# Excerpt: You and Your Magic Items



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

Excerpt is up!

Let the battle for which thread gets to be the 'first' for merging purposes begin.


----------



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

Cool, all the +6 at 26-30, sale value (1/5) is -5 levels (so that chart I posted the other day) is confirmed.

I like flaming and the holy avenger. Wish we could see some more wondrous items. All in due course, I suppose.


----------



## jaelis (May 16, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> I like flaming and the holy avenger. Wish we could see some more wondrous items. All in due course, I suppose.




Me too.  Cool that they give you a couple neat powers in addition to the bonus damage on crits.

I can imagine though, that with a full suite of magic items, a high level character will have quite a lot of powers to choose from.

I wonder how much more a flaming weapon is than a plain +1 weapon.


----------



## Mort_Q (May 16, 2008)

> There’s no restriction on using or acquiring items based on their level, except that you can’t use the Enchant Magic Item ritual (page 304 of the Player's Handbook) to create an item above your level. If, for some reason, your 10th-level character finds a 20th-level magic sword, you can use it to full effect..




Well... that'll make some people very happy.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 16, 2008)

> Most of the time, you can determine the properties and powers of a magic item during a short rest. In the course of handling the item for a few minutes, you discover what the item is and what it does. You can identify one magic item per short rest.




Nice, I like this.  I always houseruled the crap out of identifying items anyway.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 16, 2008)

Oooooo, juicy preview.

Is it June yet?!


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2008)

Okay. 

Levels 1-5: +1
Levels 6-10: +2
Levels 11-15: +3
Levels 16-20: +4
Levels 21-25: +5
Levels 26-30: +6

I the DM can say "I don't want you to have to cart around a weapon/armor/neckslot item; you all get your magical item bonus for your appropriate level for free, as a typical bonus". This is an option if you want a low-magic game, or if you're like me, you don't want item dependency, and think wondrous items are the REAL "Magical Items"...

Then how would I handle weapon/armor/neckslot powers/stats? Because regardless of the necessity of a +x item, the _abilities_ that they grant are cool and players are going to want those. But if you're giving them the bonus for free, what about the item abilities? 

Should they be achieved via quests, granting a PC to just endow the weapon they have with those abilities? Should they manifest (i.e. the player keeps the same weapon he did when he was at 1st level, it just develops different abilities as he adventures)? 

T


----------



## Family (May 16, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Is it June yet?!




It is in the future.


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2008)

jaelis said:
			
		

> I wonder how much more a flaming weapon is than a plain +1 weapon.



I don't think there are any plain +1 weapons. I think all magical items have abilities of some kind.

Also, am I the only one who really isn't seeing how awesome a 14th level item is that just grants cover nullification? At level 14, I expect the Pcs to be able to teleport behind the cover and squish the guy. Is cover really expected to be significant at that level?


----------



## A'koss (May 16, 2008)

Another very interesting tidbit...

_In addition, *each character can only activate a few different magic item powers in a given day*, so the guy who brings a loaded pack full of flashy items doesn’t get as much bang for his buck._

Hmmm...


----------



## frankthedm (May 16, 2008)

heh, Love that 1/5th resale rape, er... rate.


----------



## Thaumaturge (May 16, 2008)

Article said:
			
		

> There’s no restriction on using or acquiring items based on their level, except that you can’t use the Enchant Magic Item ritual (page 304 of the Player's Handbook) to create an item above your level. If, for some reason, your 10th-level character finds a 20th-level magic sword, you can use it to full effect..




Are we taking this to mean the ring level restriction is gone?  I didn't see any mention of it otherwise, and it would be weird if it were left out.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> Nice, I like this.  I always houseruled the crap out of identifying items anyway.



That is beyond lame.  Fighters who've never had magical training whatsoever shouldn't be able to identify magical poop, let alone the properties and effects of a magical item.  Sure, they can feel the balance of a sword is better and that it fits their hand perfectly, but anything beyond that should require a person trained in arcane knowledge.


----------



## Mort_Q (May 16, 2008)

> *Critical:* +1d6 damage *per* plus




I like this too.


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> _In addition, *each character can only activate a few different magic item powers in a given day*, so the guy who brings a loaded pack full of flashy items doesn’t get as much bang for his buck._



Now _that_ is nice.


----------



## Sojorn (May 16, 2008)

> Critical: +1d6 radiant damage per plus, and you can spend a healing surge





Whoa! Hey!

Weapon: Axe, Hammer, Heavy Blade! 

Holy Avengers. Not just swords any more.


----------



## Boarstorm (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> That is beyond lame.  Fighters who've never had magical training whatsoever shouldn't be able to identify magical poop, let alone the properties and effects of a magical item.  Sure, they can feel the balance of a sword is better and that it fits their hand perfectly, but anything beyond that should require a person trained in arcane knowledge.




I dunno, the fact that it bursts into flame every time they swing it should be a pretty decent clue.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 16, 2008)

I like that, the magical weapons are almost like Weapon Templates. Since for example, the Holy Avenger isn't just say a longsword it can be a: Axe, Hammer, Heavy Blade.

This way of doing magic weapons could really cut down on the amount of magic weapons in the books while still having same number of options.


----------



## Sir_Darien (May 16, 2008)

> On the other hand, if you prefer to wield a larger array of lower-powered magic items, that’s OK too… with some caveats. Most items are tied to body slots, so there’s a built-in limit to the sheer quantity of items most characters can easily tote around. In addition, each character can only activate a few different magic item powers in a given day, so the guy who brings a loaded pack full of flashy items doesn’t get as much bang for his buck. Again, your class powers should be the main focus of your character, not the precious little trinkets you swiped from cave-dwelling fiends.




I'm not a real big fan of this. If you want to use cool items that aren't really powerful the fact that your limited to how much you use kind of sucks. If I'm a level 20 rogue who wants to swing rooftop to rooftop with a rod of ropes, I should be able to do it regardless of my use of a flaming dagger. This seems like a fun-buster, though its difficult to say how bad of one with how vague the subject was left.

Otherwise I'm in favor of the 4e item changes, thank god I can stop buying rings of protection, cloaks of resistance's, and amulets of health for every character.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 16, 2008)

Oh I am a happy DM, no more + items for me (as promised by WotC) just add it to the PC stats just flaming swords and frosty axes and stuff ....yeha a low-ish magic but high cinematic game  
Can't wait for 6th


----------



## zoroaster100 (May 16, 2008)

I like the previewed items.  The most interesting bit of info for me though, was that there may be a limit on how many times a character can activate magic item powers in a day, regardless of how many items the character lugs around.


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2008)

Sir_Darien said:
			
		

> I'm not a real big fan of this. If you want to use cool items that aren't really powerful the fact that your limited to how much you use kind of sucks. If I'm a level 20 rogue who wants to swing rooftop to rooftop with a rod of ropes, I should be able to do it regardless of my use of a flaming dagger. This seems like a fun-buster, though its difficult to say how bad of one with how vague the subject was left.



I would assume that you can use the amount of powers from magical items that you can physically wear.

However, if you have, let's say, 20 items in a bag of holding, you can't use them all. Otherwise you're just hording abilities. "Whoops! I used my gauntlets of ogre power daily. I'll just take these off, and put on my Gauntlets of Punching. Used that daily. Time to put on my gloves of phasing hands. Now it's time for the gauntlets of kitten petting." 
"Hey, pass over those gauntlets of ogre power - I can use that daily!" 
"Here, here's the gauntlets of punching, you can use these after that one too.


----------



## Thaumaturge (May 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I would assume that you can use the amount of powers from magical items that you can physically wear.
> 
> However, if you have, let's say, 20 items in a bag of holding, you can't use them all. Otherwise you're just hording abilities. "Whoops! I used my gauntlets of ogre power daily. I'll just take these off, and put on my Gauntlets of Punching. Used that daily. Time to put on my gloves of phasing hands."





I agree.  The RPGA experienced this as the "Oops, I used my Healer's Belt" routine.  Powerful, but silly.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## bert1000 (May 16, 2008)

Anyone else notice that the daily weapon abilities were minor and free actions?  Looks like you can stack them with some juicy powers...


----------



## Stalker0 (May 16, 2008)

> n addition, each character can only activate a few different magic item powers in a given day, so the guy who brings a loaded pack full of flashy items doesn’t get as much bang for his buck.




That's interesting. It looks like there may be some innate limit to how magic item powers are activated.

For example, once you spend a daily power from your "weapon" slot, even if you equip a new magic item you won't be able to get the extra benefit. This may actually make TWF a lot more attractive, if it lets you use two weapon powers.


----------



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I don't think there are any plain +1 weapons. I think all magical items have abilities of some kind.
> 
> Also, am I the only one who really isn't seeing how awesome a 14th level item is that just grants cover nullification? At level 14, I expect the Pcs to be able to teleport behind the cover and squish the guy. Is cover really expected to be significant at that level?




There are still plain +1 weapons, actually. They add +1d6 extra damage per plus, and that's it.

So, based on what we've seen, some examples for each 'tier' of cost.

Level 1: +1 magic weapon (+2 at 6, +3 at 11, etc) 
Level 2: +1 vicious weapon 
Level 3: +1 frost weapon
Level 4: +1 lightning weapon
Level 5: +1 flaming weapon

And we know stats for all but lightning.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> I dunno, the fact that it bursts into flame every time they swing it should be a pretty decent clue.



Why would it burst into flame without the proper mental command to do so?  It requires a free action to activate, which to me, says that the pc must consciously decide to activate the weapon.  Thus it requires something to do so.  Maybe it's a mental or spoken command word, "FLAME ON!" or a hidden ring to twist or something.  It should be the same thing for all characters though.  You shouldn't make the flaming sword a physical activation just because the fighter uses it whereas the wizard would use arcana to discover the mental command word.


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> There are still plain +1 weapons, actually. They add +1d6 extra damage per plus, and that's it



An extra 1d6... when? Per attack? On a crit?



> Level 2: +1 vicious weapon



What do these do, again?


----------



## Sir_Darien (May 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I would assume that you can use the amount of powers from magical items that you can physically wear.
> 
> However, if you have, let's say, 20 items in a bag of holding, you can't use them all. Otherwise you're just hording abilities. "Whoops! I used my gauntlets of ogre power daily. I'll just take these off, and put on my Gauntlets of Punching. Used that daily. Time to put on my gloves of phasing hands. Now it's time for the gauntlets of kitten petting."
> "Hey, pass over those gauntlets of ogre power - I can use that daily!"
> "Here, here's the gauntlets of punching, you can use these after that one too.




If thats all it limits, I'll be a happy camper. I just don't want to see cool utility items go the way of the dodo because someone doesn't want to give up any potential beatdown power. As log as you can use fun, versatile items without loosing your ability to kick butt, I'll be ok with the system.


----------



## Thaumaturge (May 16, 2008)

Article said:
			
		

> Your DM might ask for an Arcana check to determine their properties, or you might even need to go on a special quest to find a ritual to identify or to unlock the powers of a unique item.




The article says you can play other ways too.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

Magic weapons add d6 per plus _on crits_, and that's it.

Vicious weapons add d12 per plus _on crits_, and that's it.

Frost you can see in the PrRC since it was at DDXP.


----------



## Andor (May 16, 2008)

Huh. I'm not certain I follow the logic behind making the magic weapons add ons do more damage on crits, but add squat to routine use of the weapon. It seems to be deliberately adding back the "swingyness" whose removal seemed to be a major design goal of 4e.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> That is beyond lame.  Fighters who've never had magical training whatsoever shouldn't be able to identify magical poop, let alone the properties and effects of a magical item.  Sure, they can feel the balance of a sword is better and that it fits their hand perfectly, but anything beyond that should require a person trained in arcane knowledge.




Yeah, I agree.  And wizards with no martial training shouldn't be able to tell a spear from a halberd from a longsword.  "I know its got a +1, but I can't even tell which end is the pointy one..."  -cuts self- "Ow.  Apparently its electrical as well."


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Why would it burst into flame without the proper mental command to do so?  It requires a free action to activate, which to me, says that the pc must consciously decide to activate the weapon.  Thus it requires something to do so.  Maybe it's a mental or spoken command word, "FLAME ON!" or a hidden ring to twist or something.  It should be the same thing for all characters though.  You shouldn't make the flaming sword a physical activation just because the fighter uses it whereas the wizard would use arcana to discover the mental command word.



Fair enough if that is your thing, easily sorted for campaign. Arcana (or religion, or others maybe) DC 10+1/level to get the properties


----------



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

Speaking of swingy. +6 Vicious Greataxe (high crit weapon) does, at least if I understand things correctly, +9d12 damage on a crit. Yowza.


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Huh. I'm not certain I follow the logic behind making the magic weapons add ons do more damage on crits, but add squat to routine use of the weapon. It seems to be deliberately adding back the "swingyness" whose removal seemed to be a major design goal of 4e.



Honestly? Part of it I think is because of this:

"Criticals aren't fun anymore because I don't _roll_ anything! The fun of a critical is rolling buckets of dice! You _could_ have rolled max damage on a crit anyhow!"


----------



## kennew142 (May 16, 2008)

The magic items are pretty much what we were expecting - not that this is a bad thing.

I really like the new method of identifying magic items. The default is that you can identify an item by playing around with it for a while. I've always liked this method. It's what we used to do in 1e, try out the item and see if we could get it to work. The Identify spell always seemed too trite and constrained for my tastes. Since the article leaves open the possibility that some items may require more work to identity, I'll be able to require some magical research or investigation in order to properly identify them.

I also like the fact that the expected bonuses from magic items have been presented in such a transparent fashion. It's much easier now to run low magic or high magic games, since the mathematics behind the system is so much more obvious.

I can't wait for 4e!


----------



## FadedC (May 16, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Huh. I'm not certain I follow the logic behind making the magic weapons add ons do more damage on crits, but add squat to routine use of the weapon. It seems to be deliberately adding back the "swingyness" whose removal seemed to be a major design goal of 4e.




They do that to keep crits from becoming completely insignificant at higher level. Doing automatic max damage is significant when you hit for d8+4, but not such a big deal when you hit for d8+40.

As for swingy, but the time your getting too many extra dice of damage your opponents all have over 100 hp anyway....sometimes much more. An extra 20 crit damage to the 400 hit point creature is far from swingy.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 16, 2008)

The +nd6 damage for +n weapons was something first mentioned in the Critical Hit article months ago.  

But I like how we no longer have to deal with flaming-shocking-concussive-keen-weapons anymore.


----------



## Korgoth (May 16, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> Speaking of swingy. +6 Vicious Greataxe (high crit weapon) does, at least if I understand things correctly, +9d12 damage on a crit. Yowza.




Amulet of the Matrix: 55,000 gold pieces.

Plate Armor of the Iron Dragon: 115,000 gold pieces

+6 Vicious Greataxe: 225,000 gold pieces

Getting to tell the DM that you did an additional 108 points of damage: priceless.


----------



## Picatrix (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> That is beyond lame.  Fighters who've never had magical training whatsoever shouldn't be able to identify magical poop, let alone the properties and effects of a magical item.  Sure, they can feel the balance of a sword is better and that it fits their hand perfectly, but anything beyond that should require a person trained in arcane knowledge.




Maybe it was just my group that went through this, but I remember the tedium of people trying all sorts of things in 1st edition to figure out what the items they found did. ("I jump in the air. I put my hand over the candle. I touch the cleric. I think really hard about talking to that plant.") In the end, the DM skipped the whole process and just told us what things were when we found them.

I tended not to do things that way, but with the cost of Identify at low levels (plus the gradual depletion of the local goldfish population), that turned into characters carrying around packs of unidentified items until they eventually forgot they had them.

As a shorthand for "you spend some time fiddling around with the doodad in the strangely obsessive way that adventurers do, and eventually discover X," I kind of like this system.

(Edited a typo)


----------



## Stalker0 (May 16, 2008)

I loved everything about this article.

1) Identifying magic items. Easy as pie for those who want it. Want it harder? Arcana checks.

2) Magic bonuses are standardized by level. Want magic items, no problem. Don't want them, you can add static bonuses to your players and call it a day.

3) There are limits on how often you can use magic items. We are quite sure of the limit, but the article mentions you can't just toss out encounter power after encounter power with different items. Very happy to see that.

All in all nothing but good things to say.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> The article says you can play other ways too.
> 
> Thaumaturge.



Yeah I know, but it seems like nearly all the stuff in 4th edition is by default, in the player's hands and it requires the DM to be a hardass and say, no you can't do this.  No you can't do that.  Instead of the DM saying, here's what you can do.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 16, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Amulet of the Matrix: 55,000 gold pieces.
> 
> Plate Armor of the Iron Dragon: 115,000 gold pieces
> 
> ...




Having the DM then smile, saying you knocked his monster to bloodied, releasing another breath weapon that annihilates the party. Funny...and priceless


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Picatrix said:
			
		

> Maybe it was just my group that went through this, but I remember the tedium of people trying all sorts of things in 1st edition to figure out what the items they found did. ("I jump in the air. I put my hand over the candle. I touch the cleric. I think really hard about talking to that plant.") In the end, the DM skipped the whole process and just told us what things were when we found them.



We never did that.  We just chipped in and bought pearls for the wizard or had a cleric with the magic domain, which removed the need for the pearl somehow, but I forget how. =


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Yeah I know, but it seems like nearly all the stuff in 4th edition is by default, in the player's hands and it requires the DM to be a hardass and say, no you can't do this.  No you can't do that.  Instead of the DM saying, here's what you can do.



You mean like the default of high fantasy, and the DM having to be a hardass and say "No, you can't use that"?

There will always be a level of default and everything else being DM taste. 

As a DM, I feel quite justified on saying what from the PHB, right down to classes and races, are not allowed. Hardass or no.


----------



## Thaumaturge (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Yeah I know, but it seems like nearly all the stuff in 4th edition is by default, in the player's hands and it *requires* the DM to be a hardass and say, no you can't do this.  No you can't do that.  Instead of the DM saying, here's what you can do.




I disagree with the bolded word.  Your assumptions and the things *you* require force your hand.

Oh, you could, you know, say, "yes".

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 16, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Amulet of the Matrix: 55,000 gold pieces.
> 
> Plate Armor of the Iron Dragon: 115,000 gold pieces
> 
> ...



Keep in mind, as per the weapons article, high crit weapons add an extra dice on a crit at heroic tier, an extra 2 dice at paragon, and an extra 3 dice at epic.

3[W] attack plus 26 strength, plus +6 Vicious Greataxe plus crit=
50+9d12 damage.


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> We never did that.  We just chipped in and bought pearls for the wizard or had a cleric with the magic domain, which removed the need for the pearl somehow, but I forget how. =



The biggest bugaboo for me about the _Identify_ spell isn't just the 100gp cost, but that it takes _8 hours_. Talk about downtime while you find out the haul you got.


----------



## Arivendel (May 16, 2008)

Did i read it wrong? or does the holy avenger actually does +nd10 whenever you strike with a radiant power?

Thats like, so awesome! plus it can be used as an implement! no more of the "I drop my weapon and hold my symbol to use my daily"


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 16, 2008)

Arivendel said:
			
		

> Did i read it wrong? or does the holy avenger actually does +nd10 whenever you strike with a radiant power?



Well, it adds 1d10 damage when you use a radiant power.  Not nd10.


----------



## Terwox (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Yeah I know, but it seems like nearly all the stuff in 4th edition is by default, in the player's hands and it requires the DM to be a hardass and say, no you can't do this.  No you can't do that.  Instead of the DM saying, here's what you can do.




You just stated that which is beautiful about 4e.

This is a feature, not a flaw.  If you want to add restrictive fluff, by all means, please do!  I'm sure I will be adding some of my own.  In 3e I spent a lot of time trying to make things less restrictive, Unearthed Arcana, etc... 4e looks to be the opposite, which is fantastic.


----------



## Kzach (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> That is beyond lame.  Fighters who've never had magical training whatsoever shouldn't be able to identify magical poop, let alone the properties and effects of a magical item.  Sure, they can feel the balance of a sword is better and that it fits their hand perfectly, but anything beyond that should require a person trained in arcane knowledge.



And it's even lamer that a fighter can swing about a magical sword and not get any benefit from it until someone tells him, "It's a +2, flaming sword."


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 16, 2008)

Another reason why there is the new way to Identify. They want to make it so you can be all martial characters for example, sooo... You need a way to Identify without a Wizard.


----------



## FadedC (May 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> The biggest bugaboo for me about the _Identify_ spell isn't just the 100gp cost, but that it takes _8 hours_. Talk about downtime while you find out the haul you got.




It's actually only 1 hour as of 3.5. But yeah I hated that in 3.0


----------



## DandD (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Yeah I know, but it seems like nearly all the stuff in 4th edition is by default, in the player's hands and it requires the DM to be a hardass and say, no you can't do this.  No you can't do that.  Instead of the DM saying, here's what you can do.



By definition, D&D is a game that requires a gamemaster to moderate the game and 1 or more players agreeing with the rules and then playing together. 

It really seems that D&D 3.X conditioned many people to believe that players should boss the gamemaster around. Just keep that trained garbage that you learned from D&D 3.X away. 

There is nothing hardass about saying that you want to play it with such and such rules. After all, the players might also want some rules to change (heck, some players might even want to change a rule because they think it takes out the fun of it if there characters can do that). In the end, you compromise and play it to have fun together. 

Also, the monster creation rules, applying templates and so all prove that 4th edition is all about letting the Gamemaster do as much as he wants (and it tries to constantly remind the gamemaster not to be a simulationist. The rules are for a fun game, not for simulating a work based on a d20-role).


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> That is beyond lame.  Fighters who've never had magical training whatsoever shouldn't be able to identify magical poop, let alone the properties and effects of a magical item.  Sure, they can feel the balance of a sword is better and that it fits their hand perfectly, but anything beyond that should require a person trained in arcane knowledge.



I had that thought the first time I read it as well.  But it occurred to me that it's a matter of flavor.  Essentially, with identifies and that entire process, you are handing out unusable magic items to the party which they then need to carry around until the next reasonable time in the story for them to stop, buy pearls and casts some identify spells.  Which takes some time to go through the list of 10-20 items they've collected since the last time they got to stop and rest.  And you as a DM have to go back through your notes to try to figure out what the heck that longsword actually was, cause they found in 2 and a half months ago.  Then the players have to spend a good hour or two fighting over who gets what item or which ones they are going to sell.

Either that or they pick up that sword and use it for an entire adventure.  You have to remember to add the pluses to hit and damage every time they swing the sword, since you don't want to tell them what enhancement bonus it has.  Then, after a battle or two, the player has already figured out its bonus because his allies hit an enemy on a 25 and he hit on a 22 but not on a 21.

When compared to the ability to give out an item which the players can just use right away with no waste of time and no work on my part as a DM...I'm just willing to accept that there is some obvious way to tell how all items work.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 16, 2008)

I like how a Cleric will also get a lot out of using a holy avenger as well.  It might require them to take a proficiency feat, but at least it's useful for a class other than paladin.


----------



## frankthedm (May 16, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Huh. I'm not certain I follow the logic behind making the magic weapons add ons do more damage on crits, but add squat to routine use of the weapon. It seems to be deliberately adding back the "swingyness" whose removal seemed to be a major design goal of 4e.



the REAL design goal was to have PC damage trackable by level. By making extra energy damage on a weapon only happen on a crit, they reduced the potency of energy enchants. +3.5 damage each hit is a LOT. In 4e that comes out to only   +.125 [or +.35] damage each hit [per plus].


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 16, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> I like how a Cleric will also get a lot out of using a holy avenger as well.  It might require them to take a proficiency feat, but at least it's useful for a class other than paladin.



Don't see why, I am sure a Cleric will be proficient with atleast one of these: Axe, *Hammer*, Heavy Blade. Most likely Hammer.


----------



## Lurker37 (May 16, 2008)

Another point of note is that the Holy Avenger is now an epic weapon, and a mid-to-late tier one at that.


----------



## CrimsonNeko (May 16, 2008)

I like the wording on the purchase price of PERMANENT magic items.  Hopefully, this is referring to the possibility of rituals for temporary enchantments....


----------



## Daeger (May 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Okay.
> 
> Levels 1-5: +1
> Levels 6-10: +2
> ...



Isn't the point of a low-magic game to make things a little more mundane? Just give them the bonuses, that's all they really need.


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2008)

Daeger said:
			
		

> Isn't the point of a low-magic game to make things a little more mundane? Just give them the bonuses, that's all they really need.



See, I don't want "Low magic". 

I just like more emphasis on wondrous items being the thing that people think of when they think of "Magical gear". Instead of "Well we _need_ this stuff..."


----------



## A'koss (May 16, 2008)

Now that I've read the article a few times I find myself wishing they would've included an example of an artifact. I seem to remember them saying that they've actually stated up quite a few of them...


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Terwox said:
			
		

> You just stated that which is beautiful about 4e.
> 
> This is a feature, not a flaw.  If you want to add restrictive fluff, by all means, please do!  I'm sure I will be adding some of my own.  In 3e I spent a lot of time trying to make things less restrictive, Unearthed Arcana, etc... 4e looks to be the opposite, which is fantastic.



It's a flaw.  It's a flaw because of player perception.  Which below is more appealing to you?

"No, you can't sell your items like that.  No you can't disenchant.  No you can't pay for ressurections."
-or-
"Yes, you can disenchant your magic items and use the shards and essence to perform a ritual to create another enchantment.  Yes you can play a gnome."

Saying yes, is a more positive perception.  It's easier to say yes.  It's ridiculous to be forced to create a list of things to say no to for your games.  WotC could have done better by making the wording ambiguous, constantly reinforcing that it is up to DM's what's allowed instead of constantly writing it as if you can do it this way... *unless the DM says otherwise*.



			
				Kzach said:
			
		

> And it's even lamer that a fighter can swing about a magical sword and not get any benefit from it until someone tells him, "It's a +2, flaming sword."



That was covered in previous editions.  The DM merely adds the +2 magic bonus behind the scenes until the character figures it out.  I don't have a problem with telling players the magical bonus of the weapon, if it's an obviously magical weapon, but triggered effects and the like shouldn't be allowed until something specific triggers it.  Like the right command word or identifying the item.



			
				Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> I disagree with the bolded word. Your assumptions and the things you require force your hand.
> 
> Oh, you could, you know, say, "yes".



It's my setting and I'm the DM.  WotC should have written the rules to be a little less "THIS IS THE DEFAULT WAY" and more ambiguous, making sure people new to rp gaming learn that it's the DM's rules that matter.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> It's my setting and I'm the DM.  WotC should have written the rules to be a little less "THIS IS THE DEFAULT WAY" and more ambiguous, making sure people new to rp gaming learn that it's the DM's rules that matter.




I seriously disagree. Vague rules are bad rules. There's nothing worse than teaching a new player the rules, only for him to have to ask about all the things that are unclear.

And the clearest rule of all should be rule 0. Put it in big honking print at the beginning of the phb, that simple tells players that the dm is judge and jury. 

If a dm wants to go on a houserule spree, that's fine. Especially at the start of a game, most dms throw down some houserules based on the specific campaign or their own personal preferences. Players deal with it and move on.

But a rulesbook should be as clear as polished glass, at least as much as possible. That way dms have a clear understand of the rules, and therefore can easily adjust them as they see fit.


----------



## Sojorn (May 16, 2008)

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> Another point of note is that the Holy Avenger is now an epic weapon, and a mid-to-late tier one at that.



By RAW, it can show up as early as level 21 though


----------



## Kosh (May 16, 2008)

> It's my setting and I'm the DM. WotC should have written the rules to be a little less "THIS IS THE DEFAULT WAY" and more ambiguous, making sure people new to rp gaming learn that it's the DM's rules that matter.




They would be wasting a lot of space saying repeating rule zero over and over again throughout the book.

We haven't seen the books, but I'll bet rule zero is in the introduction to roleplaying section like it is in every roleplaying game.


----------



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> It's a flaw.  It's a flaw because of player perception.




Presenting anything but the best rule for a majority of groups is a flaw in DM perception.

This is the rule you should use. If you want a different play experience and your players agree, try these others.

You should make the game work how it works best for your group, obviously, but you're wrong that it's a flaw... assuming they've done their market research and testing correctly.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 16, 2008)

---


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Even if they put rule zero in big print, player's will continually whine and point to something in the book that says, "You can sell magic items for 20%..." and try to ignore the rest, because it says, "You can..." in the very first part.  I've seen players try to pull that crap before and it sours a game immediately.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> It's my setting and I'm the DM.  WotC should have written the rules to be a little less "THIS IS THE DEFAULT WAY" and more ambiguous, making sure people new to rp gaming learn that it's the DM's rules that matter.



It's not your game though.  It's WOTC's game.  You just play in it.

I consider "setting details" things like "you buy your magic items from Joe in my world, he lives in the city of Citysburg." and "The elves haven't been seen in a number of years due to some event lost to the past, they aren't allowed as player characters."

The physical properties of magic, the rules of classes and the like I've always considered part of the game itself.

If I had an idea for a campaign that went against the default assumptions of D&D, I likely wouldn't run it in D&D.  And the default assumption that players have magic items and they get better ones as they go up levels has been part of D&D since the beginning.  The designers realize this...which is why its still in.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I've seen players try to pull that crap before and it sours a game immediately.




The flaw is with the players playing a cooperative game competitively.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 16, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> The flaw is with the players playing a cooperative game competitively.



No, the flaw is in the players AND the DM playing a cooperative game competitively.  It works both ways.

Frankly, the statement "It's my game and I can do whatever I want and players HAVE to deal with it." is no better than a player trying to sell magic items no matter what the DM says because it says so in the book.

I should note that one of them is attempting to follow the rules and getting frustrated that they aren't playing the game they wanted to, the other one is setting himself up for problems by saying "We are playing D&D" and then changing the rules of the game.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> No, the flaw is in the players AND the DM playing a cooperative game competitively.  It works both ways.
> 
> Frankly, the statement "It's my game and I can do whatever I want and players HAVE to deal with it." is no better than a player trying to sell magic items no matter what the DM says because it says so in the book.
> 
> I should note that one of them is attempting to follow the rules and getting frustrated that they aren't playing the game they wanted to, the other one is setting himself up for problems by saying "We are playing D&D" and then changing the rules of the game.



Which is why the D&D books should be more ambiguous about creating a default "D&D".  It creates too many perceptions that this is the way things should be and will always be when players read the book. The economics article could have easily said something like,"If the DM allows it, magic items can be sold for 20% of their base value.  Blah blah blah..."

Instead, it starts off with the presumption that every DM is going to allow magic items to be sold for X amount of value and then decides, well unless the DM says otherwise.


----------



## pawsplay (May 16, 2008)

_Special: A holy avenger can be used as a holy symbol. It adds its enhancement bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls and the extra damage granted by its property (if applicable) when used in this manner. You do not gain your weapon proficiency bonus to an attack roll when using a holy avenger as an implement._

I'm pretty sure someone just lost a best with me, but I can't remember who.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 16, 2008)

I really wanted to see what some example implements are.  I assume the property of the Holy Avenger is similar to some implements, but that +1d10 to radiant powers might be a lower amount compared to a dedicated magical implement.

I assume we're back to Wands of Fire and Wands of Frost now, but if those magical implements add damage to fire or ice spells respectively I'm curious what the bonus is.


----------



## TwinBahamut (May 16, 2008)

I still don't like the harsh and unusual 1/5 sale price on magic items. Unless there is a sidebar somewhere in the DMG that gives a _very_ good justification for it, I will probably ignore that rule.

Other than that, though, I couldn't possibly be any happier with this article.  

