Roll the big six into character progression, make them inherent. In one homebrew I do this, then go further. All the bonuses usually associated with permanent items(not wands, potions, or other expendables) are inherent and apply to whatever is appropriate. Weapon bonuses apply to any weapon the character uses including natural, armor bonuses apply to any armor including their skin. All these effects are considered an inherent part of their person. But aside from expendables the only items that are magic in and of themselves are legacy items and powerful artifacts. This frees me from following the existing wealth guidelines, I still give out wealth to the PCs in game, and it's still a lot comparitively but since it's no longer tied to magic items and character power I can tailor it as appropriate for the campaign or situation.




Seems like a fine solution to me.  Have you found it limits your ability to play a module as written?  Do you have to do anythin beyond converting loot into numbers more reasonable for your game?  Do you need to throw the CR tables out the window, as some have suggested?  Does any other part of the game need a major overhaul?


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 13, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but I don't pay fifteen times my annual salary on a haircut, or even being generous and saying I used to make three times what a "commoner" would, that's still on the order of a hundred-thousand dollars.




And really, saying that adventurers should regularly spend lots of cash on frippery just misses the point as to why the "Big Six" are the most common items owned by adventurers.

I own a car, a lawn mower, a dishwasher, and a refrigerator. So do all of my neighbors. I, and most of my neighbors, own our houses. These are all relatively big ticket items that everyone owns because of their utility. Heck, most people in my neighborhood own two cars. Almost no one owns a boat. Only a couple have motorcycles. None have pools.

Now, if the question comes down to whether to keep our second car, or get a boat, I'm going to keep the second car. Not because I don't think a boat would be cool, but rather because I know what is going to be more useful to me and my family. I don't need a boat as much as I need a car.

The same holds true for adventurers. They find certain things to be more useful in a wide array of situations. This will be true _no matter what magic items are available in a campaign_. Unless you posit the extremely unlikely scenario in which magic items are all completely useless, some will be more useful than others, and as a result, those will dominate the property lists of characters.

Think of it this way - lots of people own cars; very few people get $10,000 haircuts. Even among people who drive porsches, bentleys and rolls royces, spending five figures on a haircut is a rarity. Expecting that adventurers will spend in a manner wildly different from the manner in which actual humans spend their actual money is unrealistic and misguided.


----------



## painandgreed (Mar 13, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but I don't pay fifteen times my annual salary on a haircut, or even being generous and saying I used to make three times what a "commoner" would, that's still on the order of a hundred-thousand dollars.




Well, I think that what a commoner makes compared to today's equivilent is a whole different discusion. Suffice to say that a commoner of even a LG D&D world is not equivilent to even lower class American standard of lifestyle. That you are trying to mix the two without first even establishing a correlation, really doesn't show anything.

There is a huge disparity of wealth between commoners and nobles, or even the well to do merchants of the middle class. Adventurers, simply by default of having wealth, are way above commoners also. The services that the two require are way different too. Certaily, a PC can live like a commoner, and they're going to appear as a commoner to everybody around them. They're going to stink like a commoner, have dirty hair like a commoner, and filthy, patched clothes like a commoner. You 1sp/day commoner is still living like a medieval peasant covered in crap, not near anything like somebody even making minimum wage in a major city in the USA. If they wish to appear or be in a social standing higher than a commoner, they'll end up spending more than a commoner. The differences between the two is easily a hundred fold. If you have a situation such as the French aristorcracy with powdered wigs and such, it takes people helping you to even dress like that. You can't put on and apply the powder to those wigs by yourself. To do so, you're going to have servants and those servants are going to make much more than your commoner.

In the real world, the differences between services, while not as great, can still easily be ten to fifteen times even without leaving the middle class. A $20 haircut may be fine for children and most men, it is not at all uncommon for somebody these days to spend ten times that much on their hair regularly. Go to a nice salon and have foils done along with wash, trim and style, and it will easily run you hundreds of dollars and there are plenty of salons in any town that women have to make appointments to get into. There's also anything within that range, as well as salons and services way above it.

We'll take an example for our fantasy world. There used to be a cantrip called "color". Worked very well for things like dyeing your hair. Presdigitation sort of takes the place of this spell but doesn't last near long enough. So let's assume that there is a 1st level spell for coloring hair that works as a permanent dye. Your first class hair treatment in the D&D fantasy world would not involve going to the same barber that makes a commoner's wage, but rather soembody who expects to make considerably more, which would require having an establshment suitable of entertaining people paying that much. Servants would take care of you while you waited or were beign worked on. hair would be cut and washed. Spells might be cast to make the ahir the proper color. For fancy events, Predigitation might be used to keep the style in place or give it a magical sheen. Anytime you start having people cast spells, it's going to cast money. In a D&D fantasy world, people who can spend the money will.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 13, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Seems like a fine solution to me.  Have you found it limits your ability to play a module as written?  Do you have to do anythin beyond converting loot into numbers more reasonable for your game?  Do you need to throw the CR tables out the window, as some have suggested?  Does any other part of the game need a major overhaul?




