# Essentials: Magic Item Rarity Explained, it's actually good!



## Rex Blunder (Aug 23, 2010)

*magic item rarity article*

The article on item rarity is up. This is actually one of the Essentials changes I'm most looking forward to.

Common items are the boring stat-boosting items like +2 swords. They're the ones that characters can make and buy. This is a huge fix: I'm sick of giving out magic items, only to find that the PCs have already cherrypicked the best items and don't want my treasure.

Characters get one Rare item PER TIER. That is an exciting - as they say, "character defining" - level of rarity. I like the idea of characters having a signature item power. I wish the article had included an example rare item, so we could see exactly what its level of complexity was.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 23, 2010)

Magic Item Rarity is explained today and I must say, I was skeptical at first but I am now interested. Rare items are really hard to find, but have better powers and sell for 100% of their value. Uncommon items can only be found, so you can't just craft them, but they sell for 50% of their value. Common items have basic properties or similar, but don't sell for much and are able to be crafted.

Overall seems like a good system, especially if it makes magic items less boring and give me (as the DM) options for better items without having to worry about the "craft billions of X" to abuse problem at the moment.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 23, 2010)

Oh noes. Now we have two threads D:

But yes, I agree with your comments.

I wrote in the other thread that I made:

Magic Item Rarity is explained today and I must say, I was skeptical at first but I am now interested. Rare items are really hard to find, but have better powers and sell for 100% of their value. Uncommon items can only be found, so you can't just craft them, but they sell for 50% of their value. Common items have basic properties or similar, but don't sell for much and are able to be crafted.

Overall seems like a good system, especially if it makes magic items less boring and give me (as the DM) options for better items without having to worry about the "craft billions of X" to abuse problem at the moment.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 23, 2010)

Awsome...just perfect.

    I hope this will end all of the  arguements about these new rules.



> One of the consistent pieces of feedback we’ve received about the Dungeons & Dragons game concerns magic items. Many players and DMs have told us that while plenty of the items in the game are treasures worth risking a character’s life and limb for, the most powerful items felt a little flat. On the other hand, we’ve also seen in playtests that magic items can sometimes crowd out a character’s other options. Particularly at high levels, a character’s boots, armor, gloves, belt, weapon, and other gear add quite a few powers and abilities that might overshadow other character aspects.




that tells us why they did this...

and 



> First, the rules assume that the DM hands out one rare item per character per tier






> Common items lack activated powers







> The rest of our magic items are now uncommon. They occupy the middle ground between rare and common items. They have powers, but these powers are typically daily abilities.




tells us what they did...

and



> As you can see, an items’ rarity has a big effect on how it interacts with the game. Characters can easily stock up on common items, but rare and uncommon items only enter the game at the Dungeon Master’s discretion. This approach seeks a middle ground between empowering characters to buy and sell items while giving the DM a useful tool for keeping the game manageable and exciting.




is how they hope it works out...

they even include a part about changeing rarity to suit your own homebrew worlds...


----------



## Rex Blunder (Aug 23, 2010)

In before "now they can sell magic item booster packs"


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 23, 2010)

Rex Blunder said:


> In before "now they can sell magic item booster packs"



As long as they don´t start selling foiled magic items, i am ok with it...


----------



## Lancelot (Aug 23, 2010)

I like it. And I also like the note at the bottom which confirms that "Daily Item Uses" are a thing of the past. You can now use as many Daily Item powers as you desire. Simplicity is good; the DM can always control access to things like elixirs (count as daily items), if required.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Aug 23, 2010)

You know, it totally makes sense to limit PCs to buying/crafting Common items. Common items (+1 Magic Swords, etc) are not rewards; they're basically game-mandated.

Let's take a 16th-level party. Their +3 weapons, armor and amulets are _necessities_. But all their other magic item abilities are _perks._ *D&D is a game about earning perks.* In a game about earning perks, we _don't give out unearned perks.

_Oh - I hope they respec the Holy Avenger as a Rare item. In earlier editions, the Holy Avenger is the classic example of a character-defining magic weapon.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 23, 2010)

Mmmm how is this going to be backdated into the thousands that already exist? Every single MI needs another line in it's stat block! Not a problem with DDi but...