It really is looking like free combination of magical enhancements and freestanding +1 bonuses may be gone. I am fine with that, especially since in their place we have an amazingly condensed description of a flaming weapon that scales well across all levels of play, which happens to be far more interesting than any magical property from 3E.

I find it interesting that the Phasing increases the basic bonus to attack and damage one level faster than properties like Flaming, though it doesn't appear until Paragon level... I wonder how much that progression can diverge?

I really hope that plain +1 longswords really are a thing of the past...


----------



## charlesatan (May 16, 2008)

Inserting "If the DM allows it" every other page or so can be redundant.

And no to ambiguous rules of playing the game. D&D isn't trying to be a generic roleplaying system. There is a specific, common ground to play it (i.e. kill monsters, get loot) and gaming groups transition from there (i.e. adding/subtracting more social encounters, combat encounters, magic, etc.). You can sandbox in D&D but D&D isn't designed to be the perfect sandbox game.



			
				Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Which is why the D&D books should be more ambiguous about creating a default "D&D".  It creates too many perceptions that this is the way things should be and will always be when players read the book. The economics article could have easily said something like,"If the DM allows it, magic items can be sold for 20% of their base value.  Blah blah blah..."
> 
> Instead, it starts off with the presumption that every DM is going to allow magic items to be sold for X amount of value and then decides, well unless the DM says otherwise.


----------



## Alkiera (May 16, 2008)

I, all of my players, and I think most players, have no problems with you altering some basic assumptions form the phb/dmg if you come out and say so from the start.

"Hi, I'm running a low-magic D&D campaign;  PCs are restricted to Humans, and classes with the martial power source.  Also, magical items will be bloody rare; you'll get a bonus by default every few levels to make up for them not being there."
or
"Hi, this game is taking place in my homebrew world of Sandistan; there are no halflings or elves here.  Also, I've got a few rules that relate to the way magic works in this setting; the ways it differ are [...]"

That kind of thing goes far to avoiding "What do you mean I can't do X?  It's says I can right here on page 126!"

Think of it as another way to not require rules mastery... the GM is likely to change the rules on you.  8)


----------



## Ahglock (May 16, 2008)

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Inserting "If the DM allows it" every other page or so can be redundant.
> 
> And no to ambiguous rules of playing the game. D&D isn't trying to be a generic roleplaying system. There is a specific, common ground to play it (i.e. kill monsters, get loot) and gaming groups transition from there (i.e. adding/subtracting more social encounters, combat encounters, magic, etc.). You can sandbox in D&D but D&D isn't designed to be the perfect sandbox game.




I'd say there is plenty of room for more ambiguous "rules" in what I'd call the world building fluff rules section of the game.  Ambiguous on what power word kill does, no not a good idea, ambiguous on whether or not selling a magic item is possible yes.


----------



## AZRogue (May 16, 2008)

A DM telling a player "no" has been an aspect of DnD since it's beginning. I don't think there will be much problem continuing unless that particular player began his DnD experience with 3E or some other more recent incarnation. I don't know of any player that would ever question it.

The game has to provide its default assumptions--an approach I like better than vague options you choose from with no understanding of what's considered the baseline--and then the DM makes changes based upon their, or their players', tastes. "No, because the DM said so" has always been an effective, and appropriate, tool. The trick is to let them know up front what you're not allowing instead of switching rules on the fly (which isn't good).


edit: Oh, and I loved the article. I like the powers that tag along with the different magical items. Also, I'm curious regarding the restrictions on the number of magical item powers usable in a day. All in all, very nicely done.


----------



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> I really wanted to see what some example implements are.  I assume the property of the Holy Avenger is similar to some implements, but that +1d10 to radiant powers might be a lower amount compared to a dedicated magical implement.
> 
> I assume we're back to Wands of Fire and Wands of Frost now, but if those magical implements add damage to fire or ice spells respectively I'm curious what the bonus is.




The PrRC has three example implements in it - holy symbol, wand, and staff. Least, I think so. I might be wrong on the wand.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Which is why the D&D books should be more ambiguous about creating a default "D&D".  It creates too many perceptions that this is the way things should be and will always be when players read the book. The economics article could have easily said something like,"If the DM allows it, magic items can be sold for 20% of their base value.  Blah blah blah..."
> 
> Instead, it starts off with the presumption that every DM is going to allow magic items to be sold for X amount of value and then decides, well unless the DM says otherwise.



You are right about the effects.  However, I would prefer to play a game rather than a shell of a game.

I like to know if I like a game or not before I start playing it.  There's a lot of ADVANTAGES to having a shared, default "D&D" both as a shared history and shared assumptions.  It means I can show up to any D&D game and know what the rules are without having to learn a large set of house rules.  I know that if I make a character, it will be accepted by the DM because I already know it makes sense in the game.  It allows a world-wide campaign like Living Greyhawk of Living Forgotten Realms to function by allowing people to show up to a convention or gamesday and sit down and play with no explanation given on what is different about THIS D&D.

Given the above example that you gave, if you as a DM said "Sure, you can sell all your items for 20% as per the books." then everything goes smoothly.

If the books on the other hand said "Some DMs will allow selling of items, they will set the amount you will be given each time you sell an item, so ask them.  Others will not allow selling of items.  If you want to know what to do with an item once you no longer need it, consult with your DM.  He'll explain how it works in his game." then it requires each and every person playing D&D to have a conversation with their DM about which version of the rules they are using and the details of their game.  And I could see a 5 minute long explanation of the magic item economy being given out by some DMs(heck, I could see a 2 hour long explanation being given).  And that's just ONE rule.  If you write the entire book that way, you need to sit down for a good hour or 2 to learn which rules this game is using EACH time you play with a different DM.

Having the assumptions in makes the game easy for new people to learn, easier to switch DMs, makes the game go quicker in actual play(when some of these issues tend to come up).  It also provides a shared experience.  That way, when players of D&D gather on message boards or at conventions or at local gaming stores and they tell stories about their games(which they always do), there isn't a disconnect.

I know I once had a guy come up to me and tell me that he was playing a 1st edition game and in it, their group killed 200 Balors in a row, in one combat before taking on Asmodeus and killing him.  They barely took damage and they were only 17th level.  I was amazed as I couldn't see ANY way this was possible without dying horribly.

He explained that they all had swords that whenever they'd hit with them would do 20d6 fireballs centered on themselves but their own party was immune to them.  When they crit it would do 40d6 fireballs, automatically kill their target and restore the entire party to full hitpoints.  Their DM also didn't like spells being limited, so they could cast as many as they wanted.

That's when I realized...no way they were actually playing D&D, at least, not the D&D I knew.  It was difficult to relate to that game of D&D.  Rare as it is to meet other people who even play the game at all, it sucks to meet someone and realize that you can't even really talk about the game together.


----------



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I really hope that plain +1 longswords really are a thing of the past...




I intend to have basic +1 weapons in stores... and then never again shall they appear. 6/11/16/21/26 level loot will just have to be other slots in the game is all. Belts, hats, what not.


----------



## shadowlance (May 16, 2008)

> Inserting "If the DM allows it" every other page or so can be redundant.




Of course, inserting "You DM may require [additional requirements]" every few paragraphs is just as redundant...and they are doing that anyway.  I think I see what Aria is saying here....it would be nice if the default was more middle of the road with suggestions for both more and less restrictive interpretations instead of always making the default rule the least restrictive.

Look at that section for identifying...

Default = everyone does it automatically
OR
slighly more restrictive = the DM may require an arcana check
OR 
most restrictive = the DM may require a special quest

Why not make the default rule the arcana check and then say that the DM may ignore this requirement or may require a quest instead of the arcana check.  It uses just as much space and still presents all the options, but it gives the DM the chance to either be "the good guy" or the "hardass".

I'm not really on either side of this issue.  But I think that people are missing part of Aria's point.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Shadowlance has it right.  The default "mode" in D&D should be somewhat restrictive but not terribly so.  This allows DM's to tailor their game in a way that players will perceive more positively.  If I have a list of six house rules that decrease restrictions, players are going to view that more favourably than say someone else's game that lists two reduced restrictions and five increased restrictions.


----------



## FadedC (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Shadowlance has it right.  The default "mode" in D&D should be somewhat restrictive but not terribly so.  This allows DM's to tailor their game in a way that players will perceive more positively.  If I have a list of six house rules that decrease restrictions, players are going to view that more favourably than say someone else's game that lists two reduced restrictions and five increased restrictions.




Funny how we've seen so many posts recently complaining about things NOT being allowed and the game being too restrictive. Now we are seeing somebody complain about the game not being restrictive enough because he wants to house rule things to be less restrictive and to be percieved as improving the game.

Really goes to show that no matter what you do, somebody will always complain.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 16, 2008)

shadowlance said:
			
		

> Default = everyone does it automatically
> OR
> slighly more restrictive = the DM may require an arcana check
> OR
> most restrictive = the DM may require a special quest



You might want to read it again.  It says "everyone does it automatically all the time."

If there is an extremely odd item like a cursed item or an artifact the DM might make you roll a check or even go as far as to go on a quest for a one of a kind item.

One is a rule, the other is setting expectations that there might be some items that break the rules.


----------



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

shadowlance said:
			
		

> Why not make the default rule the arcana check ...




Because it makes the game worse for a majority of gamers and/or reduces the ability to run games without certain class types.


----------



## jackston2 (May 16, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I still don't like the harsh and unusual 1/5 sale price on magic items. Unless there is a sidebar somewhere in the DMG that gives a _very_ good justification for it, I will probably ignore that rule.
> \




Nooo don't do this!  The 1/5 does wonderful things for the Players.  It really takes pressure off of them to "stay competitive" and makes magic items seem more like... gifts!


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 16, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> The PrRC has three example implements in it - holy symbol, wand, and staff. Least, I think so. I might be wrong on the wand.






			
				PrRC said:
			
		

> Implement: Many arcane spells are more effective when
> used in conjunction with an implement—a wizard’s
> staff, orb, or wand, or a warlock’s rod or wand. Many
> divine prayers use holy symbols as implements. To
> ...



So you were right.


----------



## Sojorn (May 16, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I still don't like the harsh and unusual 1/5 sale price on magic items. Unless there is a sidebar somewhere in the DMG that gives a _very_ good justification for it, I will probably ignore that rule.



It's there to make magic items of your level or higher special and not just hotswappable.

The more money you let items resale for with no challenge, the less having any particular powerful item means. It's perfectly acceptable to have a skill challenge be "find buyers for your stuff, get 100% of the sale price and some XP if you succeed". However, if you can just ride into town and trade your +3 flaming longsword for a +3 frost longsword, they both lose a bit of uniqueness in the transaction.

1/5th cost is just the point where you can trade a +3 flaming longsword for a +2 frost longsword without any actual effort besides asking the DM if you can just do that real quick while you're in the city. But there's obviously a price for doing it this way. So it encourages keeping what you find and using it, or going on quests to find/trade for better things.

Increasing the "quick" resale value serves to encourage swapping items more frequently and highlights what items can do for the characters as the important part, rather than highlighting that they're something that makes the character special.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> It allows a world-wide campaign like Living Greyhawk of Living Forgotten Realms to function by allowing people to show up to a convention or gamesday and sit down and play with no explanation given on what is different about THIS D&D.



:rofl: The living campaigns have more house rules than most custom campaigns.



> If the books on the other hand said "Some DMs will allow selling of items, they will set the amount you will be given each time you sell an item, so ask them.  Others will not allow selling of items.  If you want to know what to do with an item once you no longer need it, consult with your DM.  He'll explain how it works in his game." then it requires each and every person playing D&D to have a conversation with their DM about which version of the rules they are using and the details of their game.



They're going to have that kind of conversation anyway.  Why not make it more positive instead of negative?



> And I could see a 5 minute long explanation of the magic item economy being given out by some DMs(heck, I could see a 2 hour long explanation being given).  And that's just ONE rule.  If you write the entire book that way, you need to sit down for a good hour or 2 to learn which rules this game is using EACH time you play with a different DM.



So print out the list of house rules and their explanations.  I know we did back when we started houseruling 3rd edition crap.  Each dm would print out their campaign introduction, what kind of campaign it was going to be, what kind of characters they expected, their character creation rules, and such.



> Having the assumptions in makes the game easy for new people to learn, easier to switch DMs, makes the game go quicker in actual play(when some of these issues tend to come up).  It also provides a shared experience.  That way, when players of D&D gather on message boards or at conventions or at local gaming stores and they tell stories about their games(which they always do), there isn't a disconnect.



The problem is that all the assumptions are too permissive to players.  It requires the DM to say no far too much for DM's that want control over magic and the like in their campaign.


----------



## shadowlance (May 16, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> Because it makes the game worse for a majority of gamers and/or reduces the ability to run games without certain class types.




Well, I would certainly debate your proclamation that it makes the game worse for the majority of gamers (the majority of gamers won't have someone with the arcana skill in their group?).  As for reducing the ability to run game without certain class types...the suggestion would still be right there in the very same paragraph to drop the requirement. 

Of course, none of that was my point anyway.  I'm not sure if I didn't communicate it clearly or if you are just being argumentative.  Either way, I said my piece....feel free to ignore it.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Shadowlance has it right.  The default "mode" in D&D should be somewhat restrictive but not terribly so.  This allows DM's to tailor their game in a way that players will perceive more positively.  If I have a list of six house rules that decrease restrictions, players are going to view that more favourably than say someone else's game that lists two reduced restrictions and five increased restrictions.



But how do you decrease restrictions?

Let's say the game just lists a bunch of optional rules.

a) magic items can be sold
b) they can't
c) they are only sold in the planes and you need to be high level to do it

As a DM you say "I'm choosing option b" then you are choosing the most restrictive option and you are running into the situation where you are the downer, restricting people to a lower option than the rules assume are possible.

The only other option is that the rules don't list any options other than the most restrictive.  If the book says "Magic items are never bought and sold.  We didn't include prices for buying or selling them in this book since it never happens."(like the 2nd Edition books did) then you run into the problem...say you WANT to allow magic items to be bought and sold...now you have to come up with all of the prices for every item.  Which might be unbalanced and ruin your game since you might not be good at math or game design.

Whereas the worst thing that happens if you REALLY don't like magic item selling in 4e is that you need to apply some built in bonuses to all the players to make up for it and you have to tell the players to ignore the prices and that it works differently in your game.  Maybe you have to be a downer because you have to dash the hopes of your players.  But, then you always have the option to NOT be a downer and simply allow buying and selling of magic items.  I'm telling you, it's not addictive.  Just try it once...I promise, if you don't like it, you don't have to ever do it again...


----------



## jackston2 (May 16, 2008)

Well done, Sojorn.  I'll have to keep your response handy.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> Because it makes the game worse for a majority of gamers and/or reduces the ability to run games without certain class types.



Oh _butterflies and daisies_.  It makes the game better for the "majority", which you are claiming to represent despite not having anything but anecdotal evidence to back it up.  Instead of the DM's having to say, "No you can't do what the rules say you can do (default everyone can id after a short rest)." The DM can instead say, "Hey, I don't like the arcana check, so for most items, you can do this instead.  Some items might require a check or something more."

That paints that dm in a more positive light than the dm that has to keep saying, no.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 16, 2008)

jackston2 said:
			
		

> Nooo don't do this!  The 1/5 does wonderful things for the Players.  It really takes pressure off of them to "stay competitive" and makes magic items seem more like... gifts!




Given that selling or disenchanting an item essentially drops it by 5 levels, magic items are essentially gifts.  Adventuring and getting higher level items that the DM gives you is the most effective way to get high powered items.  Not keeping those items and selling by default would mean that you are getting an item that is worse then your level, even if you were to sell an item which is 4 above yours.  So essentially they want the items you quest for to be gifts from the DM and seem to have this system in place to enforce that.


----------



## AZRogue (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Oh horsecrap.  It makes the game better for the "majority", which you are claiming to represent despite not having anything but anecdotal evidence to back it up.  Instead of the DM's having to say, "No you can't do what the rules say you can do (default everyone can id after a short rest)." The DM can instead say, "Hey, I don't like the arcana check, so for most items, you can do this instead.  Some items might require a check or something more."
> 
> That paints that dm in a more positive light than the dm that has to keep saying, no.




Why would you be painted in any light over either statement? Most people game with friends and, unless you're dealing with young or new players, understand that the DM's job is to set up houserules and choose options that he or she thinks will contribute to the campaign. Trying to arrange things so that you can say "yes" more often than "no" seems like needless micromanaging to me and a concern more appropriate for the workplace than your living room. 

As has been mentioned, as long as you lay out what you're doing at the start of a campaign, the vast majority of players will not complain. Changing things mid-campaign will likely net you some criticism but not if you laid things out at the start. It would take an exceptionally confrontational player to challenge a DM that way at the start of a campaign, IMO.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> :rofl: The living campaigns have more house rules than most custom campaigns.



I consider "You are allowed to take all PrC, feats, and spells from all books except for these 5 books and this 2 page list of ones that aren't allowed.  All other rules are exactly from the book with no changes." very few house rules.  Living Greyhawk only complicates things due to Adventure Records being impossible to figure out and some complications on WHICH adventures you can actually play.

The D&D Campaigns model(Legacy of the Green Regent, Xen'drik Expeditions, and so on) is even simpler.  Its entire house rules is: "Only the Core Books or these X base classes.  Each level you can choose one feat or spell from any other book and add it to the list of ones you are allowed."



			
				Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> They're going to have that kind of conversation anyway.  Why not make it more positive instead of negative?



Not all games.  Our last campaign started with the words "1st level characters, all books allowed, 32 point buy, average plus 1 for hitpoints after first level, max gold for first level, no changes to the rules.  If you want to be a race other than that in the PHB ask me.  Bring characters to the session of Tuesday and we'll start."

Due to the changes in 4e, and without breaking my NDA, that can be reduced to: "1st level characters, no changes to the rules.  If you want to be a race other than that in the PHB ask me." in 4e.



			
				Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> So print out the list of house rules and their explanations.  I know we did back when we started houseruling 3rd edition crap.  Each dm would print out their campaign introduction, what kind of campaign it was going to be, what kind of characters they expected, their character creation rules, and such.



Someone once printed me out a 2 page document on changes to their game.  I read the first half page before I decided this was too much work to play a game.  I eventually just made up a character without reading them and managed to accidentally make a character that was legal.  It wasn't for a couple of levels that I found out I had shortchanged myself a bunch of hitpoints as she had houseruled max hitpoints for levels 1-3.



			
				Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> The problem is that all the assumptions are too permissive to players.  It requires the DM to say no far too much for DM's that want control over magic and the like in their campaign.



Why are they too permissive?  I'm not sure why saying "You can customize your character with the gear you want" is too permissive.  It's been the default assumption in every RPG computer and video game I've EVER played.  It's been a default assumption for ALMOST every edition of D&D(2nd being the lone hold out that I'm aware of).  It's not like the rules causes players to become too powerful or the world to explode or anything like that.  In fact, it creates a perfectly playable and fun game.

Even if the books said "No, Magic items are NEVER bought and sold", you'd STILL have players coming in from nearly every other game they've played with the assumption that they are.


----------



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Oh horsecrap.  It makes the game better for the "majority", which you are claiming to represent despite not having anything but anecdotal evidence to back it up.




You probably missed my earlier post where I said 'assuming they've done their market research and testing correctly.' referring to wotc designing rules for a majority of groups.

You may have also missed my earlier post where I said that I didn't intend to have magic item stores sell anything above +1 items to my players.

You may even have missed the 'or' in my statement implying that one side of the statement might be false and it might not actually be better for a majority of players.

Based on your own statements, which I have read, I would also suggest that you are advocating rules that help you personally, and a subset of DMs in particular, but are disadvantageous for many players. Given any kind of normal player to DM ratio, you're almost guaranteeing that your rules choice isn't preferable to a majority, but that's just a mathematical probability. I don't have actual evidence to back that up.

Of course, WotC _does_.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Why would you be painted in any light over either statement? Most people game with friends and, unless you're dealing with young or new players, understand that the DM's job is to set up houserules and choose options that he or she thinks will contribute to the campaign. Trying to arrange things so that you can say "yes" more often than "no" seems like needless micromanaging to me and a concern more appropriate for the workplace than your living room.



Reputation.  It's easier for DM's with a good reputation to get players to play in their campaign.  Especially when there's competition for players who have limited schedules.  Not everyone everywhere is gifted with an abundance of good players who are reliable.  I know for several years we had a drought of players in my area, but two or three people who wanted to DM their campaign.  I was one of them and couldn't find players because I had a specific campaign/story I wanted to run, but all the limitations I had to place on 3rd edition rules to get a low magic game turned people away.  The rules are quite capable of running a low magic setting, but the default presumption was magic rich and that's what most players expected just out of the PHB.


----------



## Hambot (May 16, 2008)

I like the article.

Magic swords probably just have a switch to turn them on.  That would be a hell of a lot easier to make than some voice activated or [gasp] mentally telepathic command response mechanism.  And that's just based on real life.  I can only assume it would be more complcated to make with magic too.

Even Thug the Barbarian can learn how to flick the switch on the side of a sword.  There's a reason why grenades are still manual - it works a lot better than some tricky radio signal or voice command, where more things can go wrong.

If I could make magic items I would make them as easy to use as possible, so when you need them they won't screw up.


----------



## Lurker37 (May 16, 2008)

shadowlance said:
			
		

> Look at that section for identifying...
> 
> Default = everyone does it automatically
> OR
> ...




That's not what it says.

What it says is that *most* items just require a few minutes of experimentation. 

*Some* items may be harder to identify, and may require an arcana check, or in really complex cases possibly even a quest for the players to fully understand the full potential (or danger) or the item.

There's no house rules involved. All three possibilities coexist in the default setting depending on the complexity of the enchantment(s) on the item. That's why the rules are written that way. You've re-written it as "three separate rules: pick one for your game", which it clearly isn't.

So suggesting that the Arcana check becomes what most items need is a change to the rules, and disadvantages any group who lacks a character trained in that skill since most groups will play by the RAW, especially if WoTC's goal of attracting new players is achieved.


----------



## AZRogue (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Reputation.  It's easier for DM's with a good reputation to get players to play in their campaign.  Especially when there's competition for players who have limited schedules.  Not everyone everywhere is gifted with an abundance of good players who are reliable.  I know for several years we had a drought of players in my area, but two or three people who wanted to DM their campaign.  I was one of them and couldn't find players because I had a specific campaign/story I wanted to run, but all the limitations I had to place on 3rd edition rules to get a low magic game turned people away.  The rules are quite capable of running a low magic setting, but the default presumption was magic rich and that's what most players expected just out of the PHB.




Fair enough, though I would submit that your reputation would be gained from running excellent games that challenge the PCs and keep them guessing and excited rather than gained from the houserules you chose to run your campaign under. 

edit: Also, if players in your area are that rare, it may be that you need to change the focus of the type of game you want to run. If players are getting together to play in high-magic campaigns it may be because they just don't want to play in a low-magic campaign, and if that's the case than no change in the default assumptions of the rules will cause them to change their preference. The low-magic, grittier campaign is very popular with those who prefer it but traditionally has never been very mainstream. Good luck, though. I hope you find a good group.


----------



## Boarstorm (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Reputation.  It's easier for DM's with a good reputation to get players to play in their campaign.




Reputation?  Seriously?

I begin to think we're not talking about the same game.  In my experience, pulling a group together CAN be damned difficult, but once its together, friendships form and players won't waltz off to another DM based solely on the fact that he's more fast and loose with the rules.

And if players don't want to play the type of game you want to run... perhaps a bit of compromise is called for, if you truly want to play.


----------



## Heahengel (May 16, 2008)

I see what people are saying about setting a more loose baseline, or more restrictive one, but as a player I like this baseline.  The reason being that I tend to like this rule (and would like to see it used unless there was a specific reason not to) and there are a lot of DMs who will run the baseline and not consider using optional rules (or at least not consider them beyond shifts connected to a specific campaign vision).  Its a lot harder to ask and get a DM to run things less restrictively than to do the opposite, and in general DMs control the rules, so if he wants to run the more restrictive game, he can.

And as a DM, I feel perfectly comfortable changing something like this.  Then again, I never normally assume that I can buy magic items in a game (although I do assume that I can sell them).  I'm generally willing to follow the DMs lead where he wants to go ruleswise, as I find that the game is more enjoyable if he is running what he wants to (and bad DM is probably going to be bad no matter what, so its rare that I wouldn't enjoy a game just because of one rules issue).  There are very few things that I will really argue with a DM about, although they do exist.

Also, in regards to the identifying issue, I think they set the baseline there specifically so that most games would use that, rather than a more restrictive method.  Restrictive identifying can be tempting, but in practice I've never gained enjoyment from it.  And I'm guessing that they decided that in most situations most groups won't either.  Thus the baseline.


----------



## ryryguy (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Oh horsecrap.  It makes the game better for the "majority", which you are claiming to represent despite not having anything but anecdotal evidence to back it up.  Instead of the DM's having to say, "No you can't do what the rules say you can do (default everyone can id after a short rest)." The DM can instead say, "Hey, I don't like the arcana check, so for most items, you can do this instead.  Some items might require a check or something more."
> 
> That paints that dm in a more positive light than the dm that has to keep saying, no.




I would suspect that from the 4e designers' point of view, this kind of stuff is not really a question of "permissive rules" vs. "restrictive rules".  I think they probably do put a lot of weight on whether they think a rule will make the game more fun at the table for a "majority".  And while _I_ might have no evidence to back up a hunch that free-identifying items is more fun for the majority, _the designers_ likely do.  From playtests, interviews and surveys, etc.

Now could putting this into the rules potentially put the "DM who says no" in a worse light?  Potentially... though I think you're overstating a bit, especially if you're playing with friends, in a non-competitve way.  But even if it does, if the designers do have pretty strong evidence that their rule is more fun for the majority of their audience, it's only rational for them to stick with that rule.  Sorry for any unintended consequences for the minority "DMs who say no".  (And putting in mushy middle-ground, "you could do it this way or that way, but probably this way" stuff is bad for a variety of reasons already stated.)

It's interesting to note that 4e does seem to be, on balance, less restrictive than previous editions, more inclined to letting the players do their heroic stuff with their cool powers without being bogged down with simulationist/anachronistic chains.  And maybe this is partially a matter of philosophy... but consider this: maybe that general tendency, too, is based on actual analysis and evidence that it produces more fun gaming for the majority.


----------



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

While I'm reticent to bother with house rules initially, I highly suspect that two of my three starting 4e campaigns will effectively have no ability to purchase magic items.

One because it's an enclosed campaign with no ability to get out (until the end of the campaign). 

One a magic item merchant who stocks +1 items and _rarely_ some other item who will offer 20ish% (she likes people who sign a charter with her) or offer to put items on commission for full value minus a commission, so like 80-100%, but she has to caravan them out, then ship them to another city, so it'll be a minimum of 3 months and more likely a year at least. 

The last is a 1 hour a week 'beer and pretzel' game. I might let them buy/sell for that one, or I might not. The totally nonserious 'plot' for that game is that they're being teleported into hot spots that need aventurer attention and after 1 hour they get yanked back (alive or dead) to 'base'. I suspect I'll go with no sales for that game and use all equipment on adventuring cards (ie, like paizo's) so that they really appreciate everything they get.

So, inadvertently my first 3 campaigns are vastly changing those rules.

For identification, I think the first will use the standard rule, the second will require the party's mage use his 'identify ritual' (that he already has) on a short rest (but the lackwit paladin is out of luck for most items)... the third I think might just auto identify everything, even without a rest. Ie, I'll just hand them the item with the stats on the card.

I don't plan on almost any house rules for these games, but I do plan on doing a 'you auto get pluses' game at some point soon-ish into the system. Almost assuredly with the game I want to be about families and legacies, where I want someone to do things like inherit their family sword and use forever, etc.


----------



## Boarstorm (May 16, 2008)

Heahengel said:
			
		

> I see what people are saying about setting a more loose baseline, or more restrictive one, but as a player I like this baseline.  The reason being that I tend to like this rule (and would like to see it used unless there was a specific reason not to) and there are a lot of DMs who will run the baseline and not consider using optional rules (or at least not consider them beyond shifts connected to a specific campaign vision).  Its a lot harder to ask and get a DM to run things less restrictively than to do the opposite, and in general DMs control the rules, so if he wants to run the more restrictive game, he can.
> 
> And as a DM, I feel perfectly comfortable changing something like this.  Then again, I never normally assume that I can buy magic items in a game (although I do assume that I can sell them).  I'm generally willing to follow the DMs lead where he wants to go ruleswise, as I find that the game is more enjoyable if he is running what he wants to (and bad DM is probably going to be bad no matter what, so its rare that I wouldn't enjoy a game just because of one rules issue).  There are very few things that I will really argue with a DM about, although they do exist.
> 
> Also, in regards to the identifying issue, I think they set the baseline there specifically so that most games would use that, rather than a more restrictive method.  Restrictive identifying can be tempting, but in practice I've never gained enjoyment from it.  And I'm guessing that they decided that in most situations most groups won't either.  Thus the baseline.




Welcome to the boards.   And hearty agreement.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Hambot said:
			
		

> I like the article.
> 
> Magic swords probably just have a switch to turn them on.  That would be a hell of a lot easier to make than some voice activated or [gasp] mentally telepathic command response mechanism.  And that's just based on real life.  I can only assume it would be more complicated to make with magic too.
> 
> Even Thug the Barbarian can learn how to flick the switch on the side of a sword.  There's a reason why grenades are still manual - it works a lot better than some tricky radio signal or voice command, where more things can go wrong.



You mean like radio/timer detonated C4? Or bombs that are pre-programmed with specific altitudes to explode? Or what about cruise missiles with pre-plotted gps routes?  May as well just give everyone lightsabers with buttons that say "On" / "Off" if you want to go that route with magic items.



			
				Majoru said:
			
		

> Not all games. Our last campaign started with the words "1st level characters, all books allowed, 32 point buy, average plus 1 for hitpoints after first level, max gold for first level, no changes to the rules. If you want to be a race other than that in the PHB ask me. Bring characters to the session of Tuesday and we'll start."  Due to the changes in 4e, and without breaking my NDA, that can be reduced to: "1st level characters, no changes to the rules. If you want to be a race other than that in the PHB ask me." in 4e.



That's still having a conversation with the DM about how the campaign is going to take place.  You're just lucky enough to not have to houserule a half-dozen things to get the rules to match your crafted setting.



			
				Majoru said:
			
		

> Someone once printed me out a 2 page document on changes to their game. I read the first half page before I decided this was too much work to play a game. I eventually just made up a character without reading them and managed to accidentally make a character that was legal. It wasn't for a couple of levels that I found out I had shortchanged myself a bunch of hitpoints as she had houseruled max hitpoints for levels 1-3.



Any player too lazy to read a page or two of important campaign and rules information doesn't belong in any game I plan to run.



			
				Majoru said:
			
		

> Why are they too permissive? I'm not sure why saying "You can customize your character with the gear you want" is too permissive. It's been the default assumption in every RPG computer and video game I've EVER played. It's been a default assumption for ALMOST every edition of D&D(2nd being the lone hold out that I'm aware of). It's not like the rules causes players to become too powerful or the world to explode or anything like that. In fact, it creates a perfectly playable and fun game.
> 
> Even if the books said "No, Magic items are NEVER bought and sold", you'd STILL have players coming in from nearly every other game they've played with the assumption that they are.