It doesn't limit the ability to play a module as written and doesn't require any fiddling with CR or other system manipulations.  That's why I chose it, by keeping the effects and ditching the items themselves I can keep the powercurve but do away with the wealth asumptions.  All I've got to do is rejigger the the loot into an appropriate value for the game.



			
				GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I'm not nearly as worked up as you think I am. Again, hyperbole and all that. Actually, the thing that most upsets me is when a community of generally pleasant and friendly folks turn an otherwise interesting debate into flame war and name-calling contest. Not everyone is doing this, of course. But there's something about this topic that really polarizes people. It's ridiculous.




That's one of the dangers of the internet, text has no undertones like speech to indicate sarcasm or hyperbole.  Considering how many posts on this thread have been through the roof it seemed reasonable.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 13, 2007)

Aren't many of these repriced items constant ones or use-activated ones?  IIRC, those are priced out at 100 uses, so 100x the single use price.  

Perhaps variable costs could be offered to DMs?  Items could be multiplied by 10, 20, 30..., etc. depending upon the likelihood of use in the specific campaign worlds.

Underwater items could be virtually worthless in a desert setting, but extraordinarily vital in ocean-only worlds.  Of course, need would increase abundancy too.  All of which leads me to...

...this reminding me of balancing spells.  Like most magic items, many spell effects have little to nothing to do with combat.  So the level at which they are included in the game is really arbitrary to the DM and the world he or she is simulating.


----------



## lukelightning (Mar 13, 2007)

Of course they are awful. Most magic items aren't Scottish, and if they aren't Scottish they are crap!


----------



## Schmoe (Mar 13, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And really, saying that adventurers should regularly spend lots of cash on frippery just misses the point as to why the "Big Six" are the most common items owned by adventurers.
> 
> I own a car, a lawn mower, a dishwasher, and a refrigerator. So do all of my neighbors. I, and most of my neighbors, own our houses. These are all relatively big ticket items that everyone owns because of their utility. Heck, most people in my neighborhood own two cars. Almost no one owns a boat. Only a couple have motorcycles. None have pools.
> 
> ...




It seems to me that repricing of items isn't going to change the fact that PCs will still own and prioritize "the big 6."  The only effect is that they may be willing to spend a little more on some of the extras.  Instead of getting the Corvette (+5 sword), they may be willing to stick with the Camaro (+4 sword) and get a dinghy, too.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 13, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but I don't pay fifteen times my annual salary on a haircut, or even being generous and saying I used to make three times what a "commoner" would, that's still on the order of a hundred-thousand dollars.




Huge, huge disparity in what a commoner makes and what even a minor noble or member of the aristocracy makes. In the example,. Ralts is talking about what happens at the upper ends of the spectrum.

In about 1880-1890 in the US, an unskilled laborer earned around a ten cents an hour for an average 10 hour day. Let's be generous and give him a couple windfalls to have him make $400 a year. It took $600 to rear a family of four at the poverty line.

A society woman - not nessesarily a member of the upper class or the truly wealthy - would be expected to have dresses from paris costing over $1000, but we're already entering the era of manufactured items, which drives down the cost.

If anyone can find a Gilded Age price list, I'd love to see one. I looked for hours for costs on specific things and found _nothing_.


----------



## Kerrick (Mar 13, 2007)

> It seems to me that repricing of items isn't going to change the fact that PCs will still own and prioritize "the big 6." The only effect is that they may be willing to spend a little more on some of the extras. Instead of getting the Corvette (+5 sword), they may be willing to stick with the Camaro (+4 sword) and get a dinghy, too.



That's _exactly_ it - you can tweak and adjust prices until doomsday, and it won't change the fact that PCs will buy the things _they find most useful_, no matter the price. Increasing the prices of those useful items will only mean that the players will gripe about it, and their PCs won't be able to afford them until higher levels (which, by the time they CAN afford them, might well be obsolete). Decreasing the prices of less-useful items only makes them less valuable, and more likely to be pawned off on henchmen, sold, or bartered away for other, more useful items. 

And really, I think Andy got it wrong: the more common, more-often-bought items are going to be cheaper, on the whole, than less-often-used items, because sellers have a better chance of unloading them. This is, of course, assuming that 

a) you allow magic items to be bought and sold - I'm not supporting the "Magic Item Walmart" stance (I think that idea's totally absurd), but I do think that, like nuclear warheads, F16s, and M1A1 tanks, there IS a market for such things. _Anything_ can be bought and sold, if there's even one of it in existence and someone's willing to buy/sell it. 

b) sellers aren't gouging potential buyers by pricing things at 5 or 10 times their actual value because they know people will still buy them, because the items are SO useful that the buyers can't go without them (the California Gold Rush is a good example of this). 

c) the most useful items are reasonably common. If you're playing in a low-magic world, ALL magic items, no matter how useful they are, are going to be expensive, simply because they're rare. In a normal D&D world, you can pretty well assume that commonly-used items like weapons and armor will have fair to high availability.