It is good though, I run with the alternate no stat boosting magic rules on the Char Builder... now plus one rare item per tier WIN!


----------



## Kzach (Aug 23, 2010)

This is the kind of house rule I would've come up with had I been inclined to come up with a house rule about magic items. As it stands, I will definitely include it in future games.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 23, 2010)

I like it.

It helps explain why some magic items are really good for their level and some are really terrible. Also, having costs change is nice. 20% to 100%


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 23, 2010)

I'd like to see a few examples, but theoretically it sounds pretty good. My magic item house rule was edging toward a "7 item limit," with the ability to make single magic items that combined multiple powers but counted as multiple items. But making that work would've required a lot of work that no one's paying me to do, so I think I'll go for WotC's work.


----------



## Grydan (Aug 23, 2010)

mach1.9pants said:


> Mmmm how is this going to be backdated into the thousands that already exist? Every single MI needs another line in it's stat block! Not a problem with DDi but...




Easiest way to handle it would be to insert a blanket statement into one of the rulebooks somewhere, along the lines of "Unless otherwise specified, magic items are Uncommon".


----------



## eamon (Aug 23, 2010)

The idea is good - the sale price thing isn't.  It's completely counter to common sense that _common_ items have the highest disparity between selling and buying price.  The more common the item, the less the disparity between buying and selling an item should be.


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 23, 2010)

eamon said:


> The idea is good - the sale price thing isn't.  It's completely counter to common sense that _common_ items have the highest disparity between selling and buying price.  The more common the item, the less the disparity between buying and selling an item should be.




Some things keep their resale value and some don't.

Why buy used when you can buy new.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 23, 2010)

eamon said:


> The idea is good - the sale price thing isn't.  It's completely counter to common sense that _common_ items have the highest disparity between selling and buying price.  The more common the item, the less the disparity between buying and selling an item should be.




How... how does this make sense?

If something is common, why would someone want something _more_ and therefore offer a higher price than a rare, hardly seen before near artifact of considerably higher power?

I just can't fathom how this works. Common items are everywhere, they aren't in high demand and so selling them is much harder (so you get less for them). Rare items are in extremely high demand and there are hardly any of them, so merchants are going to pay a higher price (in this case 100% of the items value).


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Aug 23, 2010)

I like the changes... and now I want back my at will flame shooting staff!

and we should be able to make justice to old favourite like the Staff of Wizardy and similar items...


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 23, 2010)

Grydan said:


> Easiest way to handle it would be to insert a blanket statement into one of the rulebooks somewhere, along the lines of "Unless otherwise specified, magic items are Uncommon".




Or to give some guidelines about what items are considered rare and uncommon - similar to the points listed in the articles above - and leave it to DM discretion.


----------



## Kingreaper (Aug 23, 2010)

eamon said:


> The idea is good - the sale price thing isn't.  It's completely counter to common sense that _common_ items have the highest disparity between selling and buying price.  The more common the item, the less the disparity between buying and selling an item should be.



Given as you can't buy uncommon and rare items, the disparity is a meaningless comparison.

Also: No. If items are rare because no-one wants them, the disparity between purchase and sell will be big.
That's common magic items, everyone can make them, no-one wants them that much.

If items are rare because no-one can get them, a 5% finders fee will work fine for the merchant, they already have five people who've asked after a flametongue sword, so getting one into their hands is valuable. Meanwhile, getting a +2 sword into their hands is slightly pointless when they have 4 gathering dust.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 23, 2010)

After the whole thing was roughly outlined at GenCon, this article isn't a huge surprise - but it's nice to see it explained in detailed with their reasoning behind it. And the bit about the sale price is pretty nice too - didn't expect that.

Very happy about the change overall - seems to give us the best of both worlds, the ease of 4E (commons crafted by PCs, uncommons are probably still wishlist material) and the shiny of older editions (i.e. rare items).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## eamon (Aug 23, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> If items are rare because no-one can get them, a 5% finders fee will work fine for the merchant, they already have five people who've asked after a flametongue sword, so getting one into their hands is valuable. Meanwhile, getting a +2 sword into their hands is slightly pointless when they have 4 gathering dust.