The rules, as we know them, are too permissive because they, by default, assume that magic items can be sold for 20%, be bought for 100% to 140% or something like that, that they can be disenchanted, that players have access to enchantment rituals, and more.  The rules, as I've read them from the excerpts, are all very player permissive orientated.  The players can do this or that or those things unless the dm is a hardass and wants to change things to be more restrictive.

The default should have been middle of the road.  Slightly restrictive, to give players some limitations and allow DM's to customize the rules for their setting.  Ambiguity on campaign specific rules, like the availability of magic items, rituals, enchanting and more... should be restrictive by default.  Middle of the road.  Right now it's: Default, restrictive, more restrictive instead of permissive, default, restrictive.


----------



## MindWanderer (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> That is beyond lame.  Fighters who've never had magical training whatsoever shouldn't be able to identify magical poop, let alone the properties and effects of a magical item.  Sure, they can feel the balance of a sword is better and that it fits their hand perfectly, but anything beyond that should require a person trained in arcane knowledge.



Poor verisimilitude, probably.  But more fun.  I always hated the "magic item tax" of 100 gp (minimum) to identify stuff.  I hated the fact that you needed a day + an hour to do it if you had a wizard or magic domain cleric in the party (since they have to prep it), or an hour + 25 gp for someone to use a scroll, or go back to town and pay +10 gp to have an NPC do it.  A short rest might be a bit too lenient (and why make it one item per rest?  They'll just rest twice 90% of the time), but making it automatic, free, and without taking extra time is a boon IMO.


			
				CrimsonNeko said:
			
		

> I like the wording on the purchase price of PERMANENT magic items.  Hopefully, this is referring to the possibility of rituals for temporary enchantments....



I think that's as opposed to expendables, not "temporary" items.


			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> Okay.
> 
> Levels 1-5: +1
> Levels 6-10: +2
> ...



Depends on what kind of feel you're looking for.

If you want to avoid item dependency, make the +'s automatic, and each weapon/armor/amulet (hereafter "weapon") grants only its special ability.  If you have a magic sword, then from levels 1-5 it's a +1 magic sword, and at level 6 it becomes +2.  If it's a flaming sword, you can't get it at all until level 5, and it doesn't become +2 until level 10.  You'll need to monkey around with money, though (but that's true for any game with a nonstandard economy).

If you want a low-magic game, the above works fairly well, as a player can tote around one weapon for nearly the whole game without needing an upgrade.  Or they can get the abilities inherently in some manner, either through enhancing an existing weapon, or a weapon "spontaneously" developing new abilities, or a character granting an effect to any weapon they wield.  It can operate like legacy weapons in 3e, needing quests to activate, or they can be triggered, voluntarily or involuntarily, by other events.  You could even have a morphic weapon that changes abilities based on various things, like the monsters a character has slain with it (e.g. fire elemental), or the experiences of the character (e.g. survive a blizzard in the frostfell), or a quest (restore the Eternal Light to the Nebular City), or whatever.


----------



## Lanefan (May 16, 2008)

Well, this is very much a good news-bad news batch of stuff to me.

I like the general reduction in magic from 3e.  Remains to be seen, of course, how the specifics will play out, but the philosophy's going in the right direction.  More powers and less basic '+' items are nice to see also, along with more variety in said powers. (here's hoping the DMG has a brief guide on designing new powers not already mentioned)

I'm not so keen on the buy-sell restrictions...and this is coming from someone who heartily disliked 3e's assumption that items could be bought and sold on a whim.  I suspect the pendulum might have swung a bit too far the other way, and I smell lots of houserules in the air around this one.  There's an inescapable logic around how these things would work in a world...ignore that at peril of believability.

And I'm highly disappointed and annoyed as well about the auto-identify idiocy.  Field-testing magic items (sometimes with unfortunate consequences) is a time-honoured tradition that really didn't need to be messed with.  Sure it takes some time the first few times through, but once the party's got a test routine down pat it's simple enough to handwave.  But figuring specific plusses on any item should require either an Identify or a *long* period of use...at least an adventure's worth...and if a DM just tells me what it does as soon as I pick it up I feel cheated somehow.

And can I also assume this means the end of cursed items where there's a specific trigger for the curse? (if you automatically know what it does, you'll know it's cursed and what the trigger is...where's the fun in that?)

One of these days I really should post the article I wrote 20-odd years ago (in character as Lanefan, during a retirement) on the fine art of field-testing magic items.  I was going to send it in to Dragon, back in the day, but never did; and it's still languishing around here somewhere.

Oh, and the excuse for auto-identify meaning a party doesn't need a spellcaster to do it doesn't fly with me for one very simple reason: a party made up of all tanks (or all casters, or all thieves, etc.) is obviously going to - and should - have some holes in its abilities.  This is...well, was...one.

Lanefan


----------



## Eldorian (May 16, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Amulet of the Matrix: 55,000 gold pieces.
> 
> Plate Armor of the Iron Dragon: 115,000 gold pieces
> 
> ...




Some things money can buy.  For everything else, there's murder.  



And btw, if your players whine when they can't buy and sell magic items, or whine that it takes an arcana check to identify items, you need new players.  I suggest people over the age of 12.  I remember gaming when I was 12.  I wouldn't want to do it again =P


----------



## JetstreamGW (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> You mean like radio/timer detonated C4? Or bombs that are pre-programmed with specific altitudes to explode? Or what about cruise missiles with pre-plotted gps routes?  May as well just give everyone lightsabers with buttons that say "On" / "Off" if you want to go that route with magic items.
> 
> (snip)





...


*raises hand*


May I have a lightsaber?


----------



## Khaalis (May 16, 2008)

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> And if players don't want to play the type of game you want to run... perhaps a bit of compromise is called for, if you truly want to play.



QFT! This about sums up the entire argument in my mind. D&D is NOT a DM vs. the Players scenario. It is supposed to be a mutual experience. If you want to run a dirty, gritty, deny the PCs this-and-that style game, and find that the players don't like that, its a clue to change your base assumptions and DMing style and meet somewhere on middle ground. It should never be a situation where the DM says "Its My way or the highway".

To me personally, DMing is like a professional entertainment job. Its my JOB as DM to entertain the players, letting them enjoy their characters, trigger their imagination, inspire roleplaying and create an engaging environment for them. Its not the players' JOB to live out my story plotlines in my world the way I want. Yes I can set the basics of the world assumptions, but I am not doing my job if I specifically choose to make rules that none of the players like. Thats not fun for anyone. If you are not playing the Game to have fun, you shouldn't be wasting your or the players' time.

JMHO. YMMV.


----------



## ryryguy (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> The rules, as we know them, are too permissive because they, by default, assume that magic items can be sold for 20%, be bought for 100% to 140% or something like that, that they can be disenchanted, that players have access to enchantment rituals, and more.  The rules, as I've read them from the excerpts, are all very player permissive orientated.  The players can do this or that or those things unless the dm is a hardass and wants to change things to be more restrictive.
> 
> The default should have been middle of the road.  Slightly restrictive, to give players some limitations and allow DM's to customize the rules for their setting.  Ambiguity on campaign specific rules, like the availability of magic items, rituals, enchanting and more... should be restrictive by default.  Middle of the road.  Right now it's: Default, restrictive, more restrictive instead of permissive, default, restrictive.




Attempting to put this more succinctly than my previous post...

If the designers have good evidence that the more permissive approach leads to a more fun game for the majority of their audience, how can they choose anything else?  Does saving a small number of DM's from suffering a possible "hardass penalty" really have more weight than that?


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2008)

Anyone think this whole pervasive rule thing is sort've a total derailment from the topic at hand?

However, to engage in it regardless...



			
				Khaalis said:
			
		

> QFT! This about sums up the entire argument in my mind. D&D is NOT a DM vs. the Players scenario. It is supposed to be a mutual experience. If you want to run a dirty, gritty, deny the PCs this-and-that style game, and find that the players don't like that, its a clue to change your base assumptions and DMing style and meet somewhere on middle ground. It should never be a situation where the DM says "Its My way or the highway".
> 
> To me personally, DMing is like a professional entertainment job. Its my JOB as DM to entertain the players, letting them enjoy their characters, trigger their imagination, inspire roleplaying and create an engaging environment for them. Its not the players' JOB to live out my story plotlines in my world the way I want. Yes I can set the basics of the world assumptions, but I am not doing my job if I specifically choose to make rules that none of the players like. Thats not fun for anyone. If you are not playing the Game to have fun, you shouldn't be wasting your or the players' time.



Yeah.

I've adapted my DMing style pretty much. It boils down to "Okay. I'm going to ask everyone here at the table what kind of campaign you want. The kind of campaign we can all agree on, I'll run. Now, I have a few ideas I'm excited about, (A B and C), and I'm somewhat prepared for those. But I'm willing to do anything except (X and Y). What do you guys like?"

I employed this method with people I didn't know, and discovered that my group was comprised of rules light (some new, some new to this edition), who liked more roleplay and talking, and less dungeoncrawling. Wound up with playing a light-hearted campaign with traveling con artists. And fun was had by all.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Khaalis said:
			
		

> QFT! This about sums up the entire argument in my mind. D&D is NOT a DM vs. the Players scenario. It is supposed to be a mutual experience. If you want to run a dirty, gritty, deny the PCs this-and-that style game, and find that the players don't like that, its a clue to change your base assumptions and DMing style and meet somewhere on middle ground. It should never be a situation where the DM says "Its My way or the highway".



When it comes to the campaign setting, it is the DM's way.  They're the ones creating it and spending time making the maps, the handouts, the storylines and preparing for the game.  Yes, they should take the players into account somewhat, but not to the point where it's not what the DM wants to run at all.  Players need to remember the DM isn't just there to run the game, they're there to have fun as well and being forced to run the game the player's way, is not fun.



> To me personally, DMing is like a professional entertainment job. Its my JOB as DM to entertain the players, letting them enjoy their characters, trigger their imagination, inspire roleplaying and create an engaging environment for them. Its not the players' JOB to live out my story plotlines in my world the way I want. Yes I can set the basics of the world assumptions, but I am not doing my job if I specifically choose to make rules that none of the players like. Thats not fun for anyone. If you are not playing the Game to have fun, you shouldn't be wasting your or the players' time.



When I get paid for being a DM, then the players can tell me how to run my campaign.



			
				ryryguy said:
			
		

> If the designers have good evidence that the more permissive approach leads to a more fun game for the majority of their audience, how can they choose anything else?  Does saving a small number of DM's from suffering a possible "hardass penalty" really have more weight than that?



They know that people are going to houserule publishing campaigns, they know that people are going to create houserules, and they know people are going to homebrew their own campaigns.  It's in their best interest to make the rules support that type of gameplay.  By creating the default rules with that ambiguity in mind and a constant reminder that the DM can and probably will alter things to suit their style, their campaign... it makes the rulebook better.

"You can sometimes buy magic items just as you can mundane equipment. It’s rare to find a shop or a bazaar that routinely sells magic items, except perhaps the lowest-level items. Some fantastic places, such as the legendary City of Brass in the heart of the Elemental Chaos, have such markets, but those are the exception rather than the rule. Your DM might say that you can track down a seller for the item you want to buy or that you might have to do some searching, *but in general you can buy any item you can afford.*"

It could have been written as:


> Magic items will usually be acquired as part of treasure when defeating dangerous encounters or as a reward from powerful entities when completing a quest.  Some DM's may allow the purchase of magic items, although it would be rare to find a shop or bazaar that routinely sells magic items, except perhaps the lowest-level items.  Some fantastic places, such as the legendary City of Brass in the heart of the Elemental Chaos, may have such markets, but those are the exception rather than the rule.  DM's may also require you to track down a seller for the item you want to buy or that you might have to do some searching.




My revision is friendlier to DM's that don't want magic items to be a simple transaction, while allowing for more or less restrictions, depending on the campaign setting.


----------



## JesterOC (May 16, 2008)

Unless the all magic is made to 'tell' the user how it works. And it just needs a few minutes to be able to atune itself with the new master. It is "magic" after all. Of course if a item was special and wanted to hide its nature like the one ring, then that just special case it. 

JesterOC

Dang you are fast.  I noticed others said the same thing better so I tried to kill the comment before anyone said it.  But now since you quoted me...too late. Perhaps I need some shut eye.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

JesterOC said:
			
		

> Unless the all magic is made to 'tell' the user how it works.  And it just needs a few minutes to be able to atune itself with the new master. It is "magic" after all.  Of course if a item was special and wanted to hide its nature like the one ring, then that just special case it.



Both options would be pretty campaign specific, which is what the rules should try to avoid.  The rules should provide DM's and players alike with ideas and not hardset rules that affect the overall tone of a campaign setting.  The economics of magic items is just one example of poorly written default rules that I feel many campaigns will have houseruled in some fashion.


----------



## JesterOC (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> The rules should provide DM's and players alike with ideas and not hardset rules that affect the overall tone of a campaign setting.  The economics of magic items is just one example of poorly written default rules that I feel many campaigns will have houseruled in some fashion.




Ok I don't agree with this.  The core rules should be rules, not a bunch of suggestions. If the book is filled with suggestions that try to handle all situations, you end up wasting a lot of space and end up confusing new players (new players are looking to the DMG for answers not more questions) and wasting the time of older players that have their own system already.  

The DMG needs to set firm rules, those rules should all have an internal consistancy and all work together smoothly.  Once that is established you could suggest other ways, and if the rules are great they may suggest how changes made to the rules as written will effect the other established rules.  That way in the best case scenarior the DMG will provide the answer to a given DM's question, as well as alternatives with a heads up on how the alternatives may break other systems.

JesterOC


----------



## Parlan (May 16, 2008)

ryryguy said:
			
		

> Attempting to put this more succinctly than my previous post...
> 
> If the designers have good evidence that the more permissive approach leads to a more fun game for the majority of their audience, how can they choose anything else?  Does saving a small number of DM's from suffering a possible "hardass penalty" really have more weight than that?




Well said, sir.


----------



## Parlan (May 16, 2008)

JesterOC said:
			
		

> Ok I don't agree with this.  The core rules should be rules, not a bunch of suggestions. If the book is filled with suggestions that try to handle all situations, you end up wasting a lot of space and end up confusing new players (new players are looking to the DMG for answers not more questions) and wasting the time of older players that have their own system already.





Amen.  It's one of my problems with GURPS.  I love the system in theory, but after reading through the books and all the options presented, there's so many choices that I lose my enthusiasm for playing. 

Sometimes, more choices are a *bad* thing, because the effort of choosing becomes burdensome.  

See:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Paradox-of-Choice/Barry-Schwartz/e/9780060005696

The designers' job is to create a set of rules that works and are fun to play. If they try to appeal to every niche campaign out there, they just make a shmorgasbord of options that all DMs are forced to address before they can play, even if most of them would have been perfectly happy with whatever rules the designers had chosen. 

Ideally, I want to read the rules and find them so appealling that I get all fired up to play.  I don't want to have to spend hours thinking about which of the 8 options for handling the Magic Item Economy is best for me and my group.  

If you enjoy spending your time that way, then have at hoss.  

Just don't force *all* DMs to have conversations with their players just because a minority of DMs want to make those coversations go a little bit smoother.


----------



## Ipissimus (May 16, 2008)

Holy avenger and Phasing weapons are awesome. But the description for Flaming Weapon... are they even trying?

'You can will this weapon to burst into flame.'

I can hear the catcalls now. Incendiary swords. Exploding hammers. Dipping clubs into oil and lighting them for the same effect...

How hard is it to make a weapon that burns with magical flame as you're wielding it sound COOL? Not very hard, but somehow they've managed to make it a joke. -sighs- maybe it wouldn't be as glaring if the other two fluff bits weren't better written.


----------



## FireLance (May 16, 2008)

The rumors are true! The following is a quote from the latest Confessions of a Full-Time Wizard:


			
				Confessions said:
			
		

> 4th Edition is supposed to make Dungeon Mastering easier. Digital tools, restructured rules, *more of what the players want*, so you—the DM—look even better.



4e really is all about giving the players what they want! It is no wonder that the PCs are allowed to buy and sell magic items and identify them after just five minutes!


----------



## Hambot (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> You mean like radio/timer detonated C4? Or bombs that are pre-programmed with specific altitudes to explode? Or what about cruise missiles with pre-plotted gps routes?  May as well just give everyone lightsabers with buttons that say "On" / "Off" if you want to go that route with magic items.




There's already precedent for magic items with buttons - Rod of Lordly might.  No reason why the flaming swords can't have them because it does make a lot of sense.

And yes, you can make more complicated items, but that doesn't mean the vast majority of bombs aren't grenades or RPG's.  I expect that Magic items would be the same.  Most would be very easy to use, while a few made by specialized sources would have all sorts of secret command words to stop them being used by the enemy.  Those would require Arcana checks to identify, as the excerpt suggests.

The funny thing is that the example weapons you describe are routinely used by people who are not super bright, but they DO know fighting.  Because that's what they've learned through experience.  shoving a detonator in a lump of explosive, arming it then flipping the switch is just learned behavior, that anybody can do if they have seen or heard about it.  And in a magical world, figuring out how to use a magical item without arcane training is like someone figuring out how to drive a car, when they rode in one once years ago and they've heard a lot about them, so they know whats possible if they just play around with it.

I imagine kids growing up in a D&D world would be told fairy tales about magical wonders so even if they never saw pictures in a Mages tome they would have a good idea about what sort of things to expect from a weapon, cloak or armour.  If many of the items in 4E do similar things in particular body slots, this makes more sense.  If you can't handle a fighter figuring out all the properties of a wondrous item, just let him figure out the most obvious one.

Complaining that the default rules set in a game of make-believe lets people's characters do fantastical things without realistic limitations defeats the purpose of escapism.  Considering that at every major point they do call out the DM has the option of tightening things up to fit with their campaign world I believe they are doing a good job of giving everybody the options they need.  The majority of posters here so far are in favour of much of the text, so it looks like they hit a default that just manages to please the majority, while allowing you do do otherwise if you wish.  We could all be upset that the default options presented in the book don't match up very well with the fantasy worlds that we have made and believe make the most sense, or with our default play style, but that is pointless because whatever they make the default, there will be lots of people whose style is different.

You seem to be mostly upset that the default of the whole book is permissive to the players, rather than moderately restrictive because that is how you prefer it.  In 4e Wizards seems to have tried to make every decision with maximising gameplay fun in mind.  They often sacrifice versimilatude in the interests of a faster paced game.  All you can reasonably ask for is that they offer outs to those who want to restrict gameplay options in order to increase their versimalitude.  Which is what they did in this case.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

JesterOC said:
			
		

> Ok I don't agree with this.  The core rules should be rules, not a bunch of suggestions. If the book is filled with suggestions that try to handle all situations, you end up wasting a lot of space and end up confusing new players (new players are looking to the DMG for answers not more questions) and wasting the time of older players that have their own system already.
> 
> The DMG needs to set firm rules, those rules should all have an internal consistancy and all work together smoothly.  Once that is established you could suggest other ways, and if the rules are great they may suggest how changes made to the rules as written will effect the other established rules.  That way in the best case scenarior the DMG will provide the answer to a given DM's question, as well as alternatives with a heads up on how the alternatives may break other systems.



Which is why the rules should be middle of the road instead of so far left for player empowerment.  Especially economics and how it relates to magic items.  Those specifically will drastically change a campaign setting depending on how it handles them.  Middle of the road with numerous suggestions would have been a far better way than having the PHB state flat out that if you can afford it, you can generally buy it.



			
				Parlan said:
			
		

> Ideally, I want to read the rules and find them so appealling that I get all fired up to play. I don't want to have to spend hours thinking about which of the 8 options for handling the Magic Item Economy is best for me and my group.



Three.  Mostly unrestricted, default, highly restricted.  That's all the dmg needs to really cover.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Hambot said:
			
		

> Complaining that the default rules set in a game of make-believe lets people's characters do fantastical things without realistic limitations defeats the purpose of escapism. Considering that at every major point they do call out the DM has the option of tightening things up to fit with their campaign world I believe they are doing a good job of giving everybody the options they need.



Which makes the DM look like a mean DM because they keep saying no to this, that or whatever.


> The majority of posters here so far are in favour of much of the text, so it looks like they hit a default that just manages to please the majority, while allowing you do do otherwise if you wish.



Yeah, because an online forum is representative of the hobby as a whole.  Somehow it even takes into account the opinions of all those people that don't read or post to forums.



> We could all be upset that the default options presented in the book don't match up very well with the fantasy worlds that we have made and believe make the most sense, or with our default play style, but that is pointless because whatever they make the default, there will be lots of people whose style is different.



All I'm saying is that it should have went with middle of the road and ambiguity when it comes to decisions that influence the tone of the whole campaign.  Magic items are a huge factor in that regard.



> You seem to be mostly upset that the default of the whole book is permissive to the players, rather than moderately restrictive because that is how you prefer it.  In 4e Wizards seems to have tried to make every decision with maximising gameplay fun in mind.  They often sacrifice versimilatude in the interests of a faster paced game.  All you can reasonably ask for is that they offer outs to those who want to restrict gameplay options in order to increase their versimalitude.  Which is what they did in this case.



And it still paints those DM's with a negative light.  They're "bad" dm's because they take options away from players.  I know this for a fact because I've seen it happen.  I've had players whine and complain about my houserules when I hand them out.  They whine because I say humans only or no arcane casters, because I'm trying to create a certain tone to the setting.

Maybe the issue here is actually using the word rules.  What I'm talking about are less rules and more about design choices when creating a campaign.  The books need to give equal emphasis to all options when it comes to campaign altering decisions.  Lots of magic, moderate magic, or little to no magic.  Running a no magic campaign would be easy.  Just reduce monster attacks, defenses, and skills by the magic threshold.  Boom... monsters are balanced for parties with no magic items.

The excerpt on magical items, which again, is a huge part of what sets the tone of a campaign, should have been ambiguous by providing some detail on all three options instead of offering a default mode and then a more restrictive option.


----------



## Ecaiki (May 16, 2008)

My magic items would come with more then an "on / off" button, they would have instructions too!  

Example of what would be inscribed on the hilt of a Flaming Sword, "Think me hot and I shall burn, think me cold and I shall not".


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Ecaiki said:
			
		

> My magic items would come with more then an "on / off" button, they would have instructions too!
> 
> Example of what would be inscribed on the hilt of a Flaming Sword, "Think me hot and I shall burn, think me cold and I shall not".



Or how about just describing the blade as covered in a flametouched sheen that glitter red in the failing light of day.  The crossgard and hilt could have a fire motif and that would provide a perceptive player all the clues they need or give someone skilled in arcane knowledge a path by which they can discern the true nature of the item and what its command word may be.

If thinking of fire is all that's required.  I wouldn't make them roll, but if it's a specific command word or perhaps fire in a different language... that requires study.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> You mean like radio/timer detonated C4? Or bombs that are pre-programmed with specific altitudes to explode? Or what about cruise missiles with pre-plotted gps routes?  May as well just give everyone lightsabers with buttons that say "On" / "Off" if you want to go that route with magic items.




Aria,

I'm glad that you've joined us here on ENworld, but I'm noticing a moderately aggressive tendency in your posting habits. Please could you increase your level of courtesy when discussing things with other people.

This goes for everyone else too please.

Thanks


----------



## AZRogue (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> And it still paints those DM's with a negative light.  They're "bad" dm's because they take options away from players.  I know this for a fact because I've seen it happen.  I've had players whine and complain about my houserules when I hand them out.  They whine because I say humans only or no arcane casters, because I'm trying to create a certain tone to the setting.




I disagree that this would change merely because the rule books were worded a certain way. What you're describing isn't bad DMing. Bad DMing is not knowing how to run and manage an interesting campaign that holds the players' interest. What you're describing is a STYLE of campaign. A style that many players don't want to play in. I submit that if the core rules had included more restrictions and set a more moderate tone as the default that players would have begun complaining that you didn't OPEN more options. What you seem to be looking for can't be gained from the wording of a rulebook but by locating players that actually want to play in that style of campaign.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (May 16, 2008)

Aria, I can't see the advantage in having a three-tier rules strategy that you propose. Your primary complaint appears to be that as a DM, if you want to have a house rule, it is in all probability going to be a restrictive one given the liberal nature of the new ruleset. This restrictive rule will make the players dislike you in some way and makes your job as DM more difficult. I have some thoughts on this:

Firstly, the three-tier system will not prevent the players disliking you. They will surely ask why you have chosen the more restrictive version and if they truly take offense at being limited by a house rule then surely they will take similar offense to your choice of the restrictive ruleset?

Secondly, house rules are either for flavour or a rules-fix. Flavour house rules are likely to be restrictive, strange and unliked by the sort of player you seem to be invoking. There's not much you can do about that other than make the flavour so immersive and high quality that the restrictions become a necessary sacrifice for how awesome your setting is. For rules fixes, I would never be able to play with a DM, or even DM players with a rules change that I couldn't justify to them. In 3.5 I changed Scorching Ray, for instance, into a single ray whose damage scaled 1d6/level, as I kept seeing the multiple attack routine abused and time-wasting. I told the players, they discusssed it with me and we agreed. If there had been a character whose schtick was abusing that rule I would have taken more time to accommodate them. I would, and would hope DMs in general don't, arbitrarily ban something.

My overall point really is that players are reasonable. Discuss why you want to make the changes you do, the restrictions you feel you need to impose to meet the requirements of your game, and it is your game, and I can't see why they would storm off unless they were particularly immature. Having the default restrictive ruleset you ask for would mean more work for those DMs that are happy to give the players freedom and restrict things only when necessary and with consultation. I don't want to houserule magic item economics because the rules say they aren't by default bought and sold. I might alter the numbers involved however, and I really doubt any player I've known would take offense to that (ok well there was this one guy but he was *special* in more ways than one..).


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 16, 2008)

I have an actual question to the readers of the thread: How many of you have bothered with magic item identification?

I mean, it's fun for the first two or three items... but considering the amount of items 3.5E doles out with treasure, I found that I always handwaved it after the first two or three levels of play. Plus I have the tendency to put magic items in their opponents' hands, so they usually have seen them in action already!

And from the verisimilitude side: Why would anybody craft magic items without marking them as such? For stealth? Swords aren't exactly unobtrusive, nor is armour. I'd even say that most magic item makes have reason to put in some personal touches, making them stand out.

And for the items not covered by "most"... well, some do need Arcana or even more involved methods.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Which makes the DM look like a mean DM because they keep saying no to this, that or whatever.



It isn't what's in the rulebook that makes the DM look like a mean DM, it's the DM always saying no to this, that or whatever.

I haven't seen WotC's market research, and likely never will. But, over all the time I've been playing, the number one reason I've heard from people who had tried DND and didn't want to play it again has been some variation of, "I tried that once and it was just some guy [though the word used was always less polite than guy] saying over and over, "You can't do that."

So, shifting the blame from the game to the DM making the restrictions is doing the right thing in my opinion. I'd even include a paragraph in the PHB explaining that while DM's are free to make changes to the game, not all DMs do (and even those that do don't always make more restrictive changes) and if changes are made that aren't to a players liking, players should find other games (perhaps using the opportunity to plug DDI as a place to meet other gamers and DMs).


----------



## AZRogue (May 16, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> I have an actual question to the readers of the thread: How many of you have bothered with magic item identification?




Standard houserule since AD&D was that the players would know what an item did or was by the next session, as an arbitrary length of time. We only saved the Identify stuff for very powerful items or artifacts. 

As a DM, of course, I would always try to sound doubtful when I told the players, though. "You're pretty sure the sword is a +2 Flametongue. You think." Just in case the item was cursed. Same way I handled trap checks. "Are there any traps on the door?" <die roll> "None that you've found." Always makes them pause.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (May 16, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> I have an actual question to the readers of the thread: How many of you have bothered with magic item identification?




In my groups it would typically be a Knowledge: Arcana check, or Spellcraft, or Craft: Alchemy for interesting items. Read Magic obviously dealt with scrolls. Low DCs for potions and ammunition, higher for weapons and armour and super-high for weird wondrous items. It was always more of an art than a hard-coded rule though


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 16, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> Magic weapons add d6 per plus _on crits_, and that's it.




Don't forget this line

*Enhancement: *Attack rolls and damage rolls

Magic weapons also add their plus to hit and damage (and it seems pretty likely that arcane and divine implements will do likewise. If the pregen DDXP wizard has a +2 wand he will probably get and extra +2 hit with his magic missiles and they will do 2d4+6 instead of 2d6+4)

Cheers


----------



## Ten (May 16, 2008)

I am forced to think that you, Aria, are seeing things in a bit of a limited fashion.  All of the suggestions you have brought forth so far seem to be very good ones by you, but I am not sure if you are taking into consideration what other people may feel.  When doing so, you need to realize that, you know, every opinion you don't have is probably represented by someone.  I have played in numerous campaigns where there were no houserules whatsoever.  The DM was new, or otherwise had no reason to create his own house rules.  They went with what the core books said.  House ruling is NOT universal, and to have the base assumption it is is folly.

In general, I feel it wise to err in the side of the new, inexperienced DMs as opposed to the long-time DMs.  People that have DMed for a long time know and live by rule 0.  They understand that they can change whatever they wish at anytime, regardless of what the books say.  But newer DMs NEED rules, not rule suggestions.  By offering a default, newer DMs are given a handle on how things work and older ones are not restricted.  By offering suggestions, older DMs "don't appear to be the bad guys" and newer DMs are left out in the cold.


----------



## Aenghus (May 16, 2008)

IMO the more house-ruled a particular campaign is the more important it is to be up-front about the house-rules. I try to be methodical and generally try to keep to the rules as written as that way its easier to get and keep players.  

If I had a heavily house-ruled game I would write out the changes on a sheet, and when recruiting players would given them the sheet so they knew what the campaign entailed and didn't have misconceptions when they actually sat down to play.

It's much better to find out that someone won't like the game quickly, rather than fit a square peg in a round hole.

As for the 4e rules, in general they look good to me. There will be a lot less magic items found in the average 4e campaign everyway - monsters won't need a load of magical crap to challenge the party that will only be sold as loot. The magic items that are found will be more significant (they should be picked anyway, but their greater rarity will make them stand out more).

As for the buying and selling of items, this is one of the most heavily house-ruled areas and I see this continuing. There are a lot of strong opinions on the topic. See above   

Re the identifying question, I prefer the easy option. I have seen it being made ridiculously difficult to ID magic items, something that is very off-putting to new players.

Remember, unlike previous editions, all the power sources can be at least a little magical.


----------



## nightspaladin (May 16, 2008)

First, I've got to say that I love the new system for magic items, but there is something that seems like it is missing from the flexiblity of 3.x and that is the ability to make a weapon with multiple properties. How do we combine them for the purposes of level?

For Example, using the examples in the article, can you make a +2 Flaming Phasing Long Bow? and if you can, what level is it?


----------



## Ecaiki (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Or how about just describing the blade as covered in a flametouched sheen that glitter red in the failing light of day.  The crossgard and hilt could have a fire motif and that would provide a perceptive player all the clues they need or give someone skilled in arcane knowledge a path by which they can discern the true nature of the item and what its command word may be.
> 
> If thinking of fire is all that's required.  I wouldn't make them roll, but if it's a specific command word or perhaps fire in a different language... that requires study.




My post was made in 100% humour only, I apologize if it wasn't obvious.

As for the article itself, I love it!  Will make it really easy to work it into multiple levels of magic use depending on the campaign world.


----------



## vagabundo (May 16, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> As a DM, of course, I would always try to sound doubtful when I told the players, though. "You're pretty sure the sword is a +2 Flametongue. You think." Just in case the item was cursed. Same way I handled trap checks. "Are there any traps on the door?" <die roll> "None that you've found." Always makes them pause.