"Usefulness" is, of course, subjective - in a world that's 90% ocean and all the kingdoms are on archipelagos, items like helms of underwater breathing, folding boats, and rings of free action are going to be in high demand and would most likely appear a lot more often than they would on a desert world (Dark Sun, for instance). Likewise, PCs in an undead-heavy campaign are going to buy/make items like wands of searing light, holy swords, and ghost touch weapons/armor, because those are more useful to them. But yeah, even in those two cases, the "Big Six" will still be cropping up because they're useful no matter the situation - they possess universal utility, so to speak. 



> I may have magic shops have an "on hand" limit about 1/10th (Maybe I'll tweak that. S'just off the top of my head.) the gp limit of the city that they're located in, too. It seems unreasonable to expect nothing to be on-hand at Gargool the Great's Imporium of Wonders, after-all...



I like this idea - it makes total sense. Gargool's going to have a good stock of cheap magic items, but he's not going to burn gold/XP (or have his artificer do it) on high-price items just to have them sit on a shelf and collect dust - he's going to wait until someone commissions such items, and THEN makes them. It's just like a real world bookstore - they can't carry every single book that comes out, but chances are they CAN special order it for you.



> No, the problem with many items comes down to the slot it uses. Why wear an amulet of proof against poison when the amulet of natural armour is just far better in most circumstances? At this point, the gold cost of the amulet is irrelevant. To fix this, you need another solution.



Carry two amulets and swap them out as needed? I play in an NWN persistent world; I have an amulet of natural armor +2, a lesser amulet of health, and two necklaces that protect against acid and cold. You know which one I wear the most? The amulet of health, because a lot of the monsters I fight use poison and/or disease attacks. Never mind that my Fort save will likely protect me against most of them; I just prefer not to have to deal with it. When I go into a fight, I chug a potion of barkskin - that obviates the need for that amulet of NA +2, which sits in a chest in my inn room. If I'm dealing with oozes or ice elementals, I swap out protection necklaces as needed. Granted, it might not be as easy to do this in a PnP game, but combining effects like you're suggesting increases the price, sometimes by quite a lot, when it would be cheaper in the end to simply buy/make another item that does the same thing and swap them out as needed. 
Additionally, it fosters overdependence on one item; imagine if the PC had this great necklace that granted +2 natural armor, +2 saves, and +2 deflection. The PC uses his two open ring slots for less-useful items, but if he loses that necklace, he's going to he hurting far worse than his friend who lost his amulet of NA +3, because he just lost the equivalent of three items!


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 13, 2007)

Schmoe said:
			
		

> It seems to me that repricing of items isn't going to change the fact that PCs will still own and prioritize "the big 6."  The only effect is that they may be willing to spend a little more on some of the extras.  Instead of getting the Corvette (+5 sword), they may be willing to stick with the Camaro (+4 sword) and get a dinghy, too.




If that were the extent of the problem, then I do not think anyone would care.

Is the Fighter investing whatever spare change he can find in his sword, armor, shield,  and Cloak of Resistance a bad thing we want to change?  No.

The problem is there is such a radical disconnect between practical value of most non-Big Six items and their price that "interesting stuff" gets cashed out without batting an eyelash.

The penalty for doing so is already reasonably steep, selling an item garners 50% of its nominal value.  Now one could pull out the DM Fiat stick to discourage cashing out, but that is not a satisfying solution in most campaigns IME.  If the 50% penalty does do the trick, there is something wrong with the pricing structure.

It does not bother me that PCs tend to prioritize a certain way.  That will always be the case, as you point out.

What bothers me is the pricing structure creates a huge disincentive for the DM to get his creative juices going, and place interesting or weird items.

FREX, the DM might like to drop in a +1 Sword of Frost Fire-type Bane because it fits the NPC and might make an interesting/useful backup weapon in the long haul.  But the PC is probably thinking: "Sweet!  I can cash that out for 9000 gp and I can afford to upgrade my gauntlets from +2 to +4."

This I consider a problem.  This is a pretty mild example, too.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 13, 2007)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> a) you allow magic items to be bought and sold - I'm not supporting the "Magic Item Walmart" stance (I think that idea's totally absurd), but I do think that, like nuclear warheads, F16s, and M1A1 tanks, there IS a market for such things. _Anything_ can be bought and sold, if there's even one of it in existence and someone's willing to buy/sell it.
> 
> b) sellers aren't gouging potential buyers by pricing things at 5 or 10 times their actual value because they know people will still buy them, because the items are SO useful that the buyers can't go without them (the California Gold Rush is a good example of this).




I dunno.  

I am not recommending magic WalMarts.  But if the 50% penalty for cashing out an item is not getting reasonable behavior, then you are only putting a bandaid on the bigger issue.