If items are rare and thus hard to find, then the act of finding is valuable - the salesman can make a far, far greater markup because there's little competition.  Also, the risk to the salesman is fairly high since the market is less fluid.

Items that everyone has and sells (particularly non-degradable goods which have a high value-density) are extremely fluid (a small risk) and there's heavy competition in the market and finally the salesman is providing little added value (since finding the item is easy) - hence the markup must be minimal.  Sometimes these things end up being called trade goods.

If this doesn't make sense, look around in any supermarket; the basics are often sold at-cost or even below cost to attract customers and provide sufficient scale.  Luxury goods have a higher markup.


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 23, 2010)

eamon said:


> If items are rare and thus hard to find, then the act of finding is valuable - the salesman can make a far, far greater markup because there's little competition.  Also, the risk to the salesman is fairly high since the market is less fluid.
> 
> Items that everyone has and sells (particularly non-degradable goods which have a high value-density) are extremely fluid (a small risk) and there's heavy competition in the market and finally the salesman is providing little added value (since finding the item is easy) - hence the markup must be minimal.  Sometimes these things end up being called trade goods.
> 
> If this doesn't make sense, look around in any supermarket; the basics are often sold at-cost or even below cost to attract customers and provide sufficient scale.  Luxury goods have a higher markup.




You've just argued against your own point. But I suppose it depends who you label as the Salesman. For Rare items the market is determining the price since they are so hard to make, so the 100% markup makes sense, someone is looking to buy any of these power items. Anyway I wouldn't apply supermarket/mass-market economics to what is effectively a cottage industry.

This model for magic items is a great start/end point for most games, not to complicated to remember, not fiddly to manage, but provides some additional motivators in the game;  most groups couldn't give a monkey's about DND economics. The previous 4e magic system was a little too flat.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 23, 2010)

There's one thing that worries me.  As I read it, some of the most powerful items *cough*StaffOfRuin*cough* are common.  And some of the more pointless ones ... aren't.  I hope there's item level tweaking as well as those guidelines.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 23, 2010)

I'm not at all sure what eamon's arguing anymore, but I'm pretty sure he's misread what the items sell for.

Vendors sell an item "at cost", which we know is very roughly 360gp or so for a level 1 item. When they buy your used level 1 scrubby item, it's worth only 25% of its value.

For an uncommon item, it's worth 50% of its value. It's not as easy to make and finding a buyer will be a lot easier than a common item.

For a rare item, it would be worth a full 100% of its value. It's rare and hard to get, so a vendor knows he can find someone willing to pay a higher price for it (as it can't be made and is damn hard to find). This means that a rare item is worth a LOT more than a common item, which has a narrow profit margin (also bearing in mind that magic items are not a high demand item to begin with).


----------



## eamon (Aug 23, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> I'm not at all sure what eamon's arguing anymore, but I'm pretty sure he's misread what the items sell for.



Not at all; I'm arguing that the more common the item, the smaller the gap between selling and buying price - based on reality, common sense, and economics 101.  I don't understand why this should be any different in a fantasy world.  The actual rules have the reverse relationship.



> Vendors sell an item "at cost", which we know is very roughly 360gp or so for a level 1 item. When they buy your used level 1 scrubby item, it's worth only 25% of its value.



Obviously, on average vendors don't sell an item "at cost".  But, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right and they sell a level 1 magic item for the same price it costs them to procure - which means it costs them 360gp normally to procure such an item.  That means that _any_ price below 360gp is actually a good deal for them - they're getting the item cheaper than usual!  If indeed it usually costs 360gp to procure a common level 1 magic item, then a shopkeep has a very weak bargaining position - if he won't buy it for near that price, then any other shopkeer could bid higher - after all it's a common item, and every magic item shopkeep deals in them since every combatant or adventurer with sufficient resources will want one.



> For an uncommon item, it's worth 50% of its value. It's not as easy to make and finding a buyer will be a lot easier than a common item.



You're confusing price with fluidity.  If it's easy to find a buyer and hard to procure, that's a sign that the price is too low - i.e. not a market equilibrium.  If the market isn't fluid, then buying and selling is risky business and takes more effort - the markup will _need_ to be greater.