Hehe, yeah I always do that too. Although sometimes, if they have gotten badly burned recently, they turn ultra paranoid and it drags the game to a halt. 

Still fun times! (for me  )



			
				nightspaladin said:
			
		

> First, I've got to say that I love the new system for magic items, but there is something that seems like it is missing from the flexiblity of 3.x and that is the ability to make a weapon with multiple properties. How do we combine them for the purposes of level?
> 
> For Example, using the examples in the article, can you make a +2 Flaming Phasing Long Bow? and if you can, what level is it?




I believe we are getting the DMG excerpt in a week or two, this was the PHB one. 

Rules for custom magic items would be in the DMG, I'd assume creating weapons with multiple properties is discussed and level guidelines included.  I'd assume.


----------



## Wormwood (May 16, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> How hard is it to make a weapon that burns with magical flame as you're wielding it sound COOL? Not very hard, but somehow they've managed to make it a joke.



Maybe it's a regional thing, but I can't find anything remotely funny about the phrase, "you can will this weapon to burst into flame."


----------



## Wormwood (May 16, 2008)

MyISPHatesENWorld said:
			
		

> It isn't what's in the rulebook that makes the DM look like a mean DM, it's the DM always saying no to this, that or whatever.



Amen.


----------



## AllisterH (May 16, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Maybe it's a regional thing, but I can't find anything remotely funny about the phrase, "you can will this weapon to burst into flame."




That makes two of us...The statement isn't awe-inspiring or anything but I'm not seeing the joke.

re: Item identification
*Shrug* 

I personally only used identify for artifacts/relics and cursed items. I mean, EVEN a 10th level fighter by now SHOULD know how magic items work....


----------



## Cirex (May 16, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Maybe it's a regional thing, but I can't find anything remotely funny about the phrase, "you can will this weapon to burst into flame."




I actually think of the Witch-King of Angmar challenging Gandalf at Minas Tirith. 

That's serious business and no joke at all!


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (May 16, 2008)

I like the article, and I really like the description of the weapons - simple to understand and tied in to other examples we've seen.

As regards the Identifying issue, surely the DM only has to keep saying "no" if the players keep challenging all the rules? Who are these players that see a game, with rules, and just whine and complain about everything instead of just getting on and playing?

As far as I can see, MAKING players make Arcana checks to identify everything would be more aggravating. We'd end up back with "Sigh, I hand all the loot to the Wizard, and go have a few beers whilst he does all the identifying..."

It's going to be much fun for the Wizard player, it bogs down the game and it's not an interesting use of time for anyone. If characters can just work out what most stuff does (and the article does say MOST items, not ALL) then that's simple and effective and works for most people, surely?


----------



## Voss (May 16, 2008)

Yeah, ok.  I can live with it.  When I DM, I'm taking items off the market and avoiding the merchant alliance silliness, but I can live with find 'em or make them yourself.
Someone selling an item of power would be a rare and special thing.

I can live with everyone IDing items (they are adventurers after all, its what they do), and everyone has a default skill of Knowing About the Shinies (which has no other use), though I could see restricting it to level + 5, and only things they're proficient in (or wonders).  

I just need another name for handwavium.      Also trying to decide whether I will stick the +1/5 levels into the character level progression... and what level to give it to the players.  5th is definitely too late- the players would have found 16 items by then, and would have started getting +2 items.   Maybe just start it at 1st.  The extra +1s will help, but not over-power too the point that it really matters.  So, 1,5,10,15,20,25.  And then items are just neat, but not a crutch.


----------



## ZappoHisbane (May 16, 2008)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> As far as I can see, MAKING players make Arcana checks to identify everything would be more aggravating. We'd end up back with "Sigh, I hand all the loot to the Wizard, and go have a few beers whilst he does all the identifying..."
> 
> It's going to be much fun for the Wizard player, it bogs down the game and it's not an interesting use of time for anyone. If characters can just work out what most stuff does (and the article does say MOST items, not ALL) then that's simple and effective and works for most people, surely?




Actually, I don't think I'd be having much fun as the wizard in that case either.  "I roll a 14, did I get that one?  Cool.  Crap, only an 8.  Ok, don't know that.  15?  No?  But the 14 worked?  *sigh*"  And then the wizard catches flak because we STILL don't know what some of the stuff does.


----------



## Heselbine (May 16, 2008)

Identify was just so annoying. And all that stuff about not knowing what magic items did. Just silly nonsense which got in the way of the fun.

The best thing about 4e (along with all the other best things about 4e) is the removal of silly pointless boredom-inducing badly thought-through 1st edition hangover rules.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (May 16, 2008)

I liked what I saw here.

There is no way I would want to have a three tier setup for the rules.  Then you need to have all three tiers listed for (practically) everything in the game.

HP:  Always Max, Average, Roll It
Magic: High, Medium, Low
Item Use: All At Will, Average, All 1/day
Item Id: 5 Minutes, 100gp + 1 hour, 100gp + 8 hours

Then, the house rules document would have to have a listing of what was used for everything.  Sure, it would be easy for DMs to say "All Moderate" or "All Hard" but you know that isn't how it would turn out in practice.

There is no way I could remember the we would be using the Max HP but the long ID times and the Moderate This and the Easy That and the Hard Other Thing.  I'd need them all written down and would greatly extend the House Rules sheet for our group.  It is much easier to say All As Written except for X, Y and Z.

And I'm a player in our group - not the DM.  I have no problem with House Rules and being told "No" at the start of a campaign.


----------



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Don't forget this line
> 
> *Enhancement: *Attack rolls and damage rolls
> 
> ...




Yeah, I did mean that as well - I had just been talking about their 'special abilities' and someone asked if the d6 was added to all damage so I wanted to be clear.


----------



## Wormwood (May 16, 2008)

Heselbine said:
			
		

> The best thing about 4e (along with all the other best things about 4e) is the removal of silly pointless boredom-inducing badly thought-through 1st edition hangover rules.



I prefer to think of them as barnacles encrusting the hull of my game, but '1st edition hangover rules' works too!


----------



## Andor (May 16, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> I assume we're back to Wands of Fire and Wands of Frost now, but if those magical implements add damage to fire or ice spells respectively I'm curious what the bonus is.




They allow you to change Bigby's Forceful Wedgie into Bigby's Flaming Wedgie, a much more feared spell.


----------



## Lizard (May 16, 2008)

Seems to me that identifying magic items could be a great skill challenge.

Failure means thinking the item is non-magical, or activating it in a damaging way, or just wasting charges (so that it can't be used until the next day).

Obvious skills include Arcana, History ("I recognize this blade! It was used in the battle of Squatront!"), Religion ("This symbol is the icon of the god of magic!"), and possibly Nature.


----------



## Lizard (May 16, 2008)

Heselbine said:
			
		

> Identify was just so annoying. And all that stuff about not knowing what magic items did. Just silly nonsense which got in the way of the fun.
> 
> The best thing about 4e (along with all the other best things about 4e) is the removal of silly pointless boredom-inducing badly thought-through 1st edition hangover rules.




See, I always thought it added to sense of wonder and immersion, that magic items didn't come with instruction manuals. 

"Welcome to happy joyous sword of much reaving! For avoiding all double badness, blade not to be touched with digits!"


----------



## AllisterH (May 16, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> See, I always thought it added to sense of wonder and immersion, that magic items didn't come with instruction manuals.
> 
> "Welcome to happy joyous sword of much reaving! For avoiding all double badness, blade not to be touched with digits!"




Yeah, but I don't think the previous method actually made them "wondrous".

I mean, maybe my gaming group was freakish, but in practice, when my group found "anything" we, simply would stick it in a bag and then AFTER the adventure, simply have the wizard cast identify in the downtime....


It would be handwaved away in the same way "natural healing" would be handwaved away in 1e/2e.( "ok, a month has passed, everyone is at full and here's what you get")

I'm not exactly sure what "wonderous" purpose that served....


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (May 16, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Seems to me that identifying magic items could be a great skill challenge.
> 
> Failure means thinking the item is non-magical, or activating it in a damaging way, or just wasting charges (so that it can't be used until the next day).
> 
> Obvious skills include Arcana, History ("I recognize this blade! It was used in the battle of Squatront!"), Religion ("This symbol is the icon of the god of magic!"), and possibly Nature.




This I completely agree with. For rare and powerful items, asking the players to dedicate some real time and effort to finding out what it is and what it does is exactly what I'd want.

I bought a great Dragon statue in the Dominican Republic, and I'm itching to put it down on the table and tell the players "You find...this!" and then watching them scratch their heads as they try and work out who made it, what it does, and what it's needed for...


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (May 16, 2008)

Originally Posted by Tallarn said:
			
		

> As far as I can see, MAKING players make Arcana checks to identify everything would be more aggravating. We'd end up back with "Sigh, I hand all the loot to the Wizard, and go have a few beers whilst he does all the identifying..."
> 
> It's *NOT*going to be much fun for the Wizard player, it bogs down the game and it's not an interesting use of time for anyone. If characters can just work out what most stuff does (and the article does say MOST items, not ALL) then that's simple and effective and works for most people, surely?






			
				ZappoHisbane said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't think I'd be having much fun as the wizard in that case either. "I roll a 14, did I get that one? Cool. Crap, only an 8. Ok, don't know that. 15? No? But the 14 worked? *sigh*" And then the wizard catches flak because we STILL don't know what some of the stuff does.




Whoops. Corrected my original post - missed a rather important word out there (now included in CAPS and bold so everyone can see how much of a difference it makes...)


----------



## Wormwood (May 16, 2008)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> This I completely agree with. For rare and powerful items, asking the players to dedicate some real time and effort to finding out what it is and what it does is exactly what I'd want.



Luckily, that's absolutely implicit in the new system (powerful or far-out items don't automagically ID themselves)

But there ain't much sense of wonder waiting 8 hours before you can write down _Potion of Clairaudience_.


----------



## Knightlord (May 16, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> But there ain't much sense of wonder waiting 8 hours before you can write down _Potion of Clairaudience_.




This.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Yeah, because an online forum is representative of the hobby as a whole.  Somehow it even takes into account the opinions of all those people that don't read or post to forums.



No, but you what has a chance of doing that? WotC's market research.

Also, while ENWorld certainly does not represent the gaming community as a whole, I believe it's fairly well-established (though I stand to be corrected) that the proportion of ENWorld members who are DMs exceeds the proportion in the general gaming population. As such, the fact that there are so many positive responses to these changes, in a group with a large proportion of DMs, implies that the majority of DMs are not too concerned with their reputation, and prefer to have fun playing the game.


----------



## hong (May 16, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> See, I always thought it added to sense of wonder and immersion, that magic items didn't come with instruction manuals.
> 
> "Welcome to happy joyous sword of much reaving! For avoiding all double badness, blade not to be touched with digits!"



 This is true. It is much more conducive to a sense of wonder to have the players piece together the instruction manual by themselves.

DC 20: "The runes on the top read: Welcome to happy joyous sword of much reaving!"

DC 25: "The runes on the bottom read: For avoiding all double badness..."

DC 30: "You see a message deep within the emerald on the pommel: ...blade not to be touched with digits!"


----------



## OchreJelly (May 16, 2008)

You know, I read the article and thought to myself “man, there’s really nothing to dislike about this one”.  I come here and see a long discussion on identify.  Really?  _Really_?

Honestly, I think the question this raises is “what does identify currently add to the game?”

For me it hasn’t been much.  All it tends to do is add to bookkeeping.  
Them: “Ok when we played last month you gave us this pile of items that is magic.  Now that we have downtime we identify.”
Me: “uh, let me dig through the module and notes from a month ago and let me compare that to the items on your list so I can tell you what is what.  Hmmm did I give you this sword?  I don’t see it on your list…”

Or

Them: “ok we are done with the adventure.  Do we have enough pearls?  No? Ok we go back to town to shop for pearls.”

Discussions about the number of pearls available can really take the wonder out of "wondrous items".

The only time I can see this sort of exchange being worthwhile is if the item is legendary, or some other kind of plot device.  Typically we are dealing with barrels of +1 rapiers hauled away from the drow raiders they defeated, I think it just leads to wasted time at the table.  It may not seem like much but it adds up.  I have seen table time wasted on details like the above so often that I’m glad to see it go.  These new rules seem to cover you on both your lesser magic items and your plot device items so it seems like a good fit for many playstyles.

As always, others’ mileage will vary.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 16, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> ...but I'm noticing a moderately aggressive tendency in your posting habits.



Not to dig on you, Aria, but perhaps you convey a similar message to your players - probably even without recognizing.

My players (as I'm the primary DM of my group) are pretty open about new things and rules - mainly because we discuss and vote over them.

For example, if I'd try to sell the "no-5-min-break-identification", I'd say something like that: "Hey guys, for the next game, I want to make magic a bit more mysterious to add to the atmosphere. So I don't want auto-identify, because it would break that atmosphere and gives you some extra opportunities to role-play a bit. Is that okay with you guys?"

And usually, they're open to at least try it (though I *as DM* handwaved item identification, because it drags the plot... "we need downtime", "we need to get pearls"... and so on). But then, my group is pretty open in general and also enjoys trying out other RPGs.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Just Another User (May 16, 2008)

Daeger said:
			
		

> Isn't the point of a low-magic game to make things a little more mundane? Just give them the bonuses, that's all they really need.




What I don't understand is, why they just didn't get rid of the bonuses at all? What is the point of them if they come automatically every 4 level.

And if I undestand correctly, does the low magic system mean than in a low-magic world adventurers are better than in a high-magic world?

world with magic items, the adventurer lose his weapon and have to fight with a different one. Fight at -x

world without magic items, the adventurer lose his weapon and have to fight with another one, fight with the same bonus.

with magic items, caught in a combat while not wearing his cloak of resistance (i.e attacked by assassins while sleeping at a inn), he have lower defences.

without magic items: same situation, his defenses are the same.

etc 

If you think about it an adventurer have it better in a world without magic items, even just for the money he save on equipment. 

Really just remove these bonuse from the system and let magic tiems being defined by their special abilities. This would remove a lot of other problems, like the wheelbarrow of  +1 rapiers, better than that stupid thresold.


----------



## Dragonblade (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I was one of them and couldn't find players because I had a specific campaign/story I wanted to run, but all the limitations I had to place on 3rd edition rules to get a low magic game turned people away.  The rules are quite capable of running a low magic setting, but the default presumption was magic rich and that's what most players expected just out of the PHB.




That's right. Because that's the most FUN for the majority of players. If you can't recruit players because they don't like your restrictions, maybe its because your restrictions aren't fun. And that seems like your problem. Not the game's problem.


----------



## Lacyon (May 16, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> What I don't understand is, why they just didn't get rid of the bonuses at all? What is the point of them if they come automatically every 4 level.




For one, they don't come automatically. For another, they're a mechanism that allows characters to get a little more powerful between level-ups.



			
				Just Another User said:
			
		

> And if I undestand correctly, does the low magic system mean than in a low-magic world adventurers are better than in a high-magic world?




Possibly. Much like PCs in Iron Heroes are more powerful than naked PHB PCs. Alternatively, you can do without the bonuses if you really want - just be aware that the intended balance isn't going to work properly without them.

That's fine if it's the way you prefer to run the game; the intended balance isn't the only one or the one that's necessarily the most fun for you. The tools the game provides will degrade in utility, though, especially at higher levels (e.g., a creature labeled as 21st-level might not actually be well-suited for 21st-level magic-less PCs).



			
				Just Another User said:
			
		

> Really just remove these bonuse from the system and let magic tiems being defined by their special abilities. This would remove a lot of other problems, like the wheelbarrow of  +1 rapiers, better than that stupid thresold.




Better for some, sure.


----------



## Stormtalon (May 16, 2008)

The insta-identify thing also helps out another group -- the League of Absent-Minded DMs (LAMDMs for short) of which I'm a long-standing (I think; not entirely sure when I joined) member.  Inevitably my players will go thru their list of "glowy items of unknown goodness" during downtime and ask me, "Ok, we have a ring here.  And, ummm, a glowing chaffing dish?  So, what do we do?  Wiz is identifying everything."  And I wind up going, "Durrr, ummm.  Damn, gimme a second here.  Now where the hell did I write those things down.  Do you remember what you killed when you got those?"

Now I can just let 'em know up front and all will be well.


----------



## Tervin (May 16, 2008)

To start my first real post here with something obvious: 

I think many of us here are in the same situation. We are planning our first 4th Edition campaign, reading every tidbit of info and analyzing how it will work with how we like to DM and the game we have planned out.

My gut reaction was negative to things like buying and selling magic items and automatic identifying what the items are for. My gut reaction to disenchanting/reenchanting was more of "Hmm that sounds like something I can work with..." And then it was time for my process. Why do they want things changed? Why did I react the way I did? Does this work with my campaign as it is? Can I make small changes in either the campaign or the rules to make it work? How would my players want it to work?

The way I feel right now I think it is the right route to have generally permissive standard rules in the books, and I have no reason to doubt the game balance in the 20% resale rule. I suspect that my gut reaction has to do with being an oldtimer gamer, used to playing in environments where we avoided all sorts of houserules (as much of our game was playtesting for conventions), and skeptic to change until have tried it. I do like the idea of making the game easy to manage for DMs and fun for the players, avoiding unnecessary restrictions and busywork for both parties. And these changes are clearly in that spirit.

On the other hand, with this complete information, I don't think I will play exactly the way rules are written in my campaign. My campaign world is simply not civilized and affluent enough to support magic item trading in general, that would be restricted to very few occasions during the story. Also, both with my story and my players' preferences in mind, magic items they find should be a little bit more mysterious. 

So, my preliminary houserulings are these: 
 Merchants very seldom have magic items for sale, and it is even less known for them to want to risk buying them from adventurers. (Not much chance of them finding a buyer in my little world.)
 On the other hand disenchant/reenchant might be given a slight boost, in that I might let it be a bit more powerful, but limit it so that the residue of the magic from the old item will spill over into the new one. In other words, if you take the power from a fire oriented item it can only give fire oriented power to another item. (This fits in real well with how my world works, and should make the game more fantasy and less numbers - I think.)
 As for identifying items I will let them automatically identify everything that is up to their own level of power. The more straightforward powerful items they will also id after a few minutes of testing, others will take arcana checks. But. In no case will I promise them that the information that they have is the whole truth. (And in some cases it really will not be.)

And how does this post fit in with the general debate in the thread? I think we should remember that they make the way they think will be the most fun for the most people. And that as a DM it is sometimes a bit scary to give up control, but players can be trusted to  want to have fun too, and not want to ruin the game. On the other hand, a strong story or world concept sometimes has to come first. So I might have to change a few things around, still trying to not be more restrictive than I absolutely need to in order to make the stories work.

(Sorry about the long post. Will try to hold back in the future.   )


----------



## D.Shaffer (May 16, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> What I don't understand is, why they just didn't get rid of the bonuses at all? What is the point of them if they come automatically every 4 level.



Because when people play DnD, they expect to have +1 swords. It's one of those sacred cows that they felt they couldnt get rid of.  

Now, if you have +1 Swords, you have to compensate for it in the math of the game.  On the plus side, they actually SHOW us the math, so it's easy to house rule.  If you want to automatically incorporate the bonus to the players? You know what the expected bonus is so you can compensate as needed.


----------



## Amakar (May 16, 2008)

*I must say, I like the changes*

Things seem simpler and more elegent. The effects shown are decent enough to be used, yet not overwhelming.

I liek the fact that there's no more finagling with different pluses, so that the "+" value of a weapon is still relevant at higher levels. (Seriously, the +1 of a +1 vorpal sword was insignificant)

Also they make critical hits splashy again, with a little variety and bonus dice (which are fun). While people may criticize this as undoing the whole 'double crit' rule from 3.x, the fact that the dice are somewhat set and it is not multiplying your strength bonus makes a huge difference (The doubling of the strength bonus skewed the value of having a damage bonus and made having a damage penalty even worse)

I know people will say there is 6th level item: the _ +2 vicious dagger _ that does 1d4+2 on a regular hit and 6+2d12 on a critical. But really, that does seem like fun to me.

In Character, I'd probably name that dagger and describe some cool hits with it when I crit.


----------



## Khaim (May 16, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> _Special: A holy avenger can be used as a holy symbol. It adds its enhancement bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls and the extra damage granted by its property (if applicable) when used in this manner. You do not gain your weapon proficiency bonus to an attack roll when using a holy avenger as an implement._
> 
> I'm pretty sure someone just lost a best with me, but I can't remember who.




Well, whoever lost your best was stupid. I even put a weapon like this in my test game- although said cleric only used it for a melee attack twice, so it was rather pointless. I think a paladin will get a lot more use out of such a weapon/implement.


----------



## Mercule (May 16, 2008)

To diverge a bit, I really like the +lvl/5 scheme.  It makes it pretty easy to eliminate magic items and just give a flat +1/5 lvls.  

Even better, you can leave magic items in, but not worry about the plus, just the special abilities.  I'll have to look at the full set of rules, but I'm very tempted to say that, all magic swords (for example) scale their bonus with the PC's level.  That way, the ancestral weapon the dwarven warlord is always useful.  Meanwhile, the tiefling fighter can continue to loot tombs for "better" weapons.  A magic weapon ceases to be "+1" or "+4".  It's just "+20%" and some toys.

That's really, really attractive as every PC IMC who uses a weapon has a signature weapon and most have custom crafted armor.  I'm already trying to fiddle with scaling weapons and such.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 16, 2008)

I don´t know if it was already mentioned, but now 1/5 market cost makes also sense from a mechanical point of view, and not only common sense:

if find a fire dagger +X, you can live with it, or you can use a combination of disenchant and enchant to transfair the fire property to your great axe, which is then exactly a fire greataxe +X-1



edit: although of course a +2 weapon beeing worth 5 times as much as a +1 weapon is quite a steep price increase...


----------



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

If you ditch all the +s, here's the suggestion I gave someone else for one possible interesting way to stagger things:

At 1/6/11/16/21/26, you deal +Xd6 on crits
2/7/12/17/22/27 +X attack 
3/8/13/18/23/28 +X damage
4/9/14/19/24/29 +X AC
5/10/15/20/25/30 +X defenses

I'd also consider making a small # of additional powers available. For example, an extra level 1 encounter power at 2, level 2 utility power at 3, level 1 daily power at 4... and upgrade those every 5 levels to a power 4 levels higher, I'm guessing. I'd also consider maybe getting multiple utilities to make up for the fact that you get a lot more utility items than attack ones.


----------



## Lizard (May 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> This is true. It is much more conducive to a sense of wonder to have the players piece together the instruction manual by themselves.
> 
> DC 20: "The runes on the top read: Welcome to happy joyous sword of much reaving!"
> 
> ...




I completely agree.


----------



## hong (May 16, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I completely agree.



 It's that bad, huh?


----------



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

I love this messageboard sometimes


----------



## Stormtalon (May 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> This is true. It is much more conducive to a sense of wonder to have the players piece together the instruction manual by themselves.
> 
> DC 20: "The runes on the top read: Welcome to happy joyous sword of much reaving!"
> 
> ...




And then they're left wondering if the sword has a curse that's only invoked when the blade comes into contact with written representations of numbers....  and _why_.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

MyISPHatesENWorld said:
			
		

> It isn't what's in the rulebook that makes the DM look like a mean DM, it's the DM always saying no to this, that or whatever.



...

If the rules were written intelligently with a conservative outlook on what's allowed in campaigns, then the DM wouldn't have to say no in the first place, thus they would not look mean.  So yes, it is a fault of the book that DM's who have to houserule stuff and say no are made to look mean.  D&D isn't just about high magic / high fantasy settings.  It has the capability to be used for a variety of campaigns and WotC should have went middle of the road.  That would allow the default setting to be a magic is uncommon points of light campaign where items are wondrous and you'll most likely only find them adventuring or very rarely from specific merchants.  Then if the DM's wanted, they could give double standard treasure for magic rich campaigns and have the magic shops.  Or the DM could abolish all magic items, reduce npc stats by the threshold and poof.  Low to no magic.  Very easy and more appealing to a variety of gamers instead of just the magic rich gamers.



> I haven't seen WotC's market research, and likely never will. But, over all the time I've been playing, the number one reason I've heard from people who had tried DND and didn't want to play it again has been some variation of, "I tried that once and it was just some guy [though the word used was always less polite than guy] saying over and over, "You can't do that."



And if the rules were written to be a little more conservative... you know middle of the road, guess what?! The DM's would not have to say no to a half dozen things every game.  The DM's that want the overabundant magic item crap would be able to say, yes you can get that and the DM's that want a normal game could stick to the rules and not have to say no.



> So, shifting the blame from the game to the DM making the restrictions is doing the right thing in my opinion.



Yeah, let's punish all the dm's that have campaigns they have been running for years because they want to keep running those campaigns and maybe find some new players or something.  Let's punish dm's and provide players with an even bigger sense of entitlement that is already way out of control.  I'm sick of players that whine because I won't allow them to use the latest splatbook with the next arms race upgrade to feats and powers and prc's.  My campaign setting, my rules.  I don't need craptastic splatbooks from WotC ruining my setting.



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> That's right. Because that's the most FUN for the majority of players. If you can't recruit players because they don't like your restrictions, maybe its because your restrictions aren't fun. And that seems like your problem. Not the game's problem.



Yeah, because high magic automatically means "fun". Give me a break.


----------



## Xanaqui (May 16, 2008)

I can deal with the ID rules from the article. I've thought for a long time that some (or all) items should be able to be used pretty much immediately upon acquisition, which mechanics like "Identify" make more difficult. I also think that Identifying an item should be far cheaper than buying it (if you consider that the seller and the buyer would both likely want to be certain of what they're exchanging, that's the cost of 2 identifies, even if the item has no significant value).



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> It's not your game though.  It's WOTC's game.  You just play in it.
> 
> I consider "setting details" things like "you buy your magic items from Joe in my world, he lives in the city of Citysburg." and "The elves haven't been seen in a number of years due to some event lost to the past, they aren't allowed as player characters."
> 
> ...



I gather that you aren't fond of Dark Sun 

I tend to modify any RPG to taste, once I've played with it enough. I like designing and playtesting rules modifications.

In the last 3.x game I finished running, I altered:
1) The Cosmology
2) The Panetheon
3) Multiple classes
4) Multi-classing rules
5) Many magic rules (mostly weakening magic that competed with or enhanced skills)
6) Several skills
7) Movement rules (yes, including walking)
8) Vision/hearing rules

Now, many (5-8) of these were mostly hidden in a pervasive terrain, but they were rules all the same.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 16, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Seems to me that identifying magic items could be a great skill challenge.
> 
> Obvious skills include Arcana, History ("I recognize this blade! It was used in the battle of Squatront!"), Religion ("This symbol is the icon of the god of magic!"), and possibly Nature.




I'm already doing this in my game. It's sort of a blend of Monte's BOXM identify rules, and 4e skill challenges.


----------



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

In my last 3.5 game I modified (where modified mostly means recreated from scratch in a different way) all the classes, all the feats, all the spells, all the monsters, and the rules for all 'special attacks' like grapple, trip, etc.

But I left the rest mostly the same 

Weirdly, it was still D&D - it just worked a lot different. Lot of similarities to stuff in 4e actually. That's one of the reasons I took so quickly to 4e. I had grown tired of a lot of basic math and assumptions in 3e and was designing my way out of it... then they announced 4e and as time went by there were more and more similarities.


----------



## Wormwood (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> If the rules were written intelligently with a conservative outlook on what's allowed in campaigns, then the DM wouldn't have to say no in the first place, thus they would not look mean.



Some people prefer a more open baseline than a more restrictive one.

Luckily, you have years and years of nice 'conservative' rulesets to choose from.


----------



## JuJutsu (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> ... My campaign setting, my rules...




...and players always have the option to vote with their feet.


----------



## Wormwood (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Let's punish dm's and provide players with an even bigger sense of entitlement that is already way out of control.  I'm sick of players that whine because I won't allow them to use the latest splatbook with the next arms race upgrade to feats and powers and prc's.  My campaign setting, my rules.



Are they enjoying the game? If so, then rock on. If not, then why not?


----------



## D'karr (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Yeah, because high magic automatically means "fun". Give me a break.




I tend to see the problem, and it seems to me like it's not the rules...


----------



## Xanaqui (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> ...
> <snip>
> D&D isn't just about high magic / high fantasy settings.  It has the capability to be used for a variety of campaigns and WotC should have went middle of the road.  That would allow the default setting to be a magic is uncommon points of light campaign where items are wondrous and you'll most likely only find them adventuring or very rarely from specific merchants.  Then if the DM's wanted, they could give double standard treasure for magic rich campaigns and have the magic shops.  Or the DM could abolish all magic items, reduce npc stats by the threshold and poof.  Low to no magic.  Very easy and more appealing to a variety of gamers instead of just the magic rich gamers.



My point of surprise is largely that 3.x seemed to have high magic as a default, and at least the DMG explicitly had rules for buying and selling magic items easily, and at only a 50% loss. I'm confused why you feel that 4.x is worse from your perspective than 3.x in this regard; I'd think that it would be better (if not quite as good as previous editions).



			
				Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> And if the rules were written to be a little more conservative... you know middle of the road, guess what?! The DM's would not have to say no to a half dozen things every game.  The DM's that want the overabundant magic item crap would be able to say, yes you can get that and the DM's that want a normal game could stick to the rules and not have to say no.



I don't feel that having to say "no" to something is a punishment to me. Nor, as a player, do I feel that being told "No, there are no magic item markets - the Goddess of Death and Magic kills everyone who tries to exchange a magic item for anything of value" is more than a mild, transient disappointment when I play (unless my PC is killed without warning when trying to buy a meal with a healing potion).


----------



## Wormwood (May 16, 2008)

Xanaqui said:
			
		

> Nor, as a player, do I feel that being told "No, there are no magic item markets - the Goddess of Death and Magic kills everyone who tries to exchange a magic item for anything of value" is more than a mild, transient disappointment when I play.



But as a player I will always ask why the DM feels the need to apply such a restriction.

If it adds to fun, then cool. If not, then perhaps he should reexamine his premises.


----------



## ZappoHisbane (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Yeah, because high magic automatically means "fun". Give me a break.



For most, it seems the answer is "Yes, it does."  Most does not mean all, and it apparently doesn't include you.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> But as a player I will always ask why the DM feels the need to apply such a restriction.
> 
> If it adds to fun, then cool. If not, then perhaps he should reexamine his premises.



The reason for the restrictions is plainly evident in the campaign setting.  Witch Hunters scouring the lands for those born with the Talent, the tainted ones touched by Evil and all she breeds.  I've run the campaign successfully in both 2nd and 3rd edition with a variety of groups.  Most of the players enjoyed it, even the ones who were doubtful because of the restrictions on magic.

Seriously, look at the troublesome disconnect if a DM, running a low magic campaign setting with mage hunters and the like... just let the pc's have whatever magic they wanted without any penalty.  Buy/sell as needed... because it's in the PHB.  It would completely ruin the nature of the campaign setting, which is entirely doable with any edition.


----------



## Xanaqui (May 16, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> But as a player I will always ask why the DM feels the need to apply such a restriction.
> 
> If it adds to fun, then cool. If not, then perhaps he should reexamine his premises.




Heck, I'm used to dungeons which are dry below the water table, alterations to the basic laws of physics, and (when I play 4E) Pi being equal to 2 (or 3 on a Hex map). 

The lack of magic item markets is something pretty minor in comparison. I'd just prefer to know about it up front.