In the historical real world, things like a very good suit of armor or a superb warhorse were items that literally only a thousand or so individuals in a large kingdom could conceivably afford.  Yet there were bought and sold with reasonable transaction fees of 10-15% for the middle man.  (Multiple middle men typically both getting the fee.)

I do not think a +4 Sword would seem all that different in the Forgotten Realms.

I am all for tweaking the official market prices based on the utility in the particular campaign.  But playing the "Oh, that is valuable.  10x the price you were expecting." game does not work IME.


----------



## hbarsquared (Mar 13, 2007)

Wow.  I actually read through the whole thread.    

*MY OPINION*

1) Factoring the Big Six into character progression works, but I think it's just silly.  There _already is_ a progression.

2) Players want magic items that are _useful_ and _cool_.  Players will almost always choose the _useful_ items first, then the _cool_ items.  Players grumble when they cannot have both.

I see it as legitimate grumbling.    D&D is a _game_ that should be challenging (cue useful items) and fun (cue cool items). 

By "forcing" the use of the Big Six in order for characters (and their players) to succeed, the "fun" is decreased.

3) This, I believe, is the perfect solution:


			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> To fix this, you need another solution. You can see one solution in the augment crystals: you augment the amulet of natural armour with a crystal that gives proof from poison. Another solution is to have a dual-amulet: it gives natural armour *and* proof from poison, and at a reasonable cost.


----------



## jasin (Mar 13, 2007)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> That's _exactly_ it - you can tweak and adjust prices until doomsday, and it won't change the fact that PCs will buy the things _they find most useful_, no matter the price.



I think this is patently false.

Rings of wizardry IV are extremely useful. They double your 4th-level spells! Yet they're also _hideously_ expensive. And hardly anyone ever uses them.

Ioun stones that give +2 enhancement bonus to a stat are more useful than a standard stat booster (since unlike the standard item, they don't take up a body slot). But they cost twice as much, and hardly anyone ever uses them.

Quaal's feather tokens are far from useless, but they see much use in the games I play it, since they're so cheap.

A brooch of shielding protects from a single spell, of all the spells in all the books. It's a rather iconic spell, to be sure, but it's still a single spell. And eventually the brooch gets used up. But while I'm not sure I've seen people buy it, I've often seen people keep it rather than selling it to save up for one of the big six. Because the 750 you get from selling it isn't as valuable as the protection the brooch offers.

OTOH, the 100,000 gp you get for selling a mirror of life trapping is much more valuable than what the mirror can do. So it'll get sold at first opportunity.

I mean, you cannot seriously argue that price is not a factor in deciding that kind of toys and tools people get!?



> Decreasing the prices of less-useful items only makes them less valuable, and more likely to be pawned off on henchmen, sold, or bartered away for other, more useful items.



This is surreal. _Decreasing_ the price on something make it _more_ likely that the item will be sold instead of kept? What, people prefer getting less money over getting more money?


----------



## ruleslawyer (Mar 13, 2007)

jeremy_dnd said:
			
		

> Wow.  I actually read through the whole thread.
> 
> *MY OPINION*
> 
> 1) Factoring the Big Six into character progression works, but I think it's just silly.  There _already is_ a progression.



Right, but the point is that from a certain perspective, that progression is inadequate. Skill points and other significant elements of class development (ranger Reflex save progression, for example) have been "fixed" in the past; why not just adjust the character progressions to remove the need for +x items?

Granted, absent a new edition, this is complicated. A more modular solution might just be to build "heroic paths" that PCs can choose to substitute for the effects of +x items; I don't see those as being any more complicated than some of the add-on rules in, say, _Unearthed Arcana_.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 13, 2007)

jeremy_dnd said:
			
		

> 2) Players want magic items that are _useful_ and _cool_.  Players will almost always choose the _useful_ items first, then the _cool_ items.  Players grumble when they cannot have both.




Yup.  For good reason.

A boring item will get used in 50+% of encounters.  An interesting item will get used in maybe 10% of encounters.

That is a very high implicit price for interesting items.

Players _perceive_ that they will get punished in game for not choosing the boring items when possible.  

Can anyone seriously say that perception is greatly misplaced in most campaigns?

(I am not suggesting that the DMs need to cater to this kind of thinking.  But the player perception is not irrational.  It is perfectly rational, perhaps to more of an extreme than I am comfortable.)


----------



## hbarsquared (Mar 13, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Players perceive that they will get punished in game for not choosing the boring items when possible.




And I would go so far as to say that players _are_ getting punished in game "for not choosing the boring items when possible."  The entire game is designed around characters having a certain level of magic items that grant a certain amount of bonuses.

I'm not entirely averse to Kamikaze's solution, or to heroic paths (Midnight is one of my favorite settings).  But I believe that both of these solutions stray from D&D's original intentions.  Players, in general, _like_ to accumulate the +X items.  Having an item that grants the +2 can be very satisfying to a player, rather than gaining the +2 automatically while levelling up.