The only leap of faith I'm making in this argument is that common items have a more fluid market than less common items - not exactly an unreasonable assumption, it seems to me.

Common magic items don't degrade over time (both mechanically and mythically), so the argument that the item is "used" hardly matters.


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 23, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> I'm not at all sure what eamon's arguing anymore, but I'm pretty sure he's misread what the items sell for.
> 
> Vendors sell an item "at cost", which we know is very roughly 360gp or so for a level 1 item. When they buy your used level 1 scrubby item, it's worth only 25% of its value.
> 
> ...




I believe he is arguing that the Rare items will be hard to shift so a buyer will only offer 20% and the common items will be easy to shift and so should be bought by the middle man for 90%-100% of their listed price.

All this is based on real world retail economics. I may be wrong but I believe that is what he is stating.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 23, 2010)

Well, assuming a 'rare' level 15 item is the same base cost as a 'common' level 15 item.....

20% has always been pretty low, but that is no change so I'm not gonna argue it.

50% for an uncommon item (which will be less than 50% of treasure, but maybe near 45%), is a large markup in trade-in value for a party. SO the merchant sells it for 2.5 times the base price.

100% for a rare item, of which a 5 person party will find 15 in their career, is great, and the merchant must be selling it a lot higher, like 5 times the base price?

So more or less it is better for the party, but they are still getting 20%

But if there are rules to quest to make such items, by gathering components and such, I am all for it.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 23, 2010)

eamon said:


> Obviously, on average vendors don't sell an item "at cost".




Actually they do. Otherwise would you like to explain why the cost for a level 1 magical item with the enchant item ritual is identical to one made in a store? I mean, they don't produce it out of thin air and if your PC can make it using the *same* ritual, why is it they can do it far cheaper than your PC can?

So "obviously" magic items are sold pretty close to what their made for, because the market is small (adventurers are extraordinary people, not your average peasant) and there is a big investment in making magic items for such a limited market. Hence the more rare the more valued.

And that's precisely the system we're working on.



> But, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right and they sell a level 1 magic item for the same price it costs them to procure - which means it costs them 360gp normally to procure such an item.  That means that _any_ price below 360gp is actually a good deal for them - they're getting the item cheaper than usual!



Yes, for a far smaller and niche market. We're not talking about the Forgotten Realms where peasants are so bored they have nothing better to do than buy vorpal scythes of wheat cutting +6 and pitchforks of stabbing +6.



> after all it's a common item, and every magic item shopkeep deals in them since every combatant or adventurer with sufficient resources will want one.



Which is an extraordinarily niche market. Considering as well common items can be made by anyone: Someone with enough resources won't buy items from a merchant. _They will make their own_.



> If it's easy to find a buyer and hard to procure



That's precisely the situation with rare items, but not common items. It is hard to find a buyer but it is easy to get common items.



> Common magic items don't degrade over time (both mechanically and mythically), so the argument that the item is "used" hardly matters.



Common items are easy to manufacture and produce, they have a low market though making them far less valuable. Selling a merchant something that is easy to make themselves, presumably however they do it cheaper than PCs (see the point about the enchant ritual) is going to lead to a lesser sell price to them. They'll take it, but it's not special or interesting - given this is a niche market to begin with there is no logic suggesting they would buy it anywhere near where they sell it. 

For example I sold some DVDs to Cash Converters. I paid $30 NZ. DVDs are very common (I am sure you'll agree). For some reason, they didn't give me $30 NZ for them! They gave me $5 for them. I mean, according to your utterly zany logic they should be giving me $30 for them - but that's not how reality actually works.

On the other hand I sold a very rare model that I had when I was a kid to a pawnbroker. It's immensely rare and hard to get, so what I got for it was almost $300 NZ for something that cost me $7.50 when I was a kid.

Merchants aren't going to pay less for rare, powerful magical items that they rarely see. They aren't going to give you the same price for items they manufacture and sell trivially that they can easily get.

Your argument fails to make any sense whatsoever.



			
				vagabundo said:
			
		

> I believe he is arguing that the Rare items will be hard to shift so a  buyer will only offer 20% and the common items will be easy to shift




His argument makes zero sense. Rare items are powerful and highly desired in DnD worlds. How many quests come down to finding ancient artifacts and lost items? Look at Morgrave University in Eberron, that routinely funds expeditions into the heart of Xen'drik looking for stuff the giants left behind. Do you think a +1 longsword is going to interest them over a long lost item whose secrets to manufacture have been completely lost?