----------



## hong (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> The reason for the restrictions is plainly evident in the campaign setting.  Witch Hunters scouring the lands for those born with the Talent, the tainted ones touched by Evil and all she breeds.  I've run the campaign successfully in both 2nd and 3rd edition with a variety of groups.  Most of the players enjoyed it, even the ones who were doubtful because of the restrictions on magic.




If you've managed to run the campaign successfully and your players enjoyed it, then what are you bitching about?


----------



## AllisterH (May 16, 2008)

Um, I'll guess I'll ask.

What does "Identifying items" by only a specific spell, "Identify" actually bring to the game?I'm serious, what was I doing wrong  IMC that made it so that other DMs consider identifying items such an important endeavour?

EDIT: If you can run a low magic item campaign in 3rd, mayb I'm reading something differently about the excerpt but why wouldn't you actually have an easier time in 4e?


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

ZappoHisbane said:
			
		

> For most, it seems the answer is "Yes, it does."  Most does not mean all, and it apparently doesn't include you.
> 
> Not that there's anything wrong with that.



I am not claiming high magic == no fun.  I am not making any claim about any way to play being more fun for anyone.  What I want is for low, normal, and high magic settings to be given equal time in the books.  To make it clear that it's the dm who sets the ground rules when it comes to magic especially.  There's already far too much player entitlement crap out there because of all the splatbooks.  We don't need it forced on dm's anymore than it already is.

Low magic can be just as fun as high magic or normal magic.  It has to be tailored to the campaign setting though and the PHB should *not* give players a sense that they are entitled to all the magic they want and can afford.  The wording in the preview is horrible in that regard.


----------



## Wormwood (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> There's already far too much player entitlement crap out there because of all the splatbooks.  We don't need it forced on dm's anymore than it already is.



You keep repeating that.

But you fail to see that there are plenty of GM's (myself included) who *like* what you call "player entitlement crap".

I really enjoy a more cooperative gaming experience. I like it when players take charge of their character's story in fundimental ways. I like that 4e agrees with me on this.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> If you've managed to run the campaign successfully and your players enjoyed it, then what are you bitching about?



Because finding acceptable and reliable players that will give the campaign a shot grew progressively harder as WotC released more and more splatbooks with even more powerful magic and more powerful classes, broken feats, and the like.  They won't even give a low magic campaign a shot unless they're allowed to play whatever class they want, regardless if it fits into the campaign.  WotC made it harder for dm's to run campaigns their way, with the increasing amount of player entitlement they put into their books.



			
				Allister said:
			
		

> What does "Identifying items" by only a specific spell, "Identify" actually bring to the game?I'm serious, what was I doing wrong IMC that made it so that other DMs consider identifying items such an important endeavour?
> 
> EDIT: If you can run a low magic item campaign in 3rd, mayb I'm reading something differently about the excerpt but why wouldn't you actually have an easier time in 4e?



It's not about whether or not you can run it in 4th edition, it's the wording in the PHB and the articles I've read.  They're creating a sense of D&D, is by default a magic rich setting where players get all the magic items they want for all their slots and if they have the gold, they can buy it.  It makes DM's out to be the badguy when the DM is forced to say no to that kind of crap.  WotC should have went with a more conservative approach to elements of the rulebooks that can drastically alter the tone/genre of a campaign setting. 

Accessibility to magic items is a huge part of what differentiates campaign/gameplay styles from each other.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> What I want is for low, normal, and high magic settings to be given equal time in the books.




While I can't be sure about "equal time" the previews have stated out right - multiple times I believe - that low magic should be easy this time around.  We have also had this confirmed by a WotC employee (I don't have search capability so I can't track it down): build in the expected pluses to weapons and armor and ditch most (if not all) of the magic items for the other body slots since they are (supposedly) not needed for purposes of the power curve.

I fail to see the low magic problem given the information we have so far.  Once the books come out there may be a problem - but so far this is the best setup to have High Magic and Low Magic campaigns.  Much, much easier for Low Magic than 3.X was.

As far as player expectation goes, tell me at the beginning what the settings of the campaign are and I'll be fine with it.  And I'm a player.  If my DM tells me there's no magic then there is no magic.


----------



## C_M2008 (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> If the rules were written intelligently with a conservative outlook on what's allowed in campaigns, then the DM wouldn't have to say no in the first place, thus they would not look mean.  So yes, it is a fault of the book that DM's who have to houserule stuff and say no are made to look mean.  D&D isn't just about high magic / high fantasy settings.  It has the capability to be used for a variety of campaigns and WotC should have went middle of the road.  That would allow the default setting to be a magic is uncommon points of light campaign where items are wondrous and you'll most likely only find them adventuring or very rarely from specific merchants.  Then if the DM's wanted, they could give double standard treasure for magic rich campaigns and have the magic shops.  Or the DM could abolish all magic items, reduce npc stats by the threshold and poof.  Low to no magic.  Very easy and more appealing to a variety of gamers instead of just the magic rich gamers.
> 
> ...




Can I play in your game? It sounds like the sort of game I would enjoy: gritty, low magic, more than a couple PC deaths(and if it's my PC that's more than fine), where the characters have to rely on their wits, skills and abilities alone to help them.  

I largely agree with your assesment; however I would say that 4e seems easier to modify in the magic item department than 3.x at the least.  I would hope there are multiple suggestions in the DMG as to how to modify the magic level to a desired point.

For an idea (in progress) I had on altering the 4e magic items for low magic check out this thread on the wizards boards Low magic campaign: item changes


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> You keep repeating that.
> 
> But you fail to see that there are plenty of GM's (myself included) who *like* what you call "player entitlement crap".
> 
> I really enjoy a more cooperative gaming experience. I like it when players take charge of their character's story in fundimental ways. I like that 4e agrees with me on this.



I keep repeating it because it's a problem.  Its not something you should like.  The DM has to have control over what is allowed in their campaign.  Period.  They can listen to player suggestions and think it over, but the players should not ever expect to get their way all the time, like it seems the PHB is being written for 4th edition.  Every article and excerpt I've read about the phb keeps pointing to player entitlement and it's bullcrap.  I don't want my campaigns ruined and I'm sick of the rulebooks making me out to be the villain.

It just makes perfect sense to me for a game to be designed middle of the road.  That way it offense the least amount of players and dm's.  Magic rich is not middle of the road.  WotC made a mistake with how they're wording campaign effecting aspects of the game in the PHB.  Stuff like that should have been left in the DMG period and each broad style given at least a blurb.

Edit : I've gotta go run some errands, but I'm not arguing about whether or not 4th edition can handle different styles of campaigns.  What I am arguing against and criticizing is the tone with which the writers have written the rules in the book.  The rules are fine.  Easily modded and well thought out for the most part.  My issues, again, is how they're written.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (May 16, 2008)

As far as identification goes, this is how it worked in our group:

Player A: [Casts detect magic.]
Player B: How many magic items?
Player A: Seven.
Player B: [Removes 700 gp from treasure haul.]
DM: Okay, this is what you have...

Leaving item unidentified just made more work for our DM.  He had to keep track of what items we got where so he could remember what they were.  If an item got used in combat it slowed things down when he had to find the sheet of paper the item was on.  And woe be to the session where an unknown weapon got used...

"My attack roll was 24... as far as I know."

Then the DM (who has admitted that math isn't his strong point) would need to take my roll, find the sheet of paper with the weapon stats on it, remember what I rolled and adjust the number accordingly, find the paper with the monster stats (which likely got moved or buried when finding the weapon stats) and find out if the attack hits.  Then comes the fact that the player won't know for sure how much damage the weapon does or if there are any special side effects.

Or our DM could just tell us what the weapon does...


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Because finding acceptable and reliable players that will give the campaign a shot grew progressively harder as WotC released more and more splatbooks with even more powerful magic and more powerful classes, broken feats, and the like.  They won't even give a low magic campaign a shot unless they're allowed to play whatever class they want, regardless if it fits into the campaign.  WotC made it harder for dm's to run campaigns their way, with the increasing amount of player entitlement they put into their books.




If the people you game with won't play unless they get their way - maybe you should consider not gaming with them? Or maybe you should consider offering them something else?

You, as the DM, have the right to make house rules. This is an absolute given for me. If the players don't want to play by your rules, they can say. You are under no obligation to accept players in your games.

However, WotC are under no obligation to provide materials for YOUR style of gaming. They are trying to produce a game that sells, and that is enjoyable to play. If it doesn't suit your tastes, that doesn't make it wrong or badly designed - it simply doesn't suit your tastes.

As has been noted, the previews have bent over backwards to part-explain why low-magic is easier to work with - the math is laid clear. In your Wizard hunter game, you can keep the magic items out of the players hand, include the +1/5 levels to their attack, damage and defences, and with little other modification they'll be fine to fight level appropriate monsters.



			
				Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> It makes DM's out to be the badguy when the DM is forced to say no to that kind of crap.  WotC should have went with a more conservative approach to elements of the rulebooks that can drastically alter the tone/genre of a campaign setting.




You keep saying this and I'll keep disagreeing with you.

A DM who wants to play a certain way is not a badguy - if the players don't like the style of the DM they shouldn't play in that game, and if the DM doesn't enjoy running games for the group then they shouldn't.

You seem to be blaming your problems with your players on WotC's decisions. You always have the choice of what style of game you run, with what players. Anything WotC does is seperate from that.


----------



## TheWyrd (May 16, 2008)

If the game wasn't set to High magic then Psionicists would walk all over Wizards when they get released in the PHB II.


----------



## Andur (May 16, 2008)

Aria, the biggest part of your problem is that the game is not me versus them.  It is also not YOUR campaign, but "our" campaign.  The story and the plot only progress as far as the players allow, as a DM you adjust the focus of the setting based upon the needs/wants/desires of the players.

Last I checked in a "typical" DnD game only 20% of the participants were DM's.  Considering that the vast majority of people who play DnD live in the free world, they are pretty use to the concept of one person, one vote, and majority rules.

From what you've posted here I doubt I would ever play in one of your games, and I rarely do anything but "low magic" campaigns.  It sounds too much like you want to be the author of a book, the other players are just there to fulfill the role needs of the books, but they really don't have any "say" in the book, they are merely literary puppets.  Been there, done that, and no I'm not going to save the kingdom just because that is what the DM's plot/story calls for, in fact we'll start up/head up a rebellion and take advantage of that impending undead army marching in on the western front in order to overthrow the realm, make a deal with the devil, and run this place the way we want...

Default rules are just fine, and "modding" them works well too.  You'd think that TSR/WotC have never put out alternate settings which "mod" the default rules.  Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Birthright, Planescape and Dragonlance are all fine examples of TSR/WotC changing the default rules to fit the settings, and it doesn't seem like people have problems with the concept.


----------



## hong (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Because finding acceptable and reliable players that will give the campaign a shot grew progressively harder as WotC released more and more splatbooks with even more powerful magic and more powerful classes, broken feats, and the like.  They won't even give a low magic campaign a shot unless they're allowed to play whatever class they want, regardless if it fits into the campaign.  WotC made it harder for dm's to run campaigns their way, with the increasing amount of player entitlement they put into their books.




But if you're running the campaign successfully and your players are having fun, why are you regularly having to find new players?


----------



## Cadfan (May 16, 2008)

1. Identifying items has never added one whit of pleasure to my gaming experience.  

I see nothing wrong with letting characters figure out what most weapons do after experimenting with them a bit.  "Cuts really well" isn't that hard to figure out.  And once that's figured out, I don't have a problem telling the player the numbers.  The numbers don't exist in-game anyways, so who cares?  The character knows what he knows, and nothing is added by keeping the player in the dark over whether the sword is +2 or +3.  

Except confusion.  It does add confusion when the player uses the sword.

2. Whining about alleged player senses of entitlement while simultaneously proclaiming that "the DM does all the work so the DM gets to make all the decisions" is possibly the least attractive feature in a DM that I could dream up.

If you make changes to the base game, your players will be uncertain.  You're adding something new.  Prove to them that your changes are worthwhile, and chances are they'll be fine with them.  Complain about their sense of entitlement, and the only thing you accomplish is assuring everyone within earshot of exactly who it is with the bloated sense of entitlement.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> The DM has to have control over what is allowed in their campaign.  Period.




And the DM does.  Period.  And this is coming from a player.



			
				Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Every article and excerpt I've read about the phb keeps pointing to player entitlement and it's bullcrap.




Heck, most of what I'm seen on the forums say 4e is to restrictive.  "Only 20% resell value?  That's stupid."  And then there was the 'rings at 11th level' issue (which seems to no longer be there).



			
				Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I don't want my campaigns ruined and I'm sick of the rulebooks making me out to be the villain.




Since when is a DM saying what happens in their campaign making them out to be a villain.  If the DM says there are no elves as PCs there are no elves as PCs.  If the DM says a spells works like 'this' then it works like 'this'.  Period.

And this is coming from a player.


----------



## Wormwood (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I keep repeating it because it's a problem.  *Its not something you should like.  The DM has to have control over what is allowed in their campaign.  *Period.  They can listen to player suggestions and think it over, but the players should not ever expect to get their way all the time, like it seems the PHB is being written for 4th edition.  Every article and excerpt I've read about the phb keeps pointing to player entitlement and it's bullcrap.  I don't want my campaigns ruined and I'm sick of the rulebooks making me out to be the villain.



I respectfully disagree, especially with the more dogmatic, bolded excerpt.

Because when I run a game (any game, not just D&D), we work out these things as a group.

I'm not an autocrat, I'm just the guy who runs scenarios and adjudicates the rules we all agree to play under. But it's *our * game, and *our * stories. 

So how about you play your way, I'll play mine.


----------



## Lacyon (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> It just makes perfect sense to me for a game to be designed middle of the road.





How much magic is "high magic"? How much magic is "low magic"?

There is a distinct possibility that the middle of the road is not where you think it is.


----------



## AZRogue (May 16, 2008)

Aria, I would once again suggest that changing the way the rules are written will NOT keep you from saying "no" to players. Why? Because the players are going to ask that you run with the options they want to play under, even if they aren't default. So you would, still, have to say "no". The solution is to locate, if possible, players who appreciate your style of play and court them.

I also have an observation: you seem very confrontational when it comes to players. I imagine that you and your campaign have been burned in the past and you're a bit leery of players painting you and your game in a poor light. The only problem is that your wariness of player power (and they do have power, since they can get up and leave) communicates itself in what you say, at least online. If I was a player and I caught a hint from a DM that they didn't trust me and were watching me, on probation so to speak, then I would quickly leave. People want to enter a game feeling trusted and looking forward to the good times they'll be having, not worried that they're not trusted and the DM is half convinced that they're going to screw the game up any second. 

I hope I didn't offend as it wasn't my intention, just my honest opinion.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (May 16, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> But it's *our * game, and *our * stories.




Just want to add this to my last statement.  It is a group story.  *Everyone* should have fun - even the DM.  *Everyone* should get some say as to what is going on - even the players.

If the DM says the players can not play elves: no elf PCs.

If the Players say they want PrCs, they should be able to talk about it with the DM.

If something comes up mid-campaign and the DM wants to change something they should be able to talk with the players and change it.

If something comes up mid-campaign and the players want to change something they should be able to talk with the DM and change it.

D&D is a group effort:  The DM gets the set the stage, the players get to shape the play.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 16, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Aria, I would once again suggest that changing the way the rules are written will NOT keep you from saying "no" to players. Why? Because the players are going to ask that you run with the options they want to play under, even if they aren't default. So you would, still, have to say "no". The solution is to locate, if possible, players who appreciate your style of play and court them.
> 
> I also have an observation: you seem very confrontational when it comes to players. I imagine that you and your campaign have been burned in the past and you're a bit leery of players painting you and your game in a poor light. The only problem is that your wariness of player power (and they do have power, since they can get up and leave) communicates itself in what you say, at least online. If I was a player and I caught a hint from a DM that they didn't trust me and were watching me, on probation so to speak, then I would quickly leave. People want to enter a game feeling trusted and looking forward to the good times they'll be having, not worried that they're not trusted and the DM is half convinced that they're going to screw the game up any second.
> 
> I hope I didn't offend as it wasn't my intention, just my honest opinion.



An alternative possibility - Aria has found the perfect group for their playstyle, but is worrying about like-minded DMs without such a group.

In that case, he is worrying about the wrong thing. The rules can't give you the group that is compatible to your playstyle. You will have to find that group. 

If a players enjoys high magic campaigns where magical items tell in a clear voice what they can do and how you activate them, they won't enjoy playing with a DM that tells them they need to find a sage to discover what the slightly glowing sword does. Even if the rules explicitly say that this is a valid approach or even standard assumption.


----------



## Tervin (May 16, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Identifying items has never added one whit of pleasure to my gaming experience.




Agreed. 

And as DM and story writer I am really happy to be without it. Why? Because now I don't have to cheat to keep secrets about magic items from my players. If I want my players to gradually figure out how a certain unusual item works over several adventures I can do that without bending the rules. When I created an item like that a while back I realised I would have to bend the rules and lie to the players in order to make it work. With 4th Edition I actually get the power to give out partial information about items, without the players realising it.

Identify is magic that takes away the magic in magic.


----------



## Keenath (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> What I want is for low, normal, and high magic settings to be given equal time in the books.



Seems to me that's what's going on here.  It says, "Here's the normal level.  If you want to play low magic, you should reduce treasure by this much and give the players these bonuses to attack, damage, AC, and defense."

That's strong support for a low-magic game; it tells you exactly how to adjust everything to play with a low magic flavor (and low-magic IS only a flavor decision) while maintaining the mathematical mechanics.

What more do you really want?  I'm sure in a few years, since they're doing this "three books and out" method with campaign settings, you'll have Darksun or another low-magic CS book that will have even more support for such a game.



And as far as identifying magic items:
I think it's good and fine that a fighter can ID a magic sword without being Arcana trained.  This is the difference between a user and an engineer.

You don't need to understand how a car's engine or transmission works to be able to tell quite a lot about it by driving it around.  You can quickly learn whether the car has a powerful or weak engine; whether the steering is loose or tight; whether the center of gravity is high or low; how well it grips the road... you can even tell more specific information like whether it has antilock brakes and cruise control.

Similarly, a fighter, who is a "magic weapon end-user", doesn't need to know the theory behind magic weapons to be able to quite quickly learn what it does.  He's a weapon expert in a world full of magic weapons; of course he'll have general knowledge of how these things work.  He can easily tell if the weapon feels lighter than it should, if the edge is sharper than normal, or if the blade seems to guide itself at whatever he aims at.

Arcana should be saved for really obscure effects -- as it seems they have done.


----------



## AllisterH (May 16, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> How much magic is "high magic"? How much magic is "low magic"?
> 
> There is a distinct possibility that the middle of the road is not where you think it is.




That's a good question.

Aria, I think 4E actually is lower on the scale than previous editions...

Unless my math is wrong, a PC gain 0.8 items per level and when a 5 person party reaches the Paragon Tier, they will have the following (assuming they don't sell any items)

1 level 2 magic item
2 level 3 magic items
3 level 4 magic items
4 level 5 magic items
.
.
.
.
.
4 level 11 magic items
3 level 12 magic items
2 level 13 magic items
1 level 14 magic items


Among a 5 person party? That doesn't seem excessiver at all, especially at 10th level when most of a person's magical items are going to be much lower level than they are...


----------



## Cadfan (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I keep repeating it because it's a problem.  Its not something you should like.  The DM has to have control over what is allowed in their campaign.  Period.  They can listen to player suggestions and think it over, but the players should not ever expect to get their way all the time, like it seems the PHB is being written for 4th edition.  Every article and excerpt I've read about the phb keeps pointing to player entitlement and it's bullcrap.  I don't want my campaigns ruined and I'm sick of the rulebooks making me out to be the villain.



The reason no one is agreeing with you even though you think you are making good arguments is because they are reading between the lines of what you write.

Frankly, you seem to view the world through a very crabbed lens.  You describe in your posts a situation where you, the DM, has put sweat, blood and tears into creating a campaign.  And then along come these players, these snot nosed _players_, and insist that they are entitled to things that you did not include in your campaign.  Soon, a personality conflict ensues, which could have been avoided had only the rulebook more clearly spelled out your authority.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are experienced players and dungeon masters, and we've rarely encountered this problem.  In general, if a dungeon master makes a restriction, players accept it.  If the restriction turns out later to have been pointless or to have unbalancing effects, the players will lose confidence in the DM.  A good DM avoids that problem by not making pointless or unbalancing restrictions.  Its a path that many of us have tread, and not found to be a particularly difficult course.

Ever had a conversation with a guy who insists that all women want to date "bad boy" types, and they all ignore "nice guys" like him?  And in the course of the conversation, it becomes clear that he's really, deeply resentful about this, and harbors an awful lot of ill will towards women in general?  I've had that conversation, and I can tell you that you start to think that maybe the problem isn't that women don't recognize his "nice guy" attributes, but rather that he hasn't got "nice guy" attributes.  That maybe what he interprets as women failing to appreciate his nice guy nature is more women fleeing from his bitterness.

That's what you're encountering in this thread.  You seem to harbor an awful lot of ill will towards your players.  You seem to denigrate them, and attribute to them a sense of entitlement while simultaneously displaying the same sense of entitlement.  People are picking up on this in your posts, and reacting to you accordingly.


----------



## Cadfan (May 16, 2008)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> If the DM says the players can not play elves: no elf PCs.



Sort of agree.  If the DM says "no elf PCs," then no elf PCs.  But if, during the course of the game, it becomes apparent that there was no actual reason for _why_ the DM said "no elf PCs," then the players have every right to conclude that the DM sucks.


----------



## hong (May 16, 2008)

Of course, opinions can vary as to what constitutes a valid reason for "no elf PCs". Me, I'd say that "because elves suck" is a valid reason.

Just as I'm banning halflings, because they suck.


----------



## drothgery (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> It's not about whether or not you can run it in 4th edition, it's the wording in the PHB and the articles I've read.  They're creating a sense of D&D, is by default a magic rich setting where players get all the magic items they want for all their slots and if they have the gold, they can buy it.




You do realize that this was definitely the case in 3e and 3.5e, and was a very common mode of play in 1e and 2e as well (because, well, there are magic item prices and treasure tables in the rulebooks), right?


----------



## eleran (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I keep repeating it because it's a problem.  Its not something you should like.  The DM has to have control over what is allowed in their campaign.  Period.  They can listen to player suggestions and think it over, but the players should not ever expect to get their way all the time, like it seems the PHB is being written for 4th edition.  Every article and excerpt I've read about the phb keeps pointing to player entitlement and it's bullcrap.  I don't want my campaigns ruined and I'm sick of the rulebooks making me out to be the villain.
> 
> It just makes perfect sense to me for a game to be designed middle of the road.  That way it offense the least amount of players and dm's.  Magic rich is not middle of the road.  WotC made a mistake with how they're wording campaign effecting aspects of the game in the PHB.  Stuff like that should have been left in the DMG period and each broad style given at least a blurb.
> 
> Edit : I've gotta go run some errands, but I'm not arguing about whether or not 4th edition can handle different styles of campaigns.  What I am arguing against and criticizing is the tone with which the writers have written the rules in the book.  The rules are fine.  Easily modded and well thought out for the most part.  My issues, again, is how they're written.




But repeating it does not make it true.

My opinion, not that that counts with you, is that they have made a middle of the road write up of the rules.  You fail to see that because you think your way is the middle of the road, when it actually is one side of the road.  

Also, constantly banging your head against the forums about how miswritten the rules are is not going to change how they are written 3 weeks before the books hit shelves.


----------



## Delgar (May 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Of course, opinions can vary as to what constitutes a valid reason for "no elf PCs". Me, I'd say that "because elves suck" is a valid reason.
> 
> Just as I'm banning halflings, because they suck.




Hong have you created a race of War Kittens for your campaign yet?


----------



## D'karr (May 16, 2008)

eleran said:
			
		

> Also, constantly banging your head against the forums about how miswritten the rules are *is not going to change how they are written* 3 weeks before the books hit shelves.




Personally I kind of appreciate that...


----------



## Duelpersonality (May 16, 2008)

Guy can't take a night off around here...

What I like the most about this is the ability to drop magic items out of the game entirely.  I know it's "not D&D," but it could be fun.  I'm planning on running a couple of games strictly by RAW, then running a game like this to see how it plays.

I also like the reduced amount of "needed" items, though my players tended to ignore those anyway in favor of Rings of Sustenance and Heward's Handy Haversacks.  Come to think of it, any ideas on what said rings may bring to the table in 4e?  My first thought is that they don't really need much change (2 hours of rest and no food or water required), but that some kind of nifty utility power could be built into them.


----------



## Cadfan (May 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Of course, opinions can vary as to what constitutes a valid reason for "no elf PCs". Me, I'd say that "because elves suck" is a valid reason.
> 
> Just as I'm banning halflings, because they suck.



"Valid" means "a reason that your players accept."   

Its a social matter, and therefore fluid and organic.


----------



## D'karr (May 16, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> "Valid" means "a reason that your players accept."
> 
> Its a social matter, and therefore *fluid and organic*.




I wouldn't particularly use those words around Hong...


----------



## hong (May 16, 2008)

Delgar said:
			
		

> Hong have you created a race of War Kittens for your campaign yet?



 NO commoner will be safe!


----------



## hong (May 16, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> "Valid" means "a reason that your players accept."
> 
> Its a social matter, and therefore fluid and organic.



 Hey, I'm fluid and organic with the best of them. They want to kill the bad guys, no problem. They want to found the Elven East India Company and take advantage of those 500% markups, no problem. But halflings? ON THIS I MAKE MY STAND.


----------



## Cadfan (May 16, 2008)

When I initially read that, I was reading quickly, and came up with a "race war of kittens."


----------



## drjones (May 16, 2008)

Sir_Darien said:
			
		

> I'm not a real big fan of this. If you want to use cool items that aren't really powerful the fact that your limited to how much you use kind of sucks. If I'm a level 20 rogue who wants to swing rooftop to rooftop with a rod of ropes, I should be able to do it regardless of my use of a flaming dagger. This seems like a fun-buster, though its difficult to say how bad of one with how vague the subject was left.



I don't see any evidence that you can't carry extra items in your pack/harness etc. just that you cant have 30 rings on at once and have simultaneous effects.


----------



## hong (May 16, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> When I initially read that, I was reading quickly, and came up with a "race war of kittens."



No kitten will be safe


----------



## ShockMeSane (May 16, 2008)

I can't help but think from reading his posts that Aria's gaming group must likely consist of his enemies.

Isn't the point of D&D that it's something you can play with your friends? If it ever came down to me having to go down to the local gaming store and having to pick up a few hobos off the street (splatbooks in hand!) I'd rather just give up the hobby.

Maybe I'm spoiled by being able to play with friends, but I wouldn't even consider DMing for a player who was going to cry if I didn't let his Incantatrix improved metamagic stack with Arcane Thesis to bring Metamagic feats down to +0. Frankly, I'd rather not play with people using Incantatrix period, unless my players all wanted to do a super meta-gamed high-power campaign. While we've ran one or two of those before, it's only fun to do if everyone agrees to it. Heck, in my last campaign I had a player show up on a game night early and ask if he could re-make his character using some less powerful PrC's around level 11, because he felt like he was overshadowing the rest of the party too much (and he was, a bit). 

But I guess you might call us beer and pretzel gamers, and these rules are very nice for us. Of course we houseruled out Identify ages ago, as none of us could see any potential for fun that it brought to the table, and enforced artificial timelines on campaigns that often include an important time element. Your mileage may vary, of course.


----------



## ShockMeSane (May 16, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Hey, I'm fluid and organic with the best of them. They want to kill the bad guys, no problem. They want to found the Elven East India Company and take advantage of those 500% markups, no problem. But halflings? ON THIS I MAKE MY STAND.




Yea, halflings are sad and dull and remind me of death.


----------



## D'karr (May 16, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> I don't see any evidence that you can't carry extra items in your pack/harness etc. just that you cant have 30 rings on at once and have simultaneous effects.




Well, I think it might be more similar to the Magic Item Compendium, in which certain items had to be worn for a certain amount of time before they were effective and some of the utility uses were limited by a certain number of charges per day.

So the example of the gauntlets someone used earlier could be easily mitigated.

Of course not all items would work like this but that is what makes this exciting, more differing ways to create magic items.


----------



## Wormwood (May 16, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> And then along come these players, these snot nosed _players_, and insist that they are entitled to things that you did not include in your campaign.



I've actually encountered GMs who I believe would enjoy their games much, much more if only they didn't have to deal with players.


----------



## D'karr (May 16, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I've actually encountered GMs who I believe would enjoy their games much, much more if only they didn't have to deal with players.





Players, the worst aspect of any game...


----------



## Wormwood (May 16, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> Players, the worst aspect of any game...










This job would be great if it wasn't for the customers.


----------



## Scipio202 (May 16, 2008)

Aria:  I'm just not convinced that players' preferences are as maleable as you seem to think.  I think most players have preferences, and look for the game systems, and then the DMs/campaigns, that will suit that.  Many players might be fairly open minded/flexible - and I doubt they'll become less so based on how the rules are written.  You seem to have pretty strong preferences for a low-magic world - and how the rules are written isn't going to change that.  I bet a bunch of players will really want to play low magic, and the how the rules are written won't change them.  I wish you good luck in finding more of them.  Others will want to play high magic, and writing the rules differently won't change them either.

To that end I think having the rules be flexible is far more important than which flavor is the default.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 16, 2008)

ShockMeSane said:
			
		

> I can't help but think from reading his posts that Aria's gaming group must likely consist of his enemies.
> 
> Isn't the point of D&D that it's something you can play with your friends?




On occasion, life and circumstances force you and your gaming group to move apart (or at least, not game together). After years of non-gaming, I had a great group I managed to pull together from the WotC classified boards. We weren't all friends when we started, but we *became* friends around a D&D table. Then one guy's band took off, another got a job out of state, the DM moved to Ireland, the rest of us got busy and the group kinda broke up.

At this point, I have a group of friends who are interested in gaming again - some of whom are old 1e gamers, others who have stuck with the game through thick and thin, and still others who would be brand new to it. I've had them express interest since last fall, but I didn't want to introduce the new (and returning) players to 3e only to make them learn a new ruleset in 6 months.

Given that Aria ran the setting successfully in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Edition, but is (from his(?) posts) now having trouble keeping gamers, I think it's possible that the longtime players may have grown bored with the setting.

That happens. No matter how innovative and fun your setting is, or how much loving effort you put into it, people eventually grow bored with all but the most wide open settings.

It's possible Aria's players just want to try something different for a while that doesn't involve dodging the witch hunters. After a while, they may have their fill of _that_ and want something new _again._

The takeaway I've gotten from all the WotC guys' blogs is that most of them reinvent their campaign every few years (at least!). That also saves you from having to use every cool idea you have in a single campaign. You can use a few of them in this campaign and save others for the next one.

I'd never really thought of it that way. It's kinda liberating.

And I'm looking forward to June. I'll actually probably start running the game with just the RAW and be happy (although I may pick up Necromancer's release to get more class options ASAP). That makes me very excited. It's something I had trouble doing in 3e...


----------



## Wormwood (May 16, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> And I'm looking forward to June. I'll actually probably start running the game with just the RAW and be happy (although I may pick up Necromancer's release to get more class options ASAP). That makes me very excited. It's something I had trouble doing in 3e...



That's how my 4e game is going to roll. 3 books, implied setting. Go. 

Liberating? I'd say so.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 16, 2008)

Hmm... so your playstyle is so far afield of the norm in your area that you can't keep players unless the D&D 4e books are specifically setup to please your sensibilities?