Instead of doing away with one or the other, or relying slowly on price increases and decreases, I believe the best solution is to _combine_ the static bonuses with unique special abilities.  I think it satisfies both perspectives quite well.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 13, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone's openly stated it this way.  But it's been implied plenty of times, by any number of people.  It's an absurd notion; no one's game is better than the other.




Speaking as a player who has experience many different DM's, I think that is an absurd notion.  Not only are there DM's that run a game that is enjoyed more by particular groups, there are DM's that run a game that would be enjoyed more by any group compared to some other DM.  I have witnessed on several occassions DM's steal groups from other DM's - intentionally or unintentionally - by simply being a better DM by any objective standard of what it means to be a better DM.  So, yes, some DM's games are certainly better than other ones.

Without creating a fire storm over what it means to be a better DM, let me state that your two characterizations don't characterize my position at all.  

I said, more or less, the mature game is the one were the DM provides the players the means they need to overcome challenges, not necessarily the means that they want.  That isn't to say that you don't necessarily give the players what they want sometimes, or that the DM always can foresee the solution that the players adopt (good players are almost as cunnng of SOBs as good DMs *wink*), but it is does mean that a mature DM is thinking out why things are being put were they are and whether there are reasonable means to overcome the challenge.

High magic or low magic is less important to that, though I would say that a mature setting has an internal consistancy to it, so that - for example - a setting with 'magical wal-marts' and mystic items already on the shelf will look more like Eberron than it will look like Greyhawk and that the DM will have chosen a setting that suits the sort of game he wants to run.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 13, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> Rings of wizardry IV are extremely useful. They double your 4th-level spells! Yet they're also _hideously_ expensive. And hardly anyone ever uses them.




By the time you get them, they're no longer valuable, as you're casting 9th level spells. 

A Ring of Wizardry IV is an ok item at level 7, strangely enough. By 11th level, it's waning in power. By 13th level, it's not really that good.

Cheers!


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Mar 14, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Speaking as a player who has experience many different DM's, I think that is an absurd notion.  Not only are there DM's that run a game that is enjoyed more by particular groups, there are DM's that run a game that would be enjoyed more by any group compared to some other DM.  I have witnessed on several occassions DM's steal groups from other DM's - intentionally or unintentionally - by simply being a better DM by any objective standard of what it means to be a better DM.  So, yes, some DM's games are certainly better than other ones.




First of all, I'm not sure that I ever talked about the quality of the DM.  That _is_ a different subject, and one that never entered into my mind nor that has anything to do with the topic at hand.  I think maybe I was a little unclear, but I also think you were reading something that wasn't there.

When I said "no one's game is better than another" I meant "No one's preferred play style is better than another."  I don't think you considered my comment in the context of the statement directly above it:  the implied idea that _less magic items equal a more mature, interesting, or challenging game_.  That simply can't be true, because it's a matter of preference and opinion. 

If you think _that's_ an absurd notion... well, I can't continue to have this conversation with you.   

Secondly, you seem to think I was talking about you.  I wasn't.    There are a number of people who voiced that general opinion in this thread.  I don't have to name names; to me, it's clear as day who does and doesn't think that.  But I realize that's my opinion and I'm not intending to insult people or start a flame war.

Now, on to your points:



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> the mature game is the one were the DM provides the players the means they need to overcome challenges, not necessarily the means that they want.




I agree, except the about the last part, _not necessarily the means that they want_.  If you're not giving your players what they want, why would they keep playing in your game.  I'm not saying you should acquiesce to every little demand, but DnD is a cooperative game.  It's not an "all-or-nothing" environment.  DMs and players have to meet in the middle.  Since DMs have to be the judge during the game, almost all of this should be hammered out before a session or campaign.  When I DM it's important to me to cater to my players as well as run the game I want.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> High magic or low magic is less important to that, though I would say that a mature setting has an internal consistancy to it




Again, I agree.  We seem to be on mostly the same page.  What are we arguing about again?


----------



## jasin (Mar 14, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> By the time you get them, they're no longer valuable, as you're casting 9th level spells.



Because they're so ing expensive! That's exactly my point. It's absurd to say "people get stuff which is useful, regardless of price". People get stuff which is useful, sure. But useful is a function of (among other things) price.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 14, 2007)

> Again, I agree.  We seem to be on mostly the same page.  What are we arguing about again?




You seemed to be painting with a broad brush, and I understood your statement "no one's game is better than another" to mean "no one plays the game better than anyone else", which either from a player or DM perspective I've found to be false.

Other than that, not much.  However...



			
				GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I agree, except the about the last part, _not necessarily *the means that they want*_.  If you're not giving your players *what they want*, why would they keep playing in your game.