I mean, _really?_

_Really?

_Heck, even the Forgotten Realms has a history of delving into long lost places to find better artifacts and lost knowledge. So it even applies to the world with +6 vorpal pitchforks. Especially when making said items isn't actually possible and magical items make a huge difference to your power. As I mentioned above, people will pay more for what is actually harder to get in reality - not what is common.

Common items are a nice market as it is. But rare powerful items are rather like having the better, more superior weapons that give you a distinct advantage over your competitors. If you have the latest artifact of doom to research, you're getting a big leg up over everyone else using common items because we already know that rare weapons aren't just magic things - _they are BETTER magic things_. A merchant can almost certainly find something who wants to buy a rare, unique artifact that will vastly improve said individuals power or status. Does that same merchant really want another +1 longsword onto the pile of +1 longswords he already has?


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 23, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> His argument makes zero sense. Rare items are powerful and highly desired in DnD worlds. How many quests come down to finding ancient artifacts and lost items? Look at Morgrave University in Eberron, that routinely funds expeditions into the heart of Xen'drik looking for stuff the giants left behind. Do you think a +1 longsword is going to interest them over a long lost item whose secrets to manufacture have been completely lost?
> 
> I mean, _really?_
> 
> ...




Maybe i'm picking him up wrong, but i love the new model. It fits perfectly with DND and - as you mentioned - with the types of quests that are a staple of Fantasy literature. 

This is definitely a step forward.

And as Dice4hire mentioned we don't know how much the vendors sell uncommon and rare items on for, that is something the DM would decide. We only know what they buy the items for and how much it would cost to make them - if you could manage to find the rare ingredients.

There is a lot of leeway there for the DM to make this believable and lots of scope for adventure; and that is what this all boils down to in the end.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 23, 2010)

I love the new model as well. I love it because it makes perfect sense. Why fund an expedition to Xen'drik for a +5 weapon that anyone can make? But there are more than enough individuals willing to pay for something that _cannot be got any other way_. That bears repeating. With the change to items, a rare item is something nobody sees often and is genuinely difficult to get. Hence, merchants, nobles, individuals with a bent for more power and similar will want it. They will want it because you _cannot get it any other way_. Even high level common items like +5 swords can still be made by anyone who can get sufficient materials or time to do so. Making a +5 weapon that has considerably more powerful properties and gives a big advantage over those plain +5 swords? Now that's something worth getting adventurers to do (or paying a higher price for from someone who can get it or acquire it).

It also just fits better to me, that you don't need to go artifact level anymore to make relevant quest items. A rare item can accomplish the same place, without being as complicated mechanically but just as relevant mechanics/fluff wise.


----------



## fba827 (Aug 23, 2010)

new model as i understand it from the preview = something i like and have been wanting! 

a) i don't like -some- magic items being an entitlement (there are just certain items that i think should feel like a reward and defining moments rather than "It's published and i can make it, therefore i have it"  (though, in my last campaign, no one actually took enchant item so it hasn't been a big issue, but it was one i was worried about being an eventuality). i like magic item creation and makes for a good staple concept, just it was way too open ended as originally written.
b) not all magic items of the same tier, no matter how you try and define it, will ever be equal. some are just simply better than others

anyway, long story short, the preview is full of win as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## eamon (Aug 23, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Actually they do. Otherwise would you like to explain why the cost for a level 1 magical item with the enchant item ritual is identical to one made in a store? I mean, they don't produce it out of thin air and if your PC can make it using the *same* ritual, why is it they can do it far cheaper than your PC can?




Presumably because the real experts know tricks to make these things cheaply.  A PC Ritual need not be the _only_ way to create a magic item, after all... Or because they're not making them at all, but selling the excess quantities of long lost artificers - who knows what they were doing, but we've got their creations - the basic, common ones - in sufficient quantity.  How, why the merchants can sell the item for the same price the PC can make it for isn't interesting.