----------



## Tewligan (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Yeah I know, but it seems like nearly all the stuff in 4th edition is by default, in the player's hands and it requires the DM to be a hardass and say, no you can't do this.  No you can't do that.  Instead of the DM saying, here's what you can do.



That's one of my problems with it too.


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2008)

A few things.

Aria: Perhaps at this point, we should agree to disagree. You have made your stand arguing your point for many pages, and at this point we all get your argument. There's little headway going to be made.

Player entitlement: For the most part, I'm fine with this. However, I do understand the issue where a player will whine and dig their heels in.

I encountered this when trying to adjust some rules with regards to class. Like saying "Swordsages cannot regain their abilities _inside_ combat" and I was met with "but why? C'mon, you haven't seen it in action why neeeeeeerrf it?" It was exceedingly annoying. But then, I'm spineless and have trouble saying no. 



			
				Mercule said:
			
		

> Even better, you can leave magic items in, but not worry about the plus, just the special abilities.  I'll have to look at the full set of rules, but I'm very tempted to say that, all magic swords (for example) scale their bonus with the PC's level.  That way, the ancestral weapon the dwarven warlord is always useful.  Meanwhile, the tiefling fighter can continue to loot tombs for "better" weapons.  A magic weapon ceases to be "+1" or "+4".  It's just "+20%" and some toys.
> 
> That's really, really attractive as every PC IMC who uses a weapon has a signature weapon and most have custom crafted armor.  I'm already trying to fiddle with scaling weapons and such.



I hope you didn't get whiplash, because I just yoinked this so very hard.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 16, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Even better, you can leave magic items in, but not worry about the plus, just the special abilities. I'll have to look at the full set of rules, but I'm very tempted to say that, all magic swords (for example) scale their bonus with the PC's level. That way, the ancestral weapon the dwarven warlord is always useful. Meanwhile, the tiefling fighter can continue to loot tombs for "better" weapons. A magic weapon ceases to be "+1" or "+4". It's just "+20%" and some toys.
> 
> That's really, really attractive as every PC IMC who uses a weapon has a signature weapon and most have custom crafted armor. I'm already trying to fiddle with scaling weapons and such.




Yeah, I was thinking about yoinking this too. Although, I actually have a suggestion that I KNOW won't break game balance.

*Give out the extra bonus as if it were treasure.* Don't tie it to a specific level, but rather to a particular encounter. If you pre-determine it, you can give the PC that proper interim "boost," and the feeling of incremental improvement, _without_ handing out a new item.

There's no reason that all those encounter-specific "bumps" (usually treasure) have to take the form of physical objects.

Just a thought.

Although...if I was giving out those bumps, I'd tie them to the odd levels. Grant a +1 to attack bonuses at about Level 3, say, so that there's a numerical "boost" between the one granted by level 2 and that granted by level 4. You could even parse those out so that they got defense bonuses before attack ones...or whatever.


----------



## ShockMeSane (May 16, 2008)

JohnSnow-

I totally appreciate the fact that gaming groups breakdown all the time for real life reasons, it has happened to me over the years. I guess the crux of my point was that I'd far rather simply give up the hobby rather than play with infuriating people with a sense of entitlement that would rather create the most uber character possible rather than actually play constructively as a team.


----------



## KidSnide (May 16, 2008)

WotC understands that many (if not most) GMs will alter the rules.  And, I agree that it is a good idea for the DMG to give advice about how to run non-standard (e.g. low-magic) campaigns.  

But the "default settings" of rules should not be chosen to be "middle of the road".  The default settings should be chosen to provide the best game possible when run by a new-ish and mediocre GM.  Those are the people who need guidance, and that's why the "default" settings for the game is a fast-paced, quick-leveling, high-magic game.  

If players are seeing their characters get more powerful quickly, they don't care as much if the game is only so-so.  However, if you want to run a game where the PCs are weak in the world, don't have many powers or level only once-per-year (real-time), you had better have a good game -- the type of game that you can't learn how to run by just reading a book.

Maybe it's cynical to say that the rules are focused on what (in my view) are barely functional campaigns?  But I'm not sure that's the wrong choice for WotC.  Sure, I have no doubt that they want everyone's campaign to be as good as possible.  But, in my experience, the difference between OK and great is mostly in the skills and abilities of the players and GM, not the rules of the game.  And, since it takes time to acquire those skills, it makes sense for WotC to focus on pushing as many games as possible from "failures with promise" into "barely successful campaigns".  

Lifting campaigns from "barely successful" to "awesome" -- that's our job.

One campaign at a time...


----------



## JohnSnow (May 16, 2008)

ShockMeSane said:
			
		

> JohnSnow-
> 
> I totally appreciate the fact that gaming groups breakdown all the time for real life reasons, it has happened to me over the years. I guess the crux of my point was that I'd far rather simply give up the hobby rather than play with infuriating people with a sense of entitlement that would rather create the most uber character possible rather than actually play constructively as a team.




Oh, I totally, categorically, and absolutely agree with that statement.


----------



## drjones (May 16, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I still don't like the harsh and unusual 1/5 sale price on magic items. Unless there is a sidebar somewhere in the DMG that gives a _very_ good justification for it, I will probably ignore that rule.



It's pretty simple, you give them items that are up to 4 levels higher then they are.  Letting them chose the perfect +4 levle item for their class woudl unbalance the game in their favor.  So when they sell that +4 item they get enough cash to buy a -1 level item, which can be added to the straight cash they get to buy a equal level item or a +1 item which will be perfect for their class but not as unbalancing as a +4.

That's my guess anyway.  The reason the 'markup' seems so large is that the bump from one level to the next in gold value for a an item is pretty big.


----------



## Vael (May 16, 2008)

> Even better, you can leave magic items in, but not worry about the plus, just the special abilities. I'll have to look at the full set of rules, but I'm very tempted to say that, all magic swords (for example) scale their bonus with the PC's level. That way, the ancestral weapon the dwarven warlord is always useful. Meanwhile, the tiefling fighter can continue to loot tombs for "better" weapons. A magic weapon ceases to be "+1" or "+4". It's just "+20%" and some toys.




I wouldn't necessarily do that for every item, but definitely for ancestral, signature or intelligent magic weapons. Yeah, here's someone else yoinking that notion.


----------



## drjones (May 16, 2008)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> As regards the Identifying issue, surely the DM only has to keep saying "no" if the players keep challenging all the rules? Who are these players that see a game, with rules, and just whine and complain about everything instead of just getting on and playing?



Exactly.  I know finding folks to play with can be tough for some but you really have to draw the line somewhere RE: hanging out with jerks.


----------



## MindWanderer (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Because finding acceptable and reliable players that will give the campaign a shot grew progressively harder as WotC released more and more splatbooks with even more powerful magic and more powerful classes, broken feats, and the like.  They won't even give a low magic campaign a shot unless they're allowed to play whatever class they want, regardless if it fits into the campaign.  WotC made it harder for dm's to run campaigns their way, with the increasing amount of player entitlement they put into their books.



Wait, what?

WotC releases books.
Your players like the content in those books and think they would enjoy playing in a game that supports them.
You don't like the content in those books and would prefer not to use them.
You get mad at WotC for creating products that people like, and mad at your players for wanting to play a game they'd enjoy.
Let me give you a head's up: although the DM is certainly supposed to have fun, you're ultimately a public servant.  And you're only one person at the table.  If your players like something, then give it to them!  I'm sure you can still come up with a campaign which, though it's not your beloved brainchild, will still be fun for all involved.

You exhort your players to give a low-magic game a chance.  Why don't you give a normal-magic game a chance?  In fact, I bet you've done so in the past, and enjoyed it.  You're probably looking for a change, bot because you disliked normal magic campaigns, but because you want to try something new.  If that's correct, then change something else--something that will allow your players to have as much fun as you do.

Anytime DM fun and player fun becomes a trade-off, you have a dysfunction on a deeper level that needs to be addressed.  Figure it out before you torture each other.


----------



## drjones (May 16, 2008)

OchreJelly said:
			
		

> Honestly, I think the question this raises is “what does identify currently add to the game?”



I think ID was an attempt at balance in ye olde editions, they knew magic was powerful so they made an arbitrary/simulationist way of slowing down the use of magic items.  

Thing is, it was a crummy way to add balance.  It did not really slow things down, it was a speed bump after which you got the full effect of possibly an overpowered item.  The real way to balance things is for the DM to carefully control what items are handed out, which is what the new edition is encouraging.

As for the simulation thing.. magic is the ultimate hand wave to begin with.


----------



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

For those planning to give automatic +s, I'll note that you can quickly hit a thing where people no longer care about finding new magic weapons and such from like level 5-25. 

I'm planning on having just a few items that are automatic levelling - so when the great npc paladin of the campaign dies and gives his blade to the party's paladin, it will autolevel with him and turn into an avenger someday.


----------



## Kaffis (May 16, 2008)

My inner math geek is vaguely disappointed that the sale value 1/5 = buy value of (level -5) stuff didn't lead to a true exponential progression chart.

I was looking forward to my 276gp level 1 items and 1,380 level 6 items. The way they did it, by staking out the level 5, 10, 15, etc. level price points and dividing the difference between them evenly annoys me with the big jumps in marginal price. 4 -> 5 is a 160gp premium, but 5 -> 6 is an 800 gp one? Bleah.

I'm pondering what, if any, the effect would be if I just swapped out the price table for a smooth v(l)=200*5^(l/5) function. (v for market value, l for level) At its most basic level, if you assume non-magical costs are ultimately trivial, and that a party will seek to equip themselves with the spoils of their adventures, all of which are equally levelled to them when they achieve them, it seems like there would be no real difference from subbing out the value tables.

In reality, however, the very "bumps" that make me dissatisfied might allow for some gaming the system. Like, say, we take 5 items, disenchant them, and then make a new item of the same level. All is kosher, either system. But what if we were to take 3 items, disenchant them, and make an item one level lower. This is feasible at 5x+1 levels, but not 5x levels, I think. 3x360 = 1080 gp, enough to make the level 5 item from 3 level 6 disenchants. But take 3 level 5's and try to make a level 4... 3x200 = 600, falling short of the 840 needed. I'm not sure yet if this can be exploited to the players' advantage, rather than just being a quirk in the system.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 16, 2008)

I'm curious how the 4-level variance is going to affect character power levels.  It looks like the math has taken into account the potentiality that a 1st level character could in fact acquire a 5th level magic item (say, a 1st-level Fighter with a Flaming Greatsword.)  But I'm wondering what kind of sense it will engender among players, like

"Bob has a sword 4 levels higher than his character, and Jim's Wizard  has an implement 3 levels higher.  My highest level item is only 1 higher than my character, and we're only 200xp away from leveling!"

I don't want my players to feel like they have to stay ahead of the curve.

Oh, and I also like how Holy Avengers are no longer _just_ for paladins.


----------



## Kaffis (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> That is beyond lame.  Fighters who've never had magical training whatsoever shouldn't be able to identify magical poop, let alone the properties and effects of a magical item.  Sure, they can feel the balance of a sword is better and that it fits their hand perfectly, but anything beyond that should require a person trained in arcane knowledge.




..

Please. Flaming weapons (and it appears, many others) do something neat and very visible on a crit. My fighter, in his 2 minutes of short rest, walks over to the nearest tree stump, and swings the well balanced sword at the stump 20 times (essentially taking 20). One of those times, it crits and bursts into fire.

Huh. This must be a flaming sword.

Ta-da!


----------



## drjones (May 16, 2008)

Kaffis said:
			
		

> some reasonable math stuff



I don't think that will ever be an issue because the DM should be carefully controlling how many items are handed out so you will rarely find yourself with 3-5 items of the same level you want to sell let alone have it happen so often that they could 'farm' it somehow without giving up the items they should be using to fight.

If this was WoW it would have to be PERFECTLY controlled so some dip would not use slight variances to farm cash endlessly but there is a DM in this game who can easily say 'guys, this is boring. lets get back to the adventure ok?'


----------



## Sojorn (May 16, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Yeah, I was thinking about yoinking this too. Although, I actually have a suggestion that I KNOW won't break game balance.
> 
> *Give out the extra bonus as if it were treasure.* Don't tie it to a specific level, but rather to a particular encounter. If you pre-determine it, you can give the PC that proper interim "boost," and the feeling of incremental improvement, _without_ handing out a new item.
> 
> ...



Also seems to make sense to hand them out during the climax of an encounter. Not sure if it should come before or after a critical point though.

These non-item item increases strike me as stemming from the ability of these types of heroes to overcome. It's the reaching deep inside yourself and rising to heights you didn't know you were capable of.

Hmmmm. How about this for an extreme example of a no magic items game. Throw out the treasure tables pretty much. All gold is basically for RP purposes. Magic items cannot be bought or made. They effectively don't exist. Another type of reward from encounters, given only once each level to each character, called an "item marker". Complete meta-game construct, like action points. These would have a level that's two higher than the receiving character. So a level 2 character would get a level 4 item marker. These can be saved as long as you wish. They do not level up with the character. So a level 4 character could have a 3, 4, 5 and a 6 level marker in an extreme case.

You may spend a marker as a free action at any time, once an encounter. Spending a marker has one of the following effects:
1) Immediately ends all save ends effects on you with no aftereffects.
2) Increases your attack rolls by +2 and your damage by 10/20/30 (heroic/paragon/epic) until the end of your next turn
3) Increases your AC and defenses by +4 until the end of your next turn

In addition, the marker gives you the effects of an item of your choice of its level or lower, forever, inherently, as if you always have the item equipped (although you will actually need a weapon or armor equipped to gain the effects of a marker spent for a weapon or armor). These rules would not ignore slots. Using a marker to gain the effect of an item when you already have one spent for that slot changes what is in that slot. Customize what items you allow based on class, general magic level, whatever.

It sacrifices the treasure mattering to the mechanics, as well as the fun of the unpredictability of treasure and places a much greater emphasis on what the characters are capable of, but it seems like it might create some pretty epic moments for the characters to pull out their fancy new tricks, doesn't it?


----------



## Knightlord (May 16, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> I also have an observation: you seem very confrontational when it comes to players. I imagine that you and your campaign have been burned in the past and you're a bit leery of players painting you and your game in a poor light...




Agreed. I've also noticed this "confrontational" stance in the thread regarding the possible power source of the Monk, and your rather brutal denouncement of Psionics. Perhaps you should try being a bit more "flexible"? Or perhaps "compromising"?

Just a suggestion.  

Edit: This post is directed towards Aria. Sorry, I probably should have left his name in the quote so that everyone knew who I was addressing. Won't happen again, I SWEAR!


----------



## Kaffis (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Which is why the D&D books should be more ambiguous about creating a default "D&D".  It creates too many perceptions that this is the way things should be and will always be when players read the book. The economics article could have easily said something like,"If the DM allows it, magic items can be sold for 20% of their base value.  Blah blah blah..."
> 
> Instead, it starts off with the presumption that every DM is going to allow magic items to be sold for X amount of value and then decides, well unless the DM says otherwise.




...

All of the economics I've seen have specifically stated that this is a *base* market value, and that conditions can be less favorable to the player due to things like proximity to trade centers, etc. etc. 20% is a balancing guideline, above which things begin to unravel. In that regard, 20% is what the game is designed for, but the games rules say you may not get it already (or the implication is that they say that, given that they say that purchasing prices can be 10-40% higher with ease).

In addition, if your players are getting so bent out of shape about a rule of yours, maybe you should consider giving some ground in order to make the game more fun for the people playing. I think that DMs, especially old ones prone to tinkering, can get way too wrapped up in the "masterpiece" that is their setting, and forget that the players are there to have fun. If your players' idea of fun is a setting that promotes the wonder and rarity of magic such that selling magical items to a mere shopkeeper for something as mundane as a handful of gold is out of the question, great! But if that's not their idea of fun, why are you forcing un-fun on them? Keep doing it, and you're going to run out of players.


----------



## Mercule (May 16, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> For those planning to give automatic +s, I'll note that you can quickly hit a thing where people no longer care about finding new magic weapons and such from like level 5-25.



Okay.  Works for me.

I've never been in a game where anyone wanted to quest for an uber-cool weapon twice.  Things pretty much broke down to two camps: 1) characters who had a signature weapon and 2) characters who frisked every corpse, crack, and coffer looking for their next toy.  The former were usually concerned with mechanical obsolescence of a character-defining element while the latter have avoided any sort of "quest for Excalibur" because it'd give them something they could never upgrade in good conscience.

The stories told in my games have generally been about heroes saving the damsel/town/kingdom/world or about people accumulating power that's useful in a outside what you could gain by just being higher level (e.g. bigger BAB).  Sure, everybody likes having a trinket that gives them an edge, but it isn't the end in itself.  Even though Excalibur was awesome in combat, its real value was in being the mark of the true King.

If your stories have a strong component of personal arms race to them, it would definitely be odd to remove the defined pluses.  For my games, what you perceive as a drawback is actually a motivating benefit.


----------



## Lanefan (May 16, 2008)

Kaffis said:
			
		

> ..
> 
> Please. Flaming weapons (and it appears, many others) do something neat and very visible on a crit. My fighter, in his 2 minutes of short rest, walks over to the nearest tree stump, and swings the well balanced sword at the stump 20 times (essentially taking 20). One of those times, it crits and bursts into fire.
> 
> ...



Absolutely.  But, two things to say here:

1. You did the right thing and actually had your Fighter *do* the test in character (some here see to think such things are a waste of time), and
2. You still have no idea what the weapon's base "plus" is, if any, nor if it has any other neat and funky abilities, curses, etc.

I have no problem at all with characters figuring out what their items do, provided such figuring is done in character as exampled above.  Where I have a problem is with too much information being handed out...in the example above, being told after the same test that it's a +2 Flaming sword that cannot function in an ambient temperature less than -10 C (let's assume the test was done outdoors on a fine spring day) is just too much.

At least preserve *some* mystery!

As for the "problem" of DMs losing track of what various items do, we-ell, I have no sympathy whatsoever as it's incumbent on you as DM to keep track of items anyway...an item numbering system can be a big help here - every time you give out an item (magic or not) in treasury, give it a number.  *Insist* your players record the number on their sheets along with the item.  Keep your own list of items in numerical order.  Then, when someone swings with an unidentified sword you just ask "what number is it?" and can then easily reference your list to remind yourself what it does.  This becomes essential when a) items have properties unknown to the characters/players e.g. curses, and-or b) when there are several similar-on-the-surface items e.g. "+2 swords" in a party but they are in fact not the same at all...item #36 that Sharana is using is in fact +1 to hit/+3 damage, item #38 that Astacoe is using is a straight +2, while item #39 in Khurin's hands is +1 base with extra benefits vs. dragons only.  But they all radiate about the same level of magic and the party have assumed they're all +2's...it's up to you to keep them straight until such time as the party gets them ID'ed - if ever.

Item numbers for non-magic items can be a big help also - "You find 6 assorted gems, call them item #41; they look pretty nice on first glance."  You write down "41 - 6 gems, 350 g.p. total [or list individual values if you like]", then when the party goes to divide treasury later and (one assumes) gets things appraised you have a ready-to-hand value.  Never give them the value on the spot when they find the gems, as the gems could get stolen or shattered or lost long before reaching town and a chance for a decent appraisal. 

Lanefan


----------



## Kaffis (May 16, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> I don't think that will ever be an issue because the DM should be carefully controlling how many items are handed out so you will rarely find yourself with 3-5 items of the same level you want to sell let alone have it happen so often that they could 'farm' it somehow without giving up the items they should be using to fight.
> 
> If this was WoW it would have to be PERFECTLY controlled so some dip would not use slight variances to farm cash endlessly but there is a DM in this game who can easily say 'guys, this is boring. lets get back to the adventure ok?'




The more I think on it, the more I lean towards this, yeah. On the one hand, I don't think 3 items would be ridiculous to amass. On the other, I don't think a 3:1 exchange ratio is ultimately profitable (or at least, not exploitable) to the players, unless you're just intentionally giving them the worst, most useless items you can. As such, it probably doesn't matter that the exchange rate differs slightly based on level of the items involved.

On the other hand, it probably wouldn't hurt to substitute in a smooth curve.


----------



## Voss (May 16, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> For those planning to give automatic +s, I'll note that you can quickly hit a thing where people no longer care about finding new magic weapons and such from like level 5-25.




Woohoo!  I'd be really glad of that, personally. If players actually start looking up from the bodies they're looting and start thinking about things like the story, the adventure, the plot, the npcs, their own characters and, buying castles, ships and the like, and treating money as, well, money rather than a power source, I'd be really, really pleased.


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2008)

The problem with that, Lanefan, is that the DM must keep up with all that stuff. So he must remember what the sword does when the PC uses it in -10 C wihtout telling the player. Keeping track of everyone's equipment when they don't know what it is is increasingly annoying bookkeeping. 

Just telling the player '+2 Longsword, here's the stats for a flaming weapon, apply those on your character sheet' is fine. You don't have to tell him 'oh and it can be doused by water elementals', but leave all the mechanical mumbo jumbo to his character sheet and let him figure it up.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 16, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> 1. You did the right thing and actually had your Fighter *do* the test in character (some here see to think such things are a waste of time)




For my part, it's not that I don't care about roleplaying, but that I do not want to engage in a tedious guessing game with my players.  When a player gnashes his teeth and threatens one of my NPCs because he has cheated him out of thousands of gold, that's a potential roleplaying situation.  Having my player tell me, in full detail, how he swings his axe 20 different ways so that he might stumble onto its magical properties is not.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 16, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> For my part, it's not that I don't care about roleplaying, but that I do not want to engage in a tedious guessing game with my players.  When a player gnashes his teeth and threatens one of my NPCs because he has cheated him out of thousands of gold, that's a potential roleplaying situation.  Having my player tell me, in full detail, how he swings his axe 20 different ways so that he might stumble onto its magical properties is not.



 You can do it with more complicated items, but start with telling, that swinging the weapon in every way you can imagine doesn´t reaveal its power.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 16, 2008)

You know, if you really wanted to show too that the Fighter or whoever spent the whole rest practising and figuring out the weapon or item. Have a houserule where they cannot use more then one healing surge that rest. 

This would show them spending almost the entire rest, practising and figuring out the weapons/device.


----------



## Lanefan (May 16, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> The problem with that, Lanefan, is that the DM must keep up with all that stuff. So he must remember what the sword does when the PC uses it in -10 C wihtout telling the player. Keeping track of everyone's equipment when they don't know what it is is increasingly annoying bookkeeping.



If it's something they use all the time, such as a Fighter's usual weapon, you remember pretty fast what it does.  If it's something less commonly used, well, that's what the item number list is for.  Look it up. 

In other words, what I'm saying is "Of course the DM must keep up with all that stuff.  It's part of the job."







> Just telling the player '+2 Longsword, here's the stats for a flaming weapon, apply those on your character sheet' is fine. You don't have to tell him 'oh and it can be doused by water elementals', but leave all the mechanical mumbo jumbo to his character sheet and let him figure it up.



Except the character (and thus the player) has *no idea* whether it's a +1 or +2 or +3 or some combination of those e.g. +3 to hit, +1 damage, and so that information should not be given out.

Even worse is when the item's function is not immediately obvious.  I mean, one usually uses a weapon to hit things...but what about a sword that radiates a strong enchantment but has no '+' at all...its magical function is to cut through stone walls!  Or an amulet that allows one to walk through walls...that's something that shouldn't jsut be blurted out to the players. (4e is too limiting in what its items can do...footwear can only be enchanted for transport or movement functions indeed...bah!  As far as I'm concerned, anything can be enchanted to do anything provided the person doing the enchanting wants it that way)

Lanefan


----------



## theNater (May 16, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> 1. You did the right thing and actually had your Fighter *do* the test in character (some here see to think such things are a waste of time)



What do you think the characters were doing during the short rest in which they identified the item?  Staring at it until the knowledge of what it does was imprinted in their brains?
I think we can assume this is going on without explicitly stating it every time the character aquires a new magic weapon.  I assume most of my characters eat two or three meals every day, but it only occasionally comes up at the game table.



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> 2. You still have no idea what the weapon's base "plus" is, if any, nor if it has any other neat and funky abilities, curses, etc.



The other neat and funky abilities, maybe not, but don't try to tell me the fighter doesn't know the weapon's base plus.  He's tried out swords on trees before, he knows how big a gash he can make with a greatsword.  A quick glance at how much larger these gashes are will give him a very good feel for how much the weapon augments his swings.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The reason no one is agreeing with you even though you think you are making good arguments is because they are reading between the lines of what you write.



There's nothing between the lines.



> Frankly, you seem to view the world through a very crabbed lens.  You describe in your posts a situation where you, the DM, has put sweat, blood and tears into creating a campaign.  And then along come these players, these snot nosed _players_, and insist that they are entitled to things that you did not include in your campaign.



It's happened.  I've clearly laid out what is acceptable in campaigns online before, had players respond that they were interested... which to me says they read the information provided, and then they whine and cry when it comes time to make characters and they want to use all sorts of things I've already forbidden and they supposedly already read.



> Meanwhile, the rest of us are experienced players and dungeon masters, and we've rarely encountered this problem.  In general, if a dungeon master makes a restriction, players accept it.  If the restriction turns out later to have been pointless or to have unbalancing effects, the players will lose confidence in the DM.  A good DM avoids that problem by not making pointless or unbalancing restrictions.  Its a path that many of us have tread, and not found to be a particularly difficult course.



The one thing I've never had a problem with, didn't have a reason other than the fact I dislike gnomes.  I've never allowed gnomes in any of my campaign settings.  For a pointless and aesthetic reason.  I just didn't like them and funnily enough... that's the only restriction no one has ever had an issue with.  I am a good dm and I tell damn good story that does involve the players and their backgrounds, as long as the players do their part and try to be part of the campaign instead of wresting control of it to make their own little version of it.



> That's what you're encountering in this thread.  You seem to harbor an awful lot of ill will towards your players.  You seem to denigrate them, and attribute to them a sense of entitlement while simultaneously displaying the same sense of entitlement.  People are picking up on this in your posts, and reacting to you accordingly.



No, I harbor a lot of ill will towards poorly written rulebooks and outright faulty design decisions.



			
				Elaran said:
			
		

> Also, constantly banging your head against the forums about how miswritten the rules are is not going to change how they are written 3 weeks before the books hit shelves.



Yes, I already know that.  Doesn't mean I'm not entitled to criticize what WotC did wrong.



			
				ShockMeSane said:
			
		

> I can't help but think from reading his posts that Aria's gaming group must likely consist of his enemies.



The groups I have had, where the players are reliable and show up on time each time a game is scheduled, have been great.  Unfortunately, finding players like that doesn't always work out.  You're wondering where are those players now? Lives change, time passes and you move on.  I've been gaming online in various places for over ten years.  Probably longer if I look back to 2nd edition and some games I ran in and played in on AOL chat rooms.  Really sucked when AOL was charging by the hour.



			
				KidSnide said:
			
		

> But the "default settings" of rules should not be chosen to be "middle of the road". The default settings should be chosen to provide the best game possible when run by a new-ish and mediocre GM. Those are the people who need guidance, and that's why the "default" settings for the game is a fast-paced, quick-leveling, high-magic game.



I disagree.  A normal setting where magic is somewhat rare and mysterious would be far more easier for a new dm to run.  They have less to deal with when it comes to higher level player abilities.  And once they get settled in, they can ramp up the magic in their campaign setting with epic events that span the world.  It's far easier to give things to players than it is to try and take them away, which is why I keep arguing that WotC should have went with middle of the road.  It provides two settings which will cover the majority of the campaigns out there.

I understand very low to no magic settings aren't all that popular for whatever stupid reason (I blame computer games), and people just don't give them a chance.  So of course that should not be the default setting.  Middle of the road however is just the best because common sense says players are happier when they get more options instead of having options taken away.



			
				MindWanderer said:
			
		

> Wait, what?
> 1. WotC releases books.
> 2. Your players like the content in those books and think they would enjoy playing in a game that supports them.
> 3. You don't like the content in those books and would prefer not to use them.
> 4. You get mad at WotC for creating products that people like, and mad at your players for wanting to play a game they'd enjoy.



1. Yes, they're releasing books.
2. I kinda figured players would like the stuff in the books.
3. It's not the content I don't like, it's the method in which it's presented.
4. No, I am pissed at WotC for releasing content that creates an atmosphere of player entitlement. 



			
				MindWanderer said:
			
		

> Let me give you a head's up: although the DM is certainly supposed to have fun, you're ultimately a public servant. And you're only one person at the table. If your players like something, then give it to them! I'm sure you can still come up with a campaign which, though it's not your beloved brainchild, will still be fun for all involved.



When people start paying me to run a game for them, then I'll run exactly what they want.  Until they pay me, I will take their ideas under advisement but ultimately, the theme of the campaign setting that I am spending my free time creating, aside from actual game time, will be done by my standards and preferences for that setting, regardless of what it may be.



			
				MindWanderer said:
			
		

> You exhort your players to give a low-magic game a chance. Why don't you give a normal-magic game a chance? In fact, I bet you've done so in the past, and enjoyed it. You're probably looking for a change, bot because you disliked normal magic campaigns, but because you want to try something new. If that's correct, then change something else--something that will allow your players to have as much fun as you do.



I have a binder with over a hundred different world maps, a few with a page of rough notes for various campaign ideas.  They're not all low magic either.  I even have a high magic setting that if I ever ran, would end up traveling the stars.  It's not the low magic or magic rich games that I have an issue with.  It's how the book is written.  I'm criticizing WotC for making a bad decision.  Certainly I'm not the only one on any forums criticizing, even though it will do no good.



			
				Knightlord said:
			
		

> Agreed. I've also noticed this "confrontational" stance in the thread regarding the possible power source of the Monk, and your rather brutal denouncement of Psionics. Perhaps you should try being a bit more "flexible"? Or perhaps "compromising"?



I will never compromise on psionics.  That crap doesn't belong in D&D period.  If it wouldn't ruin the book, I'd cut it out of the PHB2 when it's released.


----------



## drjones (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Yes, I already know that.  Doesn't mean I'm not entitled to criticize what WotC did wrong.



Thank god for the internet, 20 years ago you would have been limited to ranting at the guy at the hobby shoppe, now we all get to hear!


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Kaffis said:
			
		

> ..
> 
> Please. Flaming weapons (and it appears, many others) do something neat and very visible on a crit. My fighter, in his 2 minutes of short rest, walks over to the nearest tree stump, and swings the well balanced sword at the stump 20 times (essentially taking 20). One of those times, it crits and bursts into fire.
> 
> ...



One problem.  The sword requires an action to be activated.  Simply swinging it around does nothing to activate the flaming property.  It requires a conscious action on the part of the wielder via some mental or verbal command or physical switch to activate.  Thus, the sword never flares into flame, even on a crit.  Not that a tree stump could be crit until 4th edition.


----------



## Kishin (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I will never compromise on psionics.  That crap doesn't belong in D&D period.  If it wouldn't ruin the book, I'd cut it out of the PHB2 when it's released.




30 years of history and the creator of D&D himself would disagree with you.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 16, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> You can do it with more complicated items, but start with telling, that swinging the weapon in every way you can imagine doesn´t reaveal its power.




I'm not saying this kind of situation can never be used to roleplay, just that it hasn't worked in my experience.  It's not usually interesting for the player (who just wants to know what the item does), it's not that interesting for the other players (who want the opportunity to know what their items do) and it's not that interesting for me (who wants to get to the meatier encounters, roleplaying or otherwise, that are fun for everyone).