  - emphasis mine

I'd like to point out that "the means that they want" is not at all the same as "what they want".  That word you left out when you segued between what I said and what you said is important.  I agree that the wise DM rewards players overcoming challenges by giving them something of what they want.  And I agree that a DM should at the least clearly communicate to the player what sort of game he's going to provide so that they can decide if this is something that they want to do and not waste a player's time.  I do not agree that the DM is under any obligation to give any player any particular resource that they desire.  If the player wants a _+4 vorpal sword_ and a _cloak of resistance +5_ and a _portable hole_ and a _sphere of annihilation_, the DM is under no obligation to provide any of these specific things no matter how badly a player wants them and no matter how useful they might be to solve the particular challenge at hand.  The DM is under no obligation to provide a scroll of disentigration to a player no matter how simple it would make it to solve a particular puzzle.  The DM is under no obligation to introduce gunpowder to a campaign world just because a player thinks it would be useful or cool.  And the DM is under no obligation to allow a particular feat, splatbook, or prestige class into the game no matter how much a player whines for it.

The DM's obligation is to be fair, respectful, impartial, considerate, and to entertain.  That's it.  

A player is under some obligation in my opinion to respect the DM who is providing the game, to behave civily, to not rob the other players of thier enjoyment, and abide by the DM's rulings even if he thinks that they are wrong.  If he can't do these things, he just shouldn't play with that DM.  

This always starts an argument, but my personal feeling is that the DM owns the game.  I've come to this conclusion because the DM puts far more effort into the game than anyone else.  DMing is work.  It's alot of work.  When I sit down at another DM's table I give him all the respect and deference that I would want to recieve from a player at my table, because I know how much work goes into putting together a really great session and I feel honored to be allowed to partake of that.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 14, 2007)

jeremy_dnd said:
			
		

> Instead of doing away with one or the other, or relying slowly on price increases and decreases, I believe the best solution is to _combine_ the static bonuses with unique special abilities.  I think it satisfies both perspectives quite well.




That has potential as part of the solution IMO.  But I think the fundamental issue is the pricing scheme.

Simple boring items tend to be very attractive when weighed by the gold piece over almost everything that is multifunction or interesting.

What you are talking about already does happen...around about 17th level when you have everything slot filled with a +4 item or better and you are looking for the next cool thing.

The open questions is why would my 1st-10th level PC want anything non-boring in the RAW and comon campaign assumptions?


----------



## MerricB (Mar 14, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> Because they're so ing expensive! That's exactly my point. It's absurd to say "people get stuff which is useful, regardless of price". People get stuff which is useful, sure. But useful is a function of (among other things) price.




It is. 

The *cost* of a ring of wizardry is primarily in the Gold cost. The slot cost is pretty much nothing. There's no activation cost. So the real cost of a ring of wizardry boils down to what the gold cost is... and it's too much.

Meanwhile, the main cost of a _ring of the ram_ or similar items is in the activation cost. Do you want to spend your round using the ring, casting a spell or hitting someone in your sword? It has to line up.

The GP cost really becomes a function of what level the item is most useful at... and the addition of "Item Level" (being the level an item should be found in treasure) is an excellent part of the MIC.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 14, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> The open questions is why would my 1st-10th level PC want anything non-boring in the RAW and comon campaign assumptions?




Anything that gives an ability that
(a) is comparable to the other abilities they have, and
(b) doesn't detract from the Big 6
is worthwhile.

At 5th level, a _cloak of flight_, that allows you to cast the _fly_ spell 1/day on yourself, and costing about 2,000 gp, is an interesting item. Not wearing a _+1 cloak of resistance_ isn't too bad at that level, and having the flight option is really nice. The 2,000 gp cost reflects what is available at that level.

By 12th level, with the _mass fly_ spell available, and the _+4 cloak of resistance_ and better available, that item is no longer that interesting.

Cheers!


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 14, 2007)

I've heard (and I don't own nor will I for a while yet) that the MIC has rules for integrating the "big six" (or at least parts of them) into other "kewl" items. I think thats a great start. 

Think of it like this. The big six aren't "items" they are types of enchantments. 

1.) An enhancement bonus to your weapon or natural attack to hit and do more damage.
2.) An enhancement bonus to your armor (or magical armor-like defense) to bump your AC.
3.) A resistance bonus to your saves.
4.) An Enhancement bonus to one of your ability score, typically your primary.
5.) A deflection bonus to your AC.
6.) An Augment of your Natural Armor. 

Now, if the MIC allows you to (modestly) add these features to other items, you solve both problems.

A Cloak of the Bat that adds +2 to saves.
An Amulet of Health that adds to Natural Armor
Gloves of missile snaring that augment your dex.
A floaty shield of repulsion that both enhances your shield AC and grants a deflection bonus...
Bracers of Armor with Spell Resistance 21
A TRUE Cloak of Protection (Enhancement AC and Resistance Saves)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 14, 2007)

> The DM's obligation is to be fair, respectful, impartial, considerate, and to entertain. That's it.




And entertaining some people means giving them the glittery +1 sword and letting them take the easy way out (at least once in a while). And entertaining people sometimes means withholding that +1 sword until AFTER they get past something.