Or, perhaps you're right and the market for simple magic items is _so fluid_ that merchants have _no_ margin - and sell these things at cost, making money on additional services or luxury items.  In which case, you've made my case for me: if they're selling them at cost, they'll be willing to buy them at cost or for not much less anyhow.

Others are arguing that uncommon and rare items sell for more because they're so valuable in essence.  That's a _different_ issue - such an item has a high _price_ which is a not the same thing as a low markup - not in any way.

Put it this way - if you find a rare level 5 item is offered by a merchant (by coincidence since some other adventurer's sold it to him, not because the shopkeep stocks all rare items or even consistently stocks any at all) then would the shopkeep sell it to you for 100% of the nominal level 5 cost?  And could you then sell that item back to him for again 100% of the cost?  It doesn't make sense.  If rarity raises the cost, then the item isn't a level 5 item by cost, it's more.

The system proposed is not consistent.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 23, 2010)

You've got my point perfectly eamon actually, but I inherently agree with you that merchants probably *do* have some way of making items cheaper (maybe they just buy enough ritual materials to get it at a discount?). I just view things differently, mostly from an arms race perspective. Those who want the best, biggest and most devastating weapons are those who will pay for them (or work hardest to acquire them).


----------



## eamon (Aug 23, 2010)

Lot's of people are arguing that rare items are rare and sell better.  That means they should have a higher *price*, not that the fluidity of the market is better.

Obviously, a rare item's scarcity will be represented in the cost.  Now, take that rare item's cost, and compare it to common goods _of equal cost_. Which will the merchant sell for less?  the item he habitually stocks and is sure to sell fairly quickly and for which there's considerable competition (any other merchant or artificer can supply it) and easy for him to restock or the item that's rare, difficult to value, and for which there's no competition?  

There will be a greater markup for rare items - which is part of the reason for their high price - which means that _given_ the price, the common items can be resold more easily for less loss.

Aegeri, you're arguing rare items should be more expensive - I agree.  I'm arguing that _given_ that, the difficulty of buying and selling them will mean that the price difference between buying and selling from a merchant will be greater.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 23, 2010)

eamon said:


> Aegeri, you're arguing rare items should be more expensive - I agree.  I'm arguing that _given_ that, the difficulty of buying and selling them will mean that the price difference between buying and selling from a merchant will be greater.




This is true, but from reading the piece, I think the implicit assumption is that the PCs won't be buying Rare items.  They'll be finding them in some crypt or being rewarded them by valorous service to the crown or whatever.  So precise economic modeling of buying them is irrelevant, and the price rule only exists to make sure the player is compensated properly when getting rid of the item.  The rule exists to take the sting out of parting with the awesome item, not to simulate economic principles.

That, plus the fact that while one or two of the game designers might be trained in economics, _all_ of them will be familiar with buying and selling rare books, cards, etc compared to common versions of same.  Collectors don't actually look much like the alleged rational consumer assumed by economists.  Actually, almost no one does, but that's not an argument for these boards.


----------



## RyvenCedrylle (Aug 23, 2010)

Since this is teh int3rn3tz and we are required by sacred tradition to have at least one person come in and gripe about every topic, I'll take this one.  

Truth be told, it's not a bad rule change in and of itself.  It is, however, a terrible rules change _3 years in_.  It's going to be darn near impossible to implement this on the fly in an ongoing campaign where players have been gaining treasure according to the previous ruleset.  You either have to take away magic items (right...) or retain the usages per day rule.  As example, allow me to point to the RPGA.  A Level 5 LFR character very likely has - not including potions, scrolls and ritual books - five magic items, many of which it seems will be included under the 'uncommon' type.  Allowing free reigno of the daily magic item powers is a notable upgrade in power.  Now imagine this at high paragon, when a character might be lugging around 14-15 magic items, though not all are in use simultaneously.  The "stockpiling items that were far below their level but still had useful, daily powers" has already occurred in this context.  

I assume WotC has already thought of this, but as of yet it has not been addressed in any of the DDI articles or the announcement seminars.  Suggestions?  Commentary?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 23, 2010)

Try thinking of Rare Items as collector's items and the price as the cover price.  The cost of Superman #1 might be only 50 cents - which is the price the PC sees on the cover.  But to anyone with the right contacts it could probably sell for a few thousand dollars. The price the PCs are quoted is the cover price - which doesn't matter because they couldn't buy it _anyway_.  Common items are Superman #573 (or whatever) which may say more on the cover but really don't have a resale value.