As a DM my goal is for everyone to have fun at the table, and while I want nothing more than a high level of player enthusiasm, I don't want any one player to steal the spotlight to the point of boredom for everyone else

Someone mentioned used a Skill Challenge to identify magic items.  I like this, but I would probably do one challenge for the whole batch, rather than one skill challenge per item.  Otherwise I think the skill challenge system would start to get pretty tedious.


----------



## Counterspin (May 16, 2008)

As a GM, I just want to say that I find the current tone to be just fine, and that books written the way Aria wants would not be as interesting or useful to me.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 16, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Except the character (and thus the player) has *no idea* whether it's a +1 or +2 or +3 or some combination of those e.g. +3 to hit, +1 damage, and so that information should not be given out.




Should we do the same with ability scores, to hit bonuses, damage?  The character (and thus the player) don't know an 18 from a 16, all they know is stronger than, not as strong as.  So, the DM should just keep all the character sheets himself and give the PCs notes that say "smarter than Borb, not as smart as Imbir; faster than Juan, hits better than Juan, not as well as Borb".  Plusses are not an in-game expression, they are a relative abstract of item power, just like the cold, hard numbers representing strength are a relative abstract of actual strength.  The players need these numbers to play the game.  


On a different note, I've always hated the idea of playing a badass adventurer who flops around like an clown every time he finds a glowy, "I do a sumersault, run really fast, attack a tree and try to fly!  Anything happen?"  Visualize a whole party doing this kind of nonsense after finding several items at once.  

I really like 4e's method of tinkering with the item to figure it out.  As mentioned earlier, skill challenges could even be worked in there for some items.  But I don't picture it like the above.  I posted something similar to this in a another thread, but here is how I see it going down, in game - 

Fighter looking over magic sword:  Well crafted, still sharp despite its obvious age, judging by the folding method, I'd say dwarven from a few centuries ago.
-hands it to warlord-
Warlord:  I'd say you're right.  These runes are definitively Darmelian (ancient dwarf empire), I'd say this was crafted for the Goblin Wars of 1061, this one here looks like an elemental rune, but its ancient, not sure what it is.
-hands to druid-
Druid:  I can feel it, warmth... wrath... elemental fire
-hands to wizard-
Wizard:  Fire, you say?  Ancient Darmelia used a primitive dialect of dwarven, let's see...fire was "beloc" [sword flames]
Fighter:  Ooooh, gimme, gimme!

Then the DM tells the PC thats it a +2, because that is just a number, part of the mechanics, like the damage die the fire ability adds to his damage rolls.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> As a GM, I just want to say that I find the current tone to be just fine, and that books written the way Aria wants would not be as interesting or useful to me.



Why? Did you even read the revision I did to the short blurb from the economics excerpt?  It covered every single topic that the original blurb covered, but made it clear that the DM was in charge of how much magic was available, whether it could be bought and sold, and whether it could be disenchanted and used in rituals for new enchantments.  The key change, was to enable the DM to be the arbiter of what is allowed, rather than giving the players a sense that this is the way it should be.


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> In other words, what I'm saying is "Of course the DM must keep up with all that stuff.  It's part of the job."Except the character (and thus the player) has *no idea* whether it's a +1 or +2 or +3 or some combination of those e.g. +3 to hit, +1 damage, and so that information should not be given out.



See, that's where we differ. I am anti-book keeping. I don't even make my players track ammunition and trail rations because I think that's useless minutia. If I want to do unnecessary information tracking, I'll be a freaking accountant. That's not fun to me. 

I'm only going to keep track of the stuff that's pertinent to my job as a DM: The story, the monsters, making it fun for the players. The end.


----------



## Pssthpok (May 16, 2008)

nothing nice


----------



## Counterspin (May 16, 2008)

Aria : Because I think that a more cooperative style is how it should be, and that means investing the players with more control.  I want the books to reflect my style of play, because that makes the books more useful to me.


----------



## Wormwood (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> The key change, was to enable the DM to be the arbiter of what is allowed, rather than giving the players a sense that this is the way it should be.



Right, and not every DM agrees with you on that point.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 16, 2008)

Aria, the fundamental point you seem to be making is that WotC's idea of "middle of the road" and your own don't seem to mesh.

Sorry, but that's life. Sometimes, what you (or I) think should be "the standard" just *isn't.* I assume that the WotC designers are not idiots, morons, or total nincompoops foisting their own preferences off on their audience. Rather, I assume that they are intelligent people making a product to cater to the middle-of-the-road gamer. And I guarantee you they have a much better idea than you, I, anyone here, or even the guys over at Paizo Publishing, exactly where that "average gamer" wants his road laid.

WotC does market surveys. They cater the game to the vast majority of their audience. Yes, that means that a game that is totally DM-centric is going to lose to one that's player-centric, if one assumes that players never DM and DMs never play. I don't think that's the case, however, and I assume the game has been written to appeal to the majority.

I recognize this bothers some people, who would just prefer that _their_ flavor of D&D were the default. You have three choices:

1) Play the game at its default.
2) Change the default, find players who agree with your changes and play that game.
3) Don't Play.

Option 4, which is pretty counterproductive, is "Try to do 2, but bitch to people on a message board about how hard 2 is." And then say "nanananananana" when people tell you that they've never found 2 to be that difficult, and that if 2 is too hard for you, maybe you ought to give 1 a try.

This ain't rocket science. It's supposed to be fun.


----------



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

> I harbor a lot of ill will towards poorly written rulebooks and outright faulty design decisions.




It'd be nice if you directed your ill will at either of those things, instead of wasting it on well designed and popular rules that simply don't satisfy your tiny niche of the market.

You've lost any positive will I felt towards you and your rulings in the course of this discussion, sadly.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 16, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I'm not saying this kind of situation can never be used to roleplay, just that it hasn't worked in my experience.  It's not usually interesting for the player (who just wants to know what the item does), it's not that interesting for the other players (who want the opportunity to know what their items do) and it's not that interesting for me (who wants to get to the meatier encounters, roleplaying or otherwise, that are fun for everyone).
> 
> As a DM my goal is for everyone to have fun at the table, and while I want nothing more than a high level of player enthusiasm, I don't want any one player to steal the spotlight to the point of boredom for everyone else
> 
> Someone mentioned used a Skill Challenge to identify magic items.  I like this, but I would probably do one challenge for the whole batch, rather than one skill challenge per item.  Otherwise I think the skill challenge system would start to get pretty tedious.




I didn´t meant this offensive and I not even disagree. I just think ther may be special items not so easy to identify. And to prevent nonsense like swinging it defensively or especially agressive, i would make it clear that the character has tried every fighting style he can imagine in the last 5 minutes.
So the whole party can try interesting things instead of one player asking redundant questions.

A different thing: I have noticed the lowest magical items are quite cheap 300gp, the most expensive cost 2000000 gp (because its exponential about 5^(level/6-1)*1000gp)

So my question is, what is value of 1gp? And how common are Lvl 1 magical items?


----------



## Heahengel (May 16, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Absolutely.  But, two things to say here:
> 
> 1. You did the right thing and actually had your Fighter *do* the test in character (some here see to think such things are a waste of time), and
> 2. You still have no idea what the weapon's base "plus" is, if any, nor if it has any other neat and funky abilities, curses, etc.
> ...




In the current game I'm playing in, we do that backwards.  For example, we found a ring of feather falling the other day.  The DM told us after the session what it was (he had already houseruled that for almost everything, we would have to experiment if we wanted to figure out what something was immediately, but would auto-id it between sessions).  Then, next session, I rped my character experimenting with it.  I didn't feel that I had to, but it added to the session, and helped establish my character's personality (this is early in the campaign).  

So my Artificer started jumping around, trying to see if he could trigger it (I already knew he couldn't because it needs a 5 ft fall before it activates, and he certainly can't jump 5 ft).  I started speculating about tuning it to trigger more often (and also wondering if it ever would trigger if I jumped, or only on involuntary falls - a lot of my items will have different personalities (my decision since it helps me to find interesting things to rp with my Artificer)).  Then I decided to hire a laborer to test the ring, by giving it to him and pushing him off a wall.

So as a player I get to know what items I have, and the RP happens anyway, in a way that includes me more than trying to solve a puzzle.  And I could decide what would be interesting and important to my character (I didn't rp out tasting the potion that he found or reading the scrolls).  The rest didn't need to be mentioned.

Now, this wouldn't work in every game.  We are playing in a text IRC game, so the pace is slower and more descriptive, and I wasn't stealing time from the group to grandstand (actually that was about 3 lines I think, while we were doing other things).  There are certainly plenty of games where me jumping in and describing how my character is testing and thinking about an item would be annoying and disruptive.  But in that kind of game, having to describe swinging a sword at a tree stump repeatedly is at least as bad anyway.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 16, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I'm not saying this kind of situation can never be used to roleplay, just that it hasn't worked in my experience.  It's not usually interesting for the player (who just wants to know what the item does), it's not that interesting for the other players (who want the opportunity to know what their items do) and it's not that interesting for me (who wants to get to the meatier encounters, roleplaying or otherwise, that are fun for everyone).



Exactly.  It is about getting rid of the boring parts:  "I look in the bag, is it bigger on the inside?", "Does it have a command word written on it anywhere?", "A horn?  I blow it!  Does anything happen?" until the party has managed to bury themselves in a pile of rubble and fireball themselves with that wand that had a command word on it.  Causing the session to become about digging themselves out, then heading back to town to heal up and find a way to excavate the dungeon they just collapsed.

It looks like this rule got changed slightly from the copy I've seen, however.  I liked the original rule better: "When you pick up an item you know what it does."  Mostly because it invoked the idea that part of the property of magic items was bestowing their wielder with the knowledge of their use.  It also avoids a situation I see happening now: "We have 10 magic items?  Time to rest for 50 minutes to identify them all."  Which just needlessly slows down the game for no reason.


----------



## The_Fan (May 16, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Exactly.  It is about getting rid of the boring parts:  "I look in the bag, is it bigger on the inside?", "Does it have a command word written on it anywhere?", "A horn?  I blow it!  Does anything happen?" until the party has managed to bury themselves in a pile of rubble and fireball themselves with that wand that had a command word on it.  Causing the session to become about digging themselves out, then heading back to town to heal up and find a way to excavate the dungeon they just collapsed.
> 
> It looks like this rule got changed slightly from the copy I've seen, however.  I liked the original rule better: "When you pick up an item you know what it does."  Mostly because it invoked the idea that part of the property of magic items was bestowing their wielder with the knowledge of their use.  It also avoids a situation I see happening now: "We have 10 magic items?  Time to rest for 50 minutes to identify them all."  Which just needlessly slows down the game for no reason.



 10 minutes if you have 5 party members. Just give them to whatever party member you think is most likely to use them.


----------



## Knightlord (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> There's nothing between the lines.




Yeah, I think there might be.



> The one thing I've never had a problem with, didn't have a reason other than the fact I dislike gnomes.  I've never allowed gnomes in any of my campaign settings.  For a pointless and aesthetic reason.  I just didn't like them and funnily enough... that's the only restriction no one has ever had an issue with.  I am a good dm and I tell damn good story that does involve the players and their backgrounds, as long as the players do their part and try to be part of the campaign instead of wresting control of it to make their own little version of it.




D&D is cooperative. Give and take. And, honestly, judging from your posts, it sounds like its "you" who is taking, not your players.




> No, I harbor a lot of ill will towards poorly written rulebooks and outright faulty design decisions.




That is your opinion, though I believe you may be in the minority. Hence that is the reason why the books are written as they are. They serve the majority. And even so, they allow for deep customization.




> When people start paying me to run a game for them, then I'll run exactly what they want.  Until they pay me, I will take their ideas under advisement but ultimately, the theme of the campaign setting that I am spending my free time creating, aside from actual game time, will be done by my standards and preferences for that setting, regardless of what it may be.




DM, especially in regards to campaign building, does not equate "Authoritarian". Again, D&D is cooperative, and players play in order to have fun. If they feel like they are being forced to play "your way or the highway", they'll more than likely choose "the highway". Perhaps if you made a few concessions to your players, you may actually find attracting players much easier.




> I will never compromise on psionics.  That crap doesn't belong in D&D period.  If it wouldn't ruin the book, I'd cut it out of the PHB2 when it's released.




I was using the Psionic example to highlight your confrontational stance. I did not mean to drag the debate of that topic into this thread (where it does not belong). However, your response only strengthens not only my argument, but also those who have made the same claim. You continually make declarative statements in regards to what is right and wrong, what is crap (in your own words) and what is not. The point is, what is crap and wrong to you, may not be in regards to others. And many others, and not just in this forum, seem to prefer D&D as it is written (not default low-magic). Thus the majority rules, and WotC produces such because it will not only sell, but, again, is what the majority wants. And if you do not like it, you can easily change it on your own.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 16, 2008)

One thing I wonder from that article is whether or not there will be level 31+ items.  And if they might not be in PHB1, will they show up in books further down the road.


----------



## keterys (May 16, 2008)

Given they say that weapons cap at +6... it seems likely there are not. Otherwise you'd be getting them at 27-30.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 16, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> I didn´t meant this offensive and I not even disagree. I just think ther may be special items not so easy to identify. And to prevent nonsense like swinging it defensively or especially agressive, i would make it clear that the character has tried every fighting style he can imagine in the last 5 minutes.  So the whole party can try interesting things instead of one player asking redundant questions.




No offense taken, and I think we're basically in agreement.  I actually just wanted to make sure _I_ wasn't coming off hard-nosed.


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2008)

I figure the "Requires an Arcane Check" is for more obscure things, or artifacts, sure. Similar to how Galdolf had to throw the One Ring into the fire to get the words to show up.

Meanwhile, the magical dagger (or was it an amulet?) Sam used to battle Shelob, Sam had no idea what it'd do when it did it. 

Besides, some magical items ain't that hard to figure out. "Pointy end goes in the other guy. Baboom."


----------



## Tervin (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I am a good dm and I tell damn good story that does involve the players and their backgrounds, as long as the players do their part and try to be part of the campaign instead of wresting control of it to make their own little version of it.




And right there I see something that in my little mind is the core of the problem. Sorry if I am misreading you, but this is what it looks like to me:

You look at the story and the campaign as yours, and more or less yours alone. While most players these days want to do their part in all of that. My own experience is that when the campaign becomes *ours* instead of just *mine*, that is when we get the really good stuff.

I have a rich imagination. I have been writing RP stories and campaigns for 25 years or so. The campaign that I plan to launch soon has been growing in my head and in my notes for five years now. I am honestly afraid to tell my players how many hours I have put into it already...  Still I can't wait to see what ideas the players will bring to the table. Yes, I have well behaved players who accept any reasonable setting induced house rules - as long as they feel that I try to play their game as well as mine. And when they feel that their ideas are welcome, they start adding to the world, creating scenes, characters, storylines... all in the end much better than anything I could have created on my own.

And that way I end up feeling like I get paid to DM.


----------



## Duelpersonality (May 16, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> One thing I wonder from that article is whether or not there will be level 31+ items.  And if they might not be in PHB1, will they show up in books further down the road.



My guess would be that 31+ is artifact territory, and then all rules are off.  The characters will never be able to create said items, so it makes a very cut and dry unatainable mark that artifacts have always been known to occupy.  

An interesting thought is that this might make a great Epic Desitiny quest for characters that have the rituals to create magic items.  When it is done so much of your power and energy are poured into the item that you begin to fade away, only to live on forever in the mighty work you have wrought.


----------



## TerraDave (May 16, 2008)

*DM Authority*: _Really? Still? Now? For this?_ (The secret: The DM has huge power...and the more he uses it to make the game entertaining, the more power he has). 

*Banning Halflings: * Been there, done that (and psionics, and monks and splats...) Might actually allow the little...people...this time around. 

*Identify:* Not to touch on the actual article...but yes, in 3E, finding out how items work is not this cool, interesting part of the game (I think that was Gamma World), its a basic transaction cost. (As a DM, I/you may make it more intersting, but was our value added). This approach does leave wiggle room and is a better baseline. 

*Player Authority?:* Should this be in the PHB? Could it be in the DMG? Yes. BUT, the system does have a sneaky little feature: the DM easily controls the most powerfull items the party has. And those items come as rewards, they are not bought or made, Sure, he also controls access to rituals and wandering weapon merchants...but the control on the best items is very direct.


----------



## Knightlord (May 16, 2008)

Duelpersonality said:
			
		

> An interesting thought is that this might make a great Epic Desitiny quest for characters that have the rituals to create magic items.  When it is done so much of your power and energy are poured into the item that you begin to fade away, only to live on forever in the mighty work you have wrought.




Me likes! Very fitting.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Why? Did you even read the revision I did to the short blurb from the economics excerpt?  It covered every single topic that the original blurb covered, but made it clear that the DM was in charge of how much magic was available, whether it could be bought and sold, and whether it could be disenchanted and used in rituals for new enchantments.  The key change, was to enable the DM to be the arbiter of what is allowed, rather than giving the players a sense that this is the way it should be.




its in the DMG... Players will never ever have any contact to these "rules"

and I think from a 3.5 perspective, what they did is the middle way. And I am perfectly sure that the game system wil not instantly break down when you take away magic like 3.5. just subtract the magic item treshold from your monster stats or something if it really becomes obvious that the game gets too unbalanced...

But I generally agree with you: the DM has to lay out the stage for your group, so you have to check what you want to have in your game and what not to make it fun. Restricting things from core is always dangerous, because its a bit expected by your players. What you need is to make sure your players understand why you restrict some things (game balance/story reasons). 
But i am seriously worried that you have problems to find players. I am not the greatest DM, I sometimes have problems to bring the world to life, but my players trust me. I can do what I want, restrict what i want and most of my players are ok with it...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 16, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> No offense taken, and I think we're basically in agreement.  I actually just wanted to make sure _I_ wasn't coming off hard-nosed.




cool 

It really feels good if someone actually agrees with you on the internet... a day to celebrate


----------



## Heahengel (May 16, 2008)

To Aria:

You complain that they print books that encourage player entitlement and therefore bad players.  If they print the books constantly emphasizing that 'the DM decides everything' (even with the implicit idea that the DM should listen to the players) then that can encourage autocratic DMs and create more bad DMs.  Bad DMs are at least as bad a problem and as frequent as bad players (wrt proportion of DMs to Players).

Rule 0 needs to exist, but writing into the rules that the DM should decide everything about the way a campaign will be run and then tell that to the players is not a good thing in my opinion.  

(Editing this here for clarity: I have no problem with a DM coming up with a campaign and then listing the houserules.  And if a player joins and immediately starts complaining about those rules, yeah thats annoying.  But I don't think saying in the book that there is a base level and that DMs can deviate from it encourages this.  That guy is either not bothering to read your rules, or is just being ridiculous.  But even here, there is room for changing things to appeal to players joining the game, or to work with them for character concepts (there being a difference from a player wanting to work with you for a concept and a player wanting you to accept his concept and change your game).  Starting a campaign with existing players, they should be included in the idea of the campaign much more.)

If you want to DM your low magic setting, then you will want players who want to play that kind of game and then will work with you to make the campaign feel like that.  They will avoid more magical classes (or possibly take them and play them as outcasts, what have you), and will describe wonder at finding a sword that _burns as if it was covered in oil_.

If you are constantly having to cajole players to play that way, then they probably would prefer to play a different game.  And yeah, it may be hard to find people to play that game with you, although I've certainly been willing to join very restrictive games in the past.


----------



## Ipissimus (May 16, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Maybe it's a regional thing, but I can't find anything remotely funny about the phrase, "you can will this weapon to burst into flame."




Burst. As in 'explosion' or 'burst like a balloon'. It's a double meaning, you can read it like it's intended or you can read it like 'you can will this weapon to explode', probably while you're still holding it.

Yes, it's groan inducing. But I know gamers, they THRIVE on groan-inducing humour. That's my point. The number of 'humour' moments I've had to break up over 'Rope of Entanglement' or worse...

What really surprises and galls me is that WOTC has people who can write good fluff text, proven time and time again. And they're dropping in cringe-worthy lines like this. This sort of thing, and the naming conventions for powers, are just about the only thing that really gets under my skin about the new edition. It's not stopping me from buying it but I know they can do better.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 16, 2008)

I don't really see the problem.  If you ask me, any given gamer can turn just about anything into a joke.  If my players find it humorous I'll just roll with it and move on.  Or stop giving them Flaming Weapons (which, if you ask me, has much more potential to become a groan inducing phrase).  Or, I'll give Flaming Weapons to my monsters!  Then they'll stop laughing!*





*probably not though


----------



## Krensky (May 16, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Why? Did you even read the revision I did to the short blurb from the economics excerpt?  It covered every single topic that the original blurb covered, but made it clear that the DM was in charge of how much magic was available, whether it could be bought and sold, and whether it could be disenchanted and used in rituals for new enchantments.  The key change, was to enable the DM to be the arbiter of what is allowed, rather than giving the players a sense that this is the way it should be.




Wow.

Seriously, why exactly do you feel the book has to beat the players over the head with "The DM is God."? Are your local players really so childish that: "No, {class} is not appropriate in the campaign I'm running." causes them to whine? Or is that "No, I'm not letting you play that utterly stupid and craptastic class from the craptastic money grab splatbook because it's stupid, you idiot." that gets them a little upset? I honestly can not think of a single time in any game I've run or played in where saying: "No, you can't play that, they don't exist." or "No, you can't play a bank robber, you need to play a police officer like the rest of the party." politely caused a problem. Especially as there usually are ways of figuring out how to satisfy their desires without using the verboten thing they asked about.

You seem incredibly fixated on the phrasings that lead to (the made up phrase) player entitlement. The books don't need to constantly beat into the players skull that the DM is their lord and master. In fact it shouldn't. D&D, and in fact all paper and pencil games is not the venue for B&D1 role playing. The proper venue for that is acting, not gaming. Even there, it's a collaborative thing between the actors, writers, director and producers.

On the face of your comments you come off as aggressive, authoritarian, unforgiving and condescending to the people you ostensibly want to play with. You hate a whole lot of things that are not worthy of such a strong emotion. I, for instance will not play "Settlers of Catan" if I was paid to, but it's a game doesn't deserve enough emotional investment to generate something even resembling hate.

1 See bondage and discipline language


----------



## Vendark (May 16, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Burst. As in 'explosion' or 'burst like a balloon'. It's a double meaning, you can read it like it's intended or you can read it like 'you can will this weapon to explode', probably while you're still holding it.




"Burst into flame" is a common turn of phrase. It means "to catch fire suddenly." A Google search on the phrase turns up 141,000 hits. It's not amusing or cringe-worthy in the slightest.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 16, 2008)

I shouldn't give in to posting about the DM authority stuff but...

 Here are the different ways I can see WotC handling these things:


Permissive - The rules spell out things that tell the players and DM what they can do.  DMs have the right to restrict these things as part of Rule 0 and should inform the players of what has been changed.  The downside is that the players and DM might end up fighting over what the rules say and the DM might end up looking like a jerk because he is the one saying "no" despite the rules.

Ambiguous - The rules leave things very loose and open.  DMs get to tell the players what they can do.  DMs need to figure everything out ahead of time on their own, so they can inform the players how the ambiguous rules will be implemented.  The downside is that it is unlikely the DM will be able to present every rule situation and when the players suggest something that has not been clearly stated, the players and DM might end up fighting over what the rules *don't* say and the DM might end up looking like a jerk because he is the one saying "no" to player suggestions.

Restrictive - the rules spend a considerable amount of time outlining what is _not_ permitted.  The DM can apply Rule 0 and loosen things up, looking like the good guy.  The downside is that the game may not attract as many players since it looks so restrictive and  yet still players and the DM might end up fighting over what the rules say and the DM might end up looking like a jerk because he is the one saying "no" because it "clearly says so in the rules."

In the end it all comes down to the exact same thing.  There has to be a standard set of rules to start with.  Players and DMs need to collaborate and work out a resolution when the RAW and the players' or the DMs own vision of things don't agree.  If a DM is not a good moderator it does not matter what the rules do or do not say, the odds are the DM will come away looking like a jerk because the chief role the DM plays is to be the moderator between the campaign and it rules and the players who are experiencing that campaign using those rules.


----------



## Stormtalon (May 16, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> As for the "problem" of DMs losing track of what various items do, we-ell, I have no sympathy whatsoever as it's incumbent on you as DM to keep track of items anyway...an item numbering system can be a big help here - every time you give out an item (magic or not) in treasury, give it a number.  *Insist* your players record the number on their sheets along with the item.  Keep your own list of items in numerical order.  Then, when someone swings with an unidentified sword you just ask "what number is it?" and can then easily reference your list to remind yourself what it does.  This becomes essential when a) items have properties unknown to the characters/players e.g. curses, and-or b) when there are several similar-on-the-surface items e.g. "+2 swords" in a party but they are in fact not the same at all...item #36 that Sharana is using is in fact +1 to hit/+3 damage, item #38 that Astacoe is using is a straight +2, while item #39 in Khurin's hands is +1 base with extra benefits vs. dragons only.  But they all radiate about the same level of magic and the party have assumed they're all +2's...it's up to you to keep them straight until such time as the party gets them ID'ed - if ever.




Yeah, right, I'll take that under advisement.  That only works if you plan out each and every encounter in advance, along with detailed preset notes on where each item is.  Me, I work from a _very_ rough mental outline of what needs to happen in each session based on the last and wing _everything_ from there.  Dungeon maps?  Draw 'em on the spot as the party progresses based on what sort of place they're in, usually 2 to 3 rooms ahead, more if there's branching corridors.  Yes, I run ongoing campaigns with detailed plots, NPCs and villains and do it quite well.

I have a near-photographic memory for the events and characters and plots of my games, but tracking individual items and their properties _in secret_ is far more work than it's worth.  This new default suits me just fine, thank you very much.

Oh, thanks also for the condescending attitude, it was really appreciated.


----------



## Wormwood (May 16, 2008)

Vendark said:
			
		

> "Burst into flame" is a common turn of phrase. It means "to catch fire suddenly." A Google search on the phrase turns up 141,000 hits. It's not amusing or cringe-worthy in the slightest.



What he said.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 16, 2008)

Tervin said:
			
		

> You look at the story and the campaign as yours, and more or less yours alone. While most players these days want to do their part in all of that. My own experience is that when the campaign becomes *ours* instead of just *mine*, that is when we get the really good stuff.



The core of the campaign is mine.  I create the majority of it.  It's mine and my own.  Players can heavily influence what happens in game through their decisions however.  I had a campaign where evil won, because the player's made a string of bad decisions after bad decisions with some absolutely horrible rolling.  The paladin, leader of the party, who was rp'd by a very charismatic person... turned at a key moment.  It was completely justified in character and I didn't stop it despite the fact that it drastically altered what the campaign became.  The fellowship was sundered, the guild shattered, and the Coalition of Light crumbled.  The pc's became npc's who fled into the far reaches of the world, hiding from their former ally.  I spent a week writing up a short story to cover what happened after that and where the next campaign began.  With descendants of the original group, including the daughter of the betrayer.

I allow the players to help tell the story, but the story has to be within the setting.  Finding players capable of that level of shared storytelling though is damned hard and I hate when I have to let them go for whatever reasons.



> And that way I end up feeling like I get paid to DM.



Unfortunately for me, the three groups I've dm'd for like that have all gone their separate ways over the years and finding reliable players online always seems like such a chore.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 17, 2008)

Amazing how a single person can drive such a thread.


			
				Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I spent a week writing up a short story to cover what happened after that and where the next campaign began.



Aria, everything I've read from you in this thread reminds me of an article from WotC's Save My Game series. It's exactly about the kind of 'problem' you seem to see.

I think you really shouldn't just dismiss the advice from this thread. Maybe, you're truly convinced there's nothing to read between the lines, but there definitely is. Even _I_ picked that up, and I'm not particularly good at spotting these things. Perhaps you should reread what e.g. AZRogue and Cadfan wrote early in this thread. I think they were spot on.

About the article: I like what I see. Basically, it's just a continuation of the trends we've seen in 3E. MIC already introduced much of this and hinted at the rest.

Regarding the verisimilitude (sp?) issue about fighters identifying magic swords:
Actually, I think it's MORE realistic that fighters should be able to find out the properties of magic weapons than wizards. What does a wizard know about swords? Nothing! I wouldn't be surprised if fighters were also the ones creating the majority of magic weapons using rituals.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 17, 2008)

Just to jump in and ignore 90% of this thread:

I can't say much on the magic items, because I'm still not too clear on how they'll interact with the world.  That said, I loves me some Holy Avenger.


----------



## Yaezakura (May 17, 2008)

Heh... noble as all your efforts are, guys, they're basically wasted on Aria. Aria has a long-standing history of ignoring any viewpoint other than his/her own, looking down on anyone that disagrees with those viewpoints, and ignoring anyone who puts up a solid argument against them. "If you can't beat them, pretend they don't exist" pretty much. Just figured I'd throw it out there for those who'd rather not waste their effort on lost causes.

As for the article itself, I like what I see.

Identifying magic items always frustrated me, especially at low levels when 100gp for the pearl could hurt way more than the item was likely to help. Nevermind it made trying to run a martial party even more headache-inducing than it needs to be.

I also _love_ the idea of magical item properties essentially being templates you apply to weapons. The way it's presented also makes it much easier to find exactly what you want. And the other benefits scaling with the pluses? Awesome idea. No more need for different magical properties that simply do the same thing, but at different power levels. "Flaming" gets better the more powerful the sword is. Elegance and beauty through simplicity.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 17, 2008)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> Aria, everything I've read from you in this thread reminds me of an article from WotC's Save My Game series. It's exactly about the kind of 'problem' you seem to see.



It's not my problem.  I know players that get into a setting are rare.  I already do most of what that article says.  You all seem to think I'm trying to dictate to the players who they play their characters.  I'm not.  I'm dictating the guidelines within which they can create characters to fit into the setting. I'm merely providing guidelines.  That's all.



> I think you really shouldn't just dismiss the advice from this thread. Maybe, you're truly convinced there's nothing to read between the lines, but there definitely is. Even _I_ picked that up, and I'm not particularly good at spotting these things. Perhaps you should reread what e.g. AZRogue and Cadfan wrote early in this thread. I think they were spot on.



There isn't anything between the lines.  I think WotC made a bad decision and I'm criticizing it.  That's all there is to it.  There are too many players who feel like the DM is there lapdog, only there to run the game they want to play regardless of what the DM wants.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 17, 2008)

Yaezakura said:
			
		

> Heh... noble as all your efforts are, guys, they're basically wasted on Aria. Aria has a long-standing history of ignoring any viewpoint other than his/her own, looking down on anyone that disagrees with those viewpoints, and ignoring anyone who puts up a solid argument against them. "If you can't beat them, pretend they don't exist" pretty much. Just figured I'd throw it out there for those who'd rather not waste their effort on lost causes.



My point is valid.  I have no reason to change my viewpoint.



> Identifying magic items always frustrated me, especially at low levels when 100gp for the pearl could hurt way more than the item was likely to help. Nevermind it made trying to run a martial party even more headache-inducing than it needs to be.



I guess tough choices are such a bad way to run D&D.  I mean seriously, why should the players ever have to make a tough decision.  Players should always get their way. :roll:


----------



## Fifth Element (May 17, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I guess tough choices are such a bad way to run D&D.  I mean seriously, why should the players ever have to make a tough decision.  Players should always get their way. :roll:



Yes, the sarcasm really helps. And there's no rolleyes smiley here. Probably because it's rude.