> Because God knows nobody ever gets out of the dungeon and adventures in a city, or creates a campaign that deals with nobles and politics, or has better things to do with the the treasure they bled for than chunk it down the magic item creation rat-hole. I've had a few characters that accomplished more good, saved more lives, and won more honor over dinner than others accomplished by spending their lives plundering dark pits and ancient ruins and cutting down waves of orcs.




Good for you, use your words!

But are they spending 12,000 gp on solid gold braces, or are they using their natural charisma and charm (and maybe just not looking like a scary wild man in a cloak of charisma)?









> But then you get adventures and campaigns like that when you step back and consider a game world as you would a living, breathing setting rather than just a backdrop. I certainly don't want to go back to the days where The City or The Town was just a place to get healed up and buy some extra pitons.




It's not going back to anything. Sometimes, the City or the Town *is* just a place to get healed up and buy some extra potions. There's definitely nothing that says it has to be anything more, if that's not the style.

But either way, spending such ludicrous amounts of gold on a night on the town seems out of the realm of even pseudo-realism, when you'll get up the next day and get in a life-or-death fight and not have all the magical protection and doodads that all that gold could've given you.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 14, 2007)

From the Wizards thread on the contents of the MIC...
"How about the vanisher cloak, which you can use to turn invisible three times a day? Oh, and did I mention, it's a fraction of the cost of the ring, so that 7th level characters can afford it?"
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=805754&page=4

Cheers!


----------



## hbarsquared (Mar 14, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> A Cloak of the Bat that adds +2 to saves.
> An Amulet of Health that adds to Natural Armor
> Gloves of missile snaring that augment your dex.
> A floaty shield of repulsion that both enhances your shield AC and grants a deflection bonus...
> ...



Exactly!

I know the MIC doesn't have a new item creation pricing scheme, but I heard that it does have pricing for methods of augmenting items (besides just the crystals).  I could be wrong...

But I hope that the MIC introduces a balanced way to create just the types of customizable, useful, and fun items above.


----------



## Kerrick (Mar 14, 2007)

> FREX, the DM might like to drop in a +1 Sword of Frost Fire-type Bane because it fits the NPC and might make an interesting/useful backup weapon in the long haul. But the PC is probably thinking: "Sweet! I can cash that out for 9000 gp and I can afford to upgrade my gauntlets from +2 to +4."



Seems like a pretty extreme example to me, but then, I've never seen someone say that.



> Because they're so [bleep]ing expensive! That's exactly my point. It's absurd to say "people get stuff which is useful, regardless of price". People get stuff which is useful, sure. But useful is a function of (among other things) price.



Okay, maybe I exaggerated a bit. But value!= price. Value is a function of price and _utility_. If the rings of wizardry cost half what they do now, they _might_ be more valuable, but the simple fact of the matter is, the CLs for those things are way too high, as Merric pointed out - by the time you can make a ring of wizardry IV, you're casting 9th level spells, and a couple extra 4th level spells just aren't going to be as useful at that level (certainly not worth 100K gp). If the CLs were dropped by, say, 5-7 levels, then they might be more valuable.

As for buying things no matter the price: how many times have you seen people save up money to buy something that's really expensive, but that's either really cool or something they really need/want? If they've got a horde of less- (or not) useful items, they're going to dump those off too, getting the best price they can for them, most times, so they can get more money to buy the one big really cool thing. I'm not saying it happens all the time - it doesn't. But it does happen.


----------



## Arnwyn (Mar 14, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> and the addition of "Item Level" (being the level an item should be found in treasure) is an excellent part of the MIC.



Really? I think I missed this.

That's pretty darn awesome, and is worth the price of the MIC right there, for me.


----------



## Kestrel (Mar 14, 2007)

Ditto!


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 15, 2007)

Hmmm.  Item Level.  Kind of like CR, but for the rewards.  I like it.


----------



## Agamemnon (Mar 15, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Now, if the MIC allows you to (modestly) add these features to other items, you solve both problems.
> 
> A Cloak of the Bat that adds +2 to saves.
> An Amulet of Health that adds to Natural Armor
> ...




There's a one-page table of properties for exactly that purpose in the appendix. It contains the key properties of the "big six": ability boosts, natural armor bonuses, deflection bonuses, SR, bonuses to saves. Alas, I didn't look at it very closely, so I cannot quote you the numbers, but I can take a look later tonight once I'm back near my bookshelf. There were also suggested body slots listed for each property, as guidelines to stop the creation of potentially silly items like _Boots of Speed & Charisma_ or _Goggles of Minute Seeing & Natural Armor_.


----------



## blargney the second (Mar 15, 2007)

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> _Boots of Speed & Charisma_



Those actually make sense for my girlfriend's character.


----------



## Agamemnon (Mar 15, 2007)

Hm. It seems the suggested additional properties cost exactly the same as the items do separately. So _Cape of the Mountebank_ and _Cloak of Charisma +4_ together cost as much as the new _Capecloak of the +4 Charismatic Mountebank_.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 15, 2007)

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> Hm. It seems the suggested additional properties cost exactly the same as the items do separately. So _Cape of the Mountebank_ and _Cloak of Charisma +4_ together cost as much as the new _Capecloak of the +4 Charismatic Mountebank_.