----------



## Yaezakura (May 17, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I guess tough choices are such a bad way to run D&D.  I mean seriously, why should the players ever have to make a tough decision.  Players should always get their way. :roll:



I have nothing against posing tough choices to players. But I think those choices should stem from story elements, not from simply wondering if they can afford to find out what their hard-earned stuff does.

"Do we take time to rescue the prisoners the orcs took on their last raid? If we do, there's a chance the Cult of Orcus may raise enough undead to raze the entire village, but if we don't, those captives will surely die." That's a tough decision.

"Is it worth spending half of our pooled party funds to find out exactly what this magical-but-likely-mostly-useless-ring does?" That's not a tough decision. It's a quagmire that slows down fun at the table.


----------



## Kaffis (May 17, 2008)

To follow up on my musings over exponential growth vs. pseudo-exponential growth, I went and calculated an appropriate progression for a true exponential system, then rounded to the nearest 25 for less cumbersome values (in the first tier, this rounding never amounted to more than 6gp, though the 6gp rounding I did on the 2, 7, 12, ... progression was amplified in the later tiers as I chose to keep the factor of 5 every 5 levels. The end result is that level 27 is something like 18,000gp cheaper than a strict exponential curve would dictate... 10,000 out of around a million... others were less than 1,000 "off"), to arrive at the table as follows:


```
Level  BuyVal  SellVal  ExtWizVal

 1        275       55        360
 2        375       75        520
 3        525      105        680
 4        725      145        840
 5      1,000      200      1,000

 6      1,375      275      1,800
 7      1,875      375      2,600
 8      2,625      525      3,400
 9      3,625      725      4,200
10      5,000    1,000      5,000

11      6,875    1,375      9,000
12      9,375    1,875     13,000
13     13,125    2,625     17,000
14     18,125    3,625     21,000
15     25,000    5,000     25,000

16     34,375    6,875     45,000
17     46,875    9,375     65,000
18     65,625   13,125     85,000
19     90,625   18,125    105,000
20    125,000   25,000    125,000

21    171,875   34,375    225,000
22    234,375   46,875    325,000
23    328,125   65,625    425,000
24    453,125   90,625    525,000
25    625,000  125,000    625,000

26    869,375  171,875  1,125,000
27  1,171,875  234,375  1,625,000
28  1,640,625  328,125  2,125,000
29  2,265,625  453,125  2,625,000
30  3,125,000  625,000  3,125,000
```

Now, comparing that with the extrapolated Wizards' values, we see what's to be expected. A true exponential value curve values the levels after a 5-level cluster less than the Wizards' "incremental bumps" system. A level 26 item is worth 869,375 instead of 1,125,000, a level 11 item is worth 6,875 instead of 9,000, etc. Not a problem in itself, because both the costs and the sell prices scale to the same "melt down X items to produce Y same-level item" ratio, 5:1.

But what occurred to me while making this list, is that Wizards, in spreading the marginal increases evenly between each grouping of 5 levels, is valuing each progression within a bonus tier equally, while clustering the values more strongly by bonus. That is, a pure exponential growth scenario means that whatever items fall in the 1,6,11,etc. progression (the low end of the bonus tier) can be had much more cheaply than the high end, and now I'm not so sure that's appropriate.

Without double checking myself, I seem to remember that Frost weapons are level 3's. Is having a +1 bonus with a frost effect half as valuable as a +1 with a fire effect, or 2/3s as valuable? That's what the question really comes down to. Presumably, level 1 weapon effects (and thus level 6's, level 11's, etc) will have a weaker daily power. So Wizards' system values the +2 with the less powerful effect much more strongly than the +1 with the good effect. On the other hand, the suggestion has been that the effects are the real power of magical weapons, moreso than the bonuses, so it may be that they deliberately chose this progression scheme not only because it's easier to bandy about 2,125,000 gp than it is 1,640,125 or what have you, but also to encourage players to find "sweet spots" in cost-to-benefit in taking the good effect over a bland effect with a slightly better number bonus.

In short, I'm still up in the air on it, but I figured I'd share the crunching I did to come up with the exponential table.


----------



## Kaffis (May 17, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> There are too many players who feel like the DM is there lapdog, only there to run the game they want to play regardless of what the DM wants.




And I (and others, I think) are just pointing out that the vibe you're giving out in this thread is that you're just the opposite:

A DM that feels like the players are his minions, only there to perform to with whatever rules the DM wants regardless of how the players have fun playing.

I mean, seriously. You present this as a "it sounds better if I get to relax the rules to get my game of perfection, rather than restrict them" and all I hear is "I don't care how much the players balk at the rules themselves, I just want the rulebook to make it taste better going down, no matter how much heartburn it'll give them."

You're looking to sugarcoat house rules. I'm saying that if they were good house rules that everybody thought was fun, you wouldn't have to sugarcoat them. You'd present them as "I have a setting that I want to encourage this feel with, and here's how I'm going to do it" and they'd go "Yeah, that sounds like a fun vibe, I'm down with that."


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2008)

Yaezakura said:
			
		

> I have nothing against posing tough choices to players. But I think those choices should stem from story elements, not from simply wondering if they can afford to find out what their hard-earned stuff does.
> 
> "Do we take time to rescue the prisoners the orcs took on their last raid? If we do, there's a chance the Cult of Orcus may raise enough undead to raze the entire village, but if we don't, those captives will surely die." That's a tough decision.
> 
> "Is it worth spending half of our pooled party funds to find out exactly what this magical-but-likely-mostly-useless-ring does?" That's not a tough decision. It's a quagmire that slows down fun at the table.



Reminds me of a story I read in a Dragon Mag issue. The DM _required_ training before you levelled up, and you did not get any benefits from your levelling up (like HP, BAB, etc) until you trained. You couldn't even gain xp.

Party hit the next level. However, there was a time crunch: the Big Bad was going to Destroy this Thingy Over Here. To beat the BBEG, the PCs had to Go Over Here to get this Thing from a dungeon. 

The PCs decided to screw dungeoncrawling when they couldn't gain XP. So they trained.

One fo the players chose to run the dungeoncrawl solo because he cared about completing the mission. He completed it, but got no xp for it (and got drained a level due to a trap). 

This is why I dislike training rules.


----------



## Yaezakura (May 17, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Reminds me of a story I heard. The DM _required_ training before you levelled up, and you did not get any benefits from your levelling up (like HP, BAB, etc) until you trained.
> 
> Party hit the next level. However, there was a time crunch: the Big Bad was going to Destroy this Thingy Over Here. To beat the BBEG, the PCs had to Go Over Here to get this Thing from a dungeon.
> 
> ...



Wow... that is... horrible. If anything, I'd have given that player enough exp to compensate his level loss and _then_ some for his dedication, nevermind the fact he ran the thing solo when it wasn't designed to be.

I also think that's a gross representation of training rules. It's one thing to have a character do training for a new feat or to pick up a skill he doesn't already have ranks in, or picking up a level in a new class... but gaining a level is supposed to represent the fact that all those battles you just took part in made you better at what you're doing.

But yeah... I suppose this is a topic for a different thread.


----------



## Ingolf (May 17, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> There are too many players who feel like the DM is there lapdog, only there to run the game they want to play regardless of what the DM wants.




DM's who run the game they want to run regardless of what the players want to play typically find themselves without a game to run in short order.

Games that die because the DM isn't willing to accommodate his players can't be saved by any wording of the rules. They weren't killed by the rules, they were killed by the DM. A successful campaign requires some give and take by both players and DM, simply saying "My world, love it or leave it" doesn't work.


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2008)

Yaezakura said:
			
		

> Wow... that is... horrible. If anything, I'd have given that player enough exp to compensate his level loss and _then_ some for his dedication, nevermind the fact he ran the thing solo when it wasn't designed to be.
> 
> I also think that's a gross representation of training rules. It's one thing to have a character do training for a new feat or to pick up a skill he doesn't already have ranks in, or picking up a level in a new class... but gaining a level is supposed to represent the fact that all those battles you just took part in made you better at what you're doing.
> 
> But yeah... I suppose this is a topic for a different thread.



I intended to illustrate how 1) story choices vs. mechanical choices, and 2) _Downtime Is Important_. And I think downtime is also related to the identify issue; the players are tracking around a bag of items until they get some time to go to town and get it identified. Instead, players get their magical items the same time they get their encounter powers: one brief rest.


----------



## Henry (May 17, 2008)

Ingolf said:
			
		

> Games that die because the DM isn't willing to accommodate his players can't be saved by any wording of the rules. They weren't killed by the rules, they were killed by the DM. A successful campaign requires some give and take by both players and DM, simply saying "My world, love it or leave it" doesn't work.




I will say that (given Aria's comment on DM Reputation being affected by how the rules are written) that the most reputable DM that I know (and I'm thinking of a specific person here) was also the one who taught me a few years ago more about saying "yes" to my players to enhance the game.

I've always been a champion of "DM as final arbiter" in the game, but in my opinion, how the rules are written really shouldn't make a difference with the DM's reputation for running a fantastic game. I've seen the same DM run Call of Cthulhu, D&D, Feng Shui (the most "player permissive" game I know), Spycraft, and even Paranoia (the most "player non-permissive" game I know) all to great success.


----------



## Ingolf (May 17, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I've always been a champion of "DM as final arbiter" in the game, but in my opinion, how the rules are written really shouldn't make a difference with the DM's reputation for running a fantastic game. I've seen the same DM run Call of Cthulhu, D&D, Feng Shui (the most "player permissive" game I know), Spycraft, and even Paranoia (the most "player non-permissive" game I know) all to great success.




I'm with you. I've been playing & DMing for 29 years, and good DMs are system neutral in my experience, and edition neutral as well. If you have a rep as a hard-ass, or a killer DM, or a Monty-Haul style pushover, no wording of the rules can save you. You have to fix the underlying problems yourself, or get used to having no players.

Years ago - almost 30 years in fact - a member of my "summer holiday" play group developed a rep for ruthlessly killing players. He'd throw a Spectre at a 1st level party, and cut off all means of escape, for example, or pit beginning RuneQuest characters against hordes of Trolls. We contemplated just not letting the guy run games for us, but we were kids, and geeks to a man, and the guy was our friend, so we felt obligated to stand by him. But finally, he wiped out the entire group in a game of Boot Hill when he was essentially serving as a "guest GM" - running our long-standing PCs from another GM through his well-crafted slaughterhouse of an encounter. I just sort of snapped, told him I'd rather be gut-shot than let him GM anymore and suggested that he do something probably physically impossible with his game. The poor guy - it was like the light went on over his head. "Wait - you guys don't like being slaughtered like cattle in every game I run? Hmmmmmm."


----------



## AZRogue (May 17, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I will say that (given Aria's comment on DM Reputation being affected by how the rules are written) that the most reputable DM that I know (and I'm thinking of a specific person here) was also the one who taught me a few years ago more about saying "yes" to my players to enhance the game.
> 
> I've always been a champion of "DM as final arbiter" in the game, but in my opinion, how the rules are written really shouldn't make a difference with the DM's reputation for running a fantastic game. I've seen the same DM run Call of Cthulhu, D&D, Feng Shui (the most "player permissive" game I know), Spycraft, and even Paranoia (the most "player non-permissive" game I know) all to great success.




I agree. I'd also add two things: 

1. Players are entitled. To have fun. 

2. And the really successful DMs I know are those that take as much, or greater, enjoyment from the _players_ having fun as from the crafting of a shared story. It's not difficult. Just takes a subtle shift in goals and attitude.


----------



## Wormwood (May 17, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> There are too many players who feel like the DM is there lapdog, only there to run the game they want to play regardless of what the DM wants.



And there are too many DMs who believe their precious snowflake setting is more important than the group's game experience.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Fayd12 (May 17, 2008)

I've been lurking here for many years and this is one of the most bizarre threads I've ever seen.

Oh, and I really like the magic items rules...


----------



## Ingolf (May 17, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> And there are too many DMs who believe their precious snowflake setting is more important than the group's game experience.
> 
> Just sayin'.




I guess I'm just lucky. I haven't run into too many of either. The few layers who weren't willing to play nice with others we ran off, and the last time i had to put up with a DM copping a "my way or the highway" attitude I was like 15 years old.


----------



## kitoy (May 17, 2008)

Fayd12 said:
			
		

> I've been lurking here for many years and this is one of the most bizarre threads I've ever seen.
> 
> Oh, and I really like the magic items rules...




This!


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 17, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> My point is valid.  I have no reason to change my viewpoint.



Your point is invalid.  You have a very pressing reason to change your viewpoint.

(If he doesn't respond, he's validating this, which means he's wrong and the logic travels up the chain.  If he denies this, he denies his own quote by mirror logic and the logic bomb still goes off.  I think I won the internet.)


----------



## Family (May 17, 2008)

/I win.


----------



## marune (May 17, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I've always been a champion of "DM as final arbiter" in the game, but in my opinion, how the rules are written really shouldn't make a difference with the DM's reputation for running a fantastic game. I've seen the same DM run Call of Cthulhu, D&D, Feng Shui (the most "player permissive" game I know), Spycraft, and even Paranoia (the most "player non-permissive" game I know) all to great success.




Look at _Shadows of Yesterday_ for a fantasy RPG that is much more "player permissive" than _Feng Shui_.

_Burning Wheel_ is also a good one (but the rules aren't freely available).


----------



## DandD (May 17, 2008)

Family said:
			
		

> /I win.



Sorry, Charwoman Gene, but Family definitly won.


----------



## FireLance (May 17, 2008)

I think there's a very simple reason why the default standard is easy identification of magic items and easy buying and selling of magic items: the new edition is designed to appeal more to casual players, and to casual DMs.

Sure, hardcore D&D hobbyists (like most of us who read and post in this forum) will be willing to put up with a few inconveniences in gameplay for the sake of our favourite pasttime (or we may even enjoy what most casual gamers would consider inconveniences), but if the core system suggested that most people play the way we play, we wouldn't get as many players. 

And, judging from the tone of several posters in these thread, quite a few of us don't even like the way we play, and agree that WotC's default is a good one.


----------



## Orius (May 17, 2008)

Ingolf said:
			
		

> Years ago - almost 30 years in fact - a member of my "summer holiday" play group developed a rep for ruthlessly killing players. He'd throw a Spectre at a 1st level party, and cut off all means of escape, for example, or pit beginning RuneQuest characters against hordes of Trolls. We contemplated just not letting the guy run games for us, but we were kids, and geeks to a man, and the guy was our friend, so we felt obligated to stand by him. But finally, he wiped out the entire group in a game of Boot Hill when he was essentially serving as a "guest GM" - running our long-standing PCs from another GM through his well-crafted slaughterhouse of an encounter. I just sort of snapped, told him I'd rather be gut-shot than let him GM anymore and suggested that he do something probably physically impossible with his game. The poor guy - it was like the light went on over his head. "Wait - you guys don't like being slaughtered like cattle in every game I run? Hmmmmmm."




That's funny.  

Anyway, back to the thread.

The rules themsleves look solid. The rules look like it says buying and selling magic items isn't terribly difficult, unless your DM says so.  No problem there.  I don't mind the players buying trinkets, but I wouldn't be giving them the chance to buy really powerful stuff.  It also lets the players get rid of items they don't need.  The items levels look ok too, it's somewhat of an improvement over the minor/medium/major categories of 3e, which itself improved on everything earlier where the DM pretty much had to guess how much of an impact the item would have in the campaign.

 I don't really like the easy identifying rules myself, but the Arcana check shows promise.  I don't think a fighter or barbarian or such should be able to easily id an item by just fondling it for a few minutes.  They just don't have the sort of knowledge or training for that. That's why you have wizards who have studied magic, or bards who know a little bit of just about everything and so on.  I also like a bit of mystery in the items too. Players usually like when they discover their weapon or something has powers they weren't aware of, and as the DM I enjoy slipping in the occasional cursed item to keep the players on their toes.  The game can get boring if things are too predictable.

 The rules for identifying items in earlier editions had their shortcomings too I suppose -- by the book, _identify_ in the old days didn't tell you exactly what an item could do, it just gave a general idea as to its abilities.  You needed _legend lore_ for a full id.  This was improved in 3.0 -- _identify_ gave the most basic ability of the item.  Even then, _identify_ cost more than was necessary, a 100 gp material component and 8 hour casting time feels a bit over the top for a first level spell.  This was toned down in 3.5, and full iding was allowed, but I think that was a bit too generous with powerful items, since it worked equally as well on a potion or scroll with a 1st level spell and a powerful major item worth 200k gp.

The Arcana check might be a good solution, if success depends on caster level and item level.  So if a 5th level wizard should probably have little trouble at all iding a _+1 sword_ (1st level, right?), have a normal chance to id that _+1 flaming sword_, have difficulty iding something about level 10 or so, and have little or no chance of iding something epic, I'll be happy with that.  This way, a DM can put in a powerful mysterious artifact that won't be fully understood by the party, while minor magic is easily ided and disposed of if necessary.


----------



## Victim (May 17, 2008)

Orius said:
			
		

> The Arcana check might be a good solution, if success depends on caster level and item level.  So if a 5th level wizard should probably have little trouble at all iding a _+1 sword_ (1st level, right?), have a normal chance to id that _+1 flaming sword_, have difficulty iding something about level 10 or so, and have little or no chance of iding something epic, I'll be happy with that.  This way, a DM can put in a powerful mysterious artifact that won't be fully understood by the party, while minor magic is easily ided and disposed of if necessary.




I dunno.  It seems like the flashier the item, the easier it would be to identify.  Recognizing a legendary item might be somewhat trivial, while it's harder to determine the effect of a weakly enchanted item.


----------



## Lanefan (May 17, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Yeah, right, I'll take that under advisement.  That only works if you plan out each and every encounter in advance, along with detailed preset notes on where each item is.



Er...not true.  See below... 







> Me, I work from a _very_ rough mental outline of what needs to happen in each session based on the last and wing _everything_ from there.  Dungeon maps?  Draw 'em on the spot as the party progresses based on what sort of place they're in, usually 2 to 3 rooms ahead, more if there's branching corridors.  Yes, I run ongoing campaigns with detailed plots, NPCs and villains and do it quite well.



Been there, done that; have also done the pre-planned-to the-nth-degree version, and lots of variants in between.







> I have a near-photographic memory for the events and characters and plots of my games,



A useful advantage; wish I could say the same. 


> but tracking individual items and their properties _in secret_ is far more work than it's worth.  This new default suits me just fine, thank you very much.



If you're not taking any other notes on the fly I can see why it'd be a nuisance.  Me, I'm always making notes...very brief, but enough to tell me who got in on what encounters and what those encounters were against (I work out ExP between sessions and I'd never remember these without notes); who joined; who died; what the game date is and when it changes; noteworthy or amusing events; level bumps or drains, etc.....and, what items are found.  I don't note the items ahead of time; instead, I note them _as they're found_ by the party, mirroring the party treasurer noting them on the treasury list.  (I suspect you may have mis-interpreted my previous post; the item list is not generated in advance, but on the fly as the game rolls along - the only things ever listed are things actually found by the party)  A small side-advantage here is the built-in redundancy; it's rare - but not unheard of! - for a player to actually lose the party's treasury list...

Another reason I thought of to track items separately is for cases when a character for whatever reason has something the rest of the party doesn't know about.

Lanefan


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 17, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Yes, the sarcasm really helps. And there's no rolleyes smiley here. Probably because it's rude.



If Yaezukura is who I think it is, they're deserving of the sarcasm and smiley.



			
				Kaffis said:
			
		

> And I (and others, I think) are just pointing out that the vibe you're giving out in this thread is that you're just the opposite:
> 
> A DM that feels like the players are his minions, only there to perform to with whatever rules the DM wants regardless of how the players have fun playing.



So it's too much to ask for players to create characters within the guidelines of the campaign setting, which are reasonable imo, instead of creating whatever character they want regardless of what the setting is? I have had this happen: a party of five, four of whom are staying true to the guidelines for that short campaign, playing martial types in a mercenary guild and then the fifth wants to play a drow wizard from Faerun.

I'm not going to accommodate the idiots and morons that just want to play their pet class and race every single time and never vary the backstory or the dorks that want to try out the latest uber build from some charop board or the latest splatbook.



			
				Ingolf said:
			
		

> DM's who run the game they want to run regardless of what the players want to play typically find themselves without a game to run in short order.



The last few games that have died out have simply been because of unreliable and worthless players.  They create a character and seem to be excited about it, even within the guidelines and then they just never show up or show up late or they get arrested. That was an interesting conversation at the game store.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> I've always been a champion of "DM as final arbiter" in the game, but in my opinion, how the rules are written really shouldn't make a difference with the DM's reputation for running a fantastic game.



Ok, look at it this way... you have six games listed and they're all in timeslots that are favorable to your schedule.  Four of them have specific guidelines for their settings, many of which are houserules that say "No" essentially, to various things in the PHB that already say you can do that.  The other two games don't have those houserules and in fact, add some stuff to the players via new feats or multi-classing rules.

Which ones are going to look more favourable to you?  As I said before, it's easier to give something back to the players than it is to take them away.  Which is why the rules should have been written more middle of the road instead of magic rich.



			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> And there are too many DMs who believe their precious snowflake setting is more important than the group's game experience



It's my campaign setting.  I define the theme, the tone, the genre of the setting.  I'm the one putting in hours of work into it.  The players are given a set of guidelines and are free to create any character that falls within those guidelines.  They're actually a rather diverse set of guidelines.  I've had groups play the Witch Hunters, others played the spellcasters being hunted by the Empire or the Church.  The current starting point of the campaign is actually based upon the actions of past groups, including the one where Evil took hold.  The Betrayer was eventually defeated and that triggered a mass hysteria, a backlash against magic since the Betrayer used magic heavily to enslave entire kingdoms.

So yeah, when it comes to my setting... I have a specific theme to the setting.  Players have an obligation to play by the guidelines so the tone of the game remains within the setting and doesn't alter it to something else.  There's plenty of room for players to create their own story within the guidelines.  Many have done so and a few have done so well enough to change the setting. 

I've said this once already, I do not dictate character actions or their verses.  I don't provide them with scripted lines.  They make their own stories.  Just within the scope of the campaign.  Of the world their characters live in.  If a player wants so badly to create their own story that runs counter to what the campaign is about... they can go run their own campaign setting instead.



			
				Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Your point is invalid.  You have a very pressing reason to change your viewpoint.



My point is valid.  The rules are written in such a way that dm's wishing to create a campaign setting with magic that is more rare and "mysterious" are forced to write out a list of house rules that essentially say No to the players in many ways.  This becomes even worse if they want to create a no-magic setting.

The rules are written as Yes - No - NO, whereas I feel they should have been written as Yes, - Yes - No.  Again, my point is valid.  It's a concern I have and it's my criticism of the excerpts as they have been presented to me.  Therefore I do not have any reason to change my viewpoint.


----------



## FireLance (May 17, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Ok, look at it this way... you have six games listed and they're all in timeslots that are favorable to your schedule.  Four of them have specific guidelines for their settings, many of which are houserules that say "No" essentially, to various things in the PHB that already say you can do that.  The other two games don't have those houserules and in fact, add some stuff to the players via new feats or multi-classing rules.
> 
> Which ones are going to look more favourable to you?  As I said before, it's easier to give something back to the players than it is to take them away.  Which is why the rules should have been written more middle of the road instead of magic rich.



And how is making the middle of the road option the default going to address this? DMs that want to run more permissive games will still run them, and players that gravitate to more permissive games will still gravitate to those games. Of your theoretical six games, then, you would have two that say "No", two that run according to the recommended default level of permissiveness, and two that give the players more flexibility and options that the standard. I don't see the players opinions of which game they would prefer changing based on which option is stated as the default.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 17, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I'm not going to accommodate the idiots and morons that just want to play their pet class and race every single time and never vary the backstory or the dorks that want to try out the latest uber build from some charop board or the latest splatbook.
> [...]
> The last few games that have died out have simply been because of unreliable and worthless players.
> [...]
> ...



Do I even need to comment on this?

Look, I guess there must be some niche for games like this otherwise you'd probably never have found any players that stayed for more than one session. But I'll definitely be glad if there is nothing in the DMG to encourage this style.

I fear that calling players idiots, morons, unreliable, and worthless if they disagree with your idea of how the game should work is not going to get you more players. You are obviously totally convinved that your way is the only way. It's not so. I suspect that the majority of players would feel your guidelines to be too restrictive.

One of your first remarks here was that there was an overabundance of DMs in your area, making it difficult for you to find 'good' players. I have no idea in what area you live in but that is exactly the opposite of what I'm seeing in my area. Here, it's difficult to find a DM and even more difficult to find a good DM. Players are abundant and always searching for DMs.
Everything I'm seeing here points to a different reason for your problems with finding players. And believe me: A DMG that is written to support your view won't help you find more players in any way.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 17, 2008)

Just a tiny thing, though. The rules on "treasure parcels" and stuff are in the DMG, not the PHB. The players don't need to know what's in the DMG, so if you don't hand out magical items (or less), or hand out unique magical items that require special identification measures, they don't know you might have left the default assumptions. Unless they want to know the default assumptions and read the DMG...



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> And how is making the middle of the road option the default going to address this? DMs that want to run more permissive games will still run them, and players that gravitate to more permissive games will still gravitate to those games. Of your theoretical six games, then, you would have two that say "No", two that run according to the recommended default level of permissiveness, and two that give the players more flexibility and options that the standard. I don't see the players opinions of which game they would prefer changing based on which option is stated as the default.



Exactly. 

A "permissive" DM will always attract players that like to have more options. It doesn't matter if the default rules are wishy-washy on default, or has some explicit default guidelines. Players will always prefer the DM that gives them what they like. Be it more options, interesting storylines, excessive combat, deep role-playing, or the best snacks...
This is a fundamental truth, and does not depend on the book.


----------



## hong (May 17, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> If Yaezukura is who I think it is, they're deserving of the sarcasm and smiley.
> 
> 
> So it's too much to ask for players to create characters within the guidelines of the campaign setting, which are reasonable imo, instead of creating whatever character they want regardless of what the setting is? I have had this happen: a party of five, four of whom are staying true to the guidelines for that short campaign, playing martial types in a mercenary guild and then the fifth wants to play a drow wizard from Faerun.
> ...


----------



## Family (May 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Players will always prefer the DM that gives them what they like. Be it more options, interesting storylines, excessive combat, deep role-playing, or the best snacks...




Me, you, wavelength...we're on the same one.


----------



## HerntheHunted (May 17, 2008)

I never thought of the Identifying rules as something that adds to the gaming experience.
We just never bothered to change the rules because we didn´t care.
Heck, I routinely added pearls to the loot to speed things up.
I doubt anyone in my group will shed a tear about the Indentify spell being gone.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 17, 2008)

I agree that changing the phrasing of the rules in the DMG would do little to encourage players who prefer permissive DMs to gravitate to non-permissive DMs.  Most experienced DMs have their own preferred style(s) for running games.  Changing how the DMG is written isn't likely to change that.  All it would change is how inexperienced/ new DMs run their games and, IMO, the default that the DMG is written to sounds to me to be better suited to that than any other DMG that I've read.

That said, I really liked the article.  I love how magic weapons are significantly more dynamic (granting powers in addition to bonuses, as opposed to the +x +xd6 energy damage weapons that are so pervasive in 3.x).  I'm also happy that ID is gone for the majority of items, as it only rarely added anything to the game (aside from tedium).


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 17, 2008)

Mirror logic sets off the logic bomb.
Pointless as Family already won.


----------



## Stormtalon (May 17, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Mirror logic sets off the logic bomb.
> Pointless as Family already won.




Collateral damage is _never_ pointless; it's where things get fun!


----------



## glass (May 17, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> I like flaming and the holy avenger. Wish we could see some more wondrous items. All in due course, I suppose.



I really like the holy avenger. I think if I'd like flaming better is it counted as both fire damage and slashing (or whatever) damage all the time rather than being a free action to switch. Might make that a houserule when I have had time to digest the ruleset.


glass.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 17, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> I really like the holy avenger. I think if I'd like flaming better is it counted as both fire damage and slashing (or whatever) damage all the time rather than being a free action to switch. Might make that a houserule when I have had time to digest the ruleset.




I think I read somewhere that anything with a mixed damage type now deals 1/2 of each (so your house ruled flaming sword would deal 1/2 fire and 1/2 slashing).  I could be mistaken though, as I can't seem to remember where I read that.


----------



## keterys (May 17, 2008)

Yep. And 'slashing' is not a damage type, so it being all fire is frankly enough.


----------



## Stogoe (May 17, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Mirror logic sets off the logic bomb.
> Pointless as Family already won.




I'd like to point out that winning a thread via Calvin and Hobbes is really poor form.  It's like throwing a nuclear warhead at a Mexican Standoff.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 17, 2008)

Stogoe said:
			
		

> I'd like to point out that winning a thread via Calvin and Hobbes is really poor form.  It's like throwing a nuclear warhead at a Mexican Standoff.




Tyrannosaurs in F-15s FTW!


----------



## Orius (May 18, 2008)

Victim said:
			
		

> I dunno.  It seems like the flashier the item, the easier it would be to identify.  Recognizing a legendary item might be somewhat trivial, while it's harder to determine the effect of a weakly enchanted item.




Well, there's metagaming involved too.  It's not always a good thing for the players to know about every single power they have at their PCs disposal from a legendary item.  OTOH, if you're well into paragon tier, knowing that that maigc sword is just a _+1 sword_ is going to do very little to shift around the balances of power in the game.

And who says the legendary items are all that easy to pick out?  The One Ring was just a plain gold ring after all.


----------



## Staffan (May 18, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> That was covered in previous editions.  The DM merely adds the +2 magic bonus behind the scenes until the character figures it out.



As a DM, I have enough to think about without mentally adding to a specific player's hit rolls and damage rolls behind the screen.


----------



## Staffan (May 18, 2008)

CrimsonNeko said:
			
		

> I like the wording on the purchase price of PERMANENT magic items.  Hopefully, this is referring to the possibility of rituals for temporary enchantments....



I'm about 95% certain that "permanent" in this case is there to differentiate them from things like potions and scrolls, rather than things like _magic weapon_ spells.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 18, 2008)

Staffan said:
			
		

> As a DM, I have enough to think about without mentally adding to a specific player's hit rolls and damage rolls behind the screen.



That where the days when monsters were probably a lot easier, and it might not even have mattered to remember that stuff. I don't think that would fly well in 3E or 4E...

Ah... keeping modifiers straight. Reminds me of running a Shadowrun Game with 6 or more players... "What, you also want a target number? I give you a target number! How about 14, hmm? How do you like that, chummer?". Though, the truth was more like "Okay, you've got (cyber)low-light/(cyber)infrared/ultrasound/normal, there is some smoke, and bad lighting, and the target has taken cover behind the door ..." x6 => *GM head explodes*

Luckily, my head got better


----------



## Parlan (May 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

>




Hong for President!!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 18, 2008)

Parlan said:
			
		

> Hong for President!!



Yay!

Wait, didn't a lot of Australian presidents get sued in criminal courts or even had to serve jail time? Or is that just an exaggeration I heard?

And worse, isn't he a statistician? He would fake his own election statistics, and trust them!


----------



## Mort_Q (May 18, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> Yep. And 'slashing' is not a damage type, so it being all fire is frankly enough.




Is _weapon_ a damage type?  I thought I read that somewhere... makes sense.  

Instead of _DR_, you can have _Resist Weapon 5_?


----------



## keterys (May 18, 2008)

Yep, weapon is a damage type. So the fire weapon can get around weapon resist by turning into all flame, and fire resist by doing normal weapon damage.

I'm okay with just not dealing with splitting the damage.


----------