Well, that's no good. A Cape is 10,080, a Cloak +4 is 16,000. Together, they are 26,800, or 10,000 less than a Cloak +6. If you have the kind of gold to get/make/buy a Capecloak, spring a bit more and get the cloak +6...

Ponder this, I must...


----------



## Agamemnon (Mar 15, 2007)

I think the idea the designers had for it was that you find a _Cape_, and instead of selling it for a _Cloak_, you imbue the _Cloak_'s properties to the _Cape_, thus having your cake and eating it, too. The bonuses are also presented incrementally, so making the _Capecloak_ a +4 now won't stop you from turning it into +6 later (which would cost you 20,000 gp)


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 15, 2007)

True enough, but I was still thinking a 80% cost to imbue an already magical cloak is a better incentive to enchant a already expensive item vs. selling and using the gold to make something new...


----------



## Agamemnon (Mar 15, 2007)

Well, the Cape of the Mounteback wasn't the best possible example, I think, since its resale value is rather high. the Compendium is full of many interesting items that I could see a character wanting to retain the benefits of even if doing so costed more than going the BigSix route. 

For example, _strongarm bracers_ allow you to wield weapons like you were one category above your normal size, a benefit that would be beneficial to weapon-using characters at any level, and methinks it would be worth it to imbue an ability boost onto them instead of having to swap them out if a pair of _bracers of dexterity +4_ come along.

In any case, it's probably situation-dependent. A lot of the new items have interesting and useful properties that would go well together with the more familiar, "flat" mechanical bonuses to create treasure items suitable for any character level.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 15, 2007)

That is true. A Cloak of Invisibility (3 uses) that also grants +3 to saves is more valuable and flavorful than a regular +3 cloak, and it gives value to the cloak after that third use is done...

I think I need to scrape up some money and get this thing...


----------



## Metus (Mar 16, 2007)

Ugh.  Reading the 9 pages has nearly sapped my desire to post.  I don't really care one way or the other, but Wulf's post way back on page 1 brought up something I wanted to mention.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Why not just have magic weapons/armor/gauntlets/cloaks scale with power automatically as the user's level increases? Then the statistical advantage of the item is an afterthought, and   players can begin to appreciate magic items for their additional "quirky" powers and not have to discard them or trade them out as they level up.
> 
> Take, for example, the *Sword of the Sirene*... It's a +1 short sword, _waterbreathing._ At 6th level, its bonus increases to +2. It's part of the character's lore; he has a sword that allows him to breathe underwater!-- and he's not compelled to trade it in for the short sword +3 in another 4 levels or so.




This is what Midnight does, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned that setting yet; Iron Heroes got some mention, but not Midnight.

Because it's a low-magic, low-currency setting, they have the scaling weapons and those paths you choose when making a character that give inherent bonuses when you level up.  I really enjoy that and wonder why no one has used such a thing more.


----------



## Mark (Mar 16, 2007)

> Capecloak





Just the idea makes me feel dirty.


----------



## hbarsquared (Mar 16, 2007)

Metus said:
			
		

> This is what Midnight does, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned that setting yet; Iron Heroes got some mention, but not Midnight.




Hrm, I thought I had mentioned it.  Guess not, thought.

I _love_ the approach of the Midnight setting.  The various Hero Paths are flavorful and balanced for characters that do not have access to many magic items, particularly the Ability score boosting items (or in campaigns where such magic items are not available).

It is a terrific solution for settings in which the DM wants to limit magic items.

In settings where the DM wants to have plenty of magic items, the _Magic Item Compendium,_ page 233, has the best solution _(in my opinion)_.



			
				Magic Item Compendium said:
			
		

> One of the most frustrating roadblocks to using interesting, unusual magic items is that they take up body slots that you need for an ability-boosting item (ie, the "Big Six")... To address this issue, Magic Item Compendium presents *official rules* for adding common item effects to existing magic items.



The table that follows, Table 6-11, is ideal, and provides simple means for not only crafting such items, but pricing them as well so the DM can place them as treasure.  I really like it.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 17, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I've heard (and I don't own nor will I for a while yet) that the MIC has rules for integrating the "big six" (or at least parts of them) into other "kewl" items. I think thats a great start.




That's a pretty cool idea. So, use the armor and weapon paradigm for Wondrous Items. So you get a base +1 bonus (for saves, natural armor, or deflection AC) and then start adding other abilities from a menu. Just like how you get a basic +1 sword and then add flaming, dancing, keen, etc.

It'd be pretty cool to have a cloak of +1 saves, fire resist 5, fly 1/day. 

In that way, wondrous items would be more like MMORPG or Diablo items. Which, IMHO, is a good thing.

-z


----------