This is compounded by the adventurers market and the collector's market being very different (and by the time the PCs have the cash to play in the collector's market for a given tier they are in the next tier).


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 23, 2010)

re: Implementation

I think LFR is going to use its own rules slightly modified...Since 2e, the Living campaigns have also had slightly different economic systems than what the game actually says.

In a home campaign, I think the best sugestion is "only use the rule for a new campaign". Like you said, it won't work  in an in-between campaign.

re: Artifacts

Does anyone see this rule encouraging the devlaluation of artifacts. Going forward, I fear designers aren't going to use the great artifact rules since apparently, people couldn't be bothered to use them. 

Seriously, to this day, I still don't understand why people want powerful items but don't use the artifact rules. You "want" to break the game but not use the actual rules provided? Huh?

re: Cost
Eamon, I think the problem is that you're forgetting that the PCs can't BUY uncommon and rare items....we don't know what the actual markup of rare and uncommon items actually are now.

We KNOW vendors are selling common items at cost since this hasn't changed, but these new rules mean that we no longer know what the vendor is selling the uncommon and rare items at since the PCs no longer can actually buy them...


----------



## Henry (Aug 23, 2010)

vagabundo said:


> I believe he is arguing that the Rare items will be hard to shift so a buyer will only offer 20% and the common items will be easy to shift and so should be bought by the middle man for 90%-100% of their listed price.
> 
> All this is based on real world retail economics. I may be wrong but I believe that is what he is stating.




I see it a different way - I'll find a $10.00 coffee maker at the Local Maxway/Family Dollar/What-have-you, yet would find the exact same make and model at the Flea Market for $2.00, because no one in their right mind will pay $10 used for something they can buy at the same price new. However, I won't find the local discount store offering it at $2.00 either. "used from a second hand vendor" means cheaper price. 

Now, if you want to go to the trouble of setting up discount magic item shops in the campaign, whose magic items have minor defects from their time in the field, that sounds like some fun for the players.


----------



## Zaran (Aug 23, 2010)

The problem I have with making half the magic items Uncommon is the fact that most magic items with daily powers are rather boring and not very powerful.  Making it so players can't make a flaming sword or a cloak of resistance just because they have daily powers seems like a major nerf to me.  

I also think that the distinction between uncommon and common is unneeded because by the time a PC can create a magic item it is already becoming obsolete because of both the level limit and the amount of gold it takes to make such an item.  

What I really don't understand is this need to strictly designate rules for something that should be the venue of the GM.  I guess some people need to be able to say "The rules say you can't do that."  This goes along with the DMG telling the GM that they should always say "Yes" to their player's.  It IS ok to say "No" if you feel like it would unbalance your game.


----------



## Henry (Aug 23, 2010)

As for the rule change, I like it, and have been implementing a poor man's version of it for a while now - called "no such thing as buying and selling magic items as a regular commodity." I'll give out the awesome items, but only allow purchase of the basic "+X" items, and handle sales of the awesome items on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 23, 2010)

eamon said:


> Lot's of people are arguing that rare items are rare and sell better.  That means they should have a higher *price*, not that the fluidity of the market is better.
> 
> Obviously, a rare item's scarcity will be represented in the cost.  Now, take that rare item's cost, and compare it to common goods _of equal cost_. Which will the merchant sell for less?  the item he habitually stocks and is sure to sell fairly quickly and for which there's considerable competition (any other merchant or artificer can supply it) and easy for him to restock or the item that's rare, difficult to value, and for which there's no competition?
> 
> ...




Here's the problem, eamon. You're utilizing an economic theory that works for a mass market economy with a HUGE (near infinite) amount more liquidity and availability than would exist in some medieval sort of PoL world economy. 

Considering "common" items: If you want a lesson in this type of economics go dig up some piece of jewelry you own and take it down to the local jeweler and ask them to give you a quote on it. I can virtually guarantee that they price they will quote is basically the metal salvage value. You'll be LUCKY if they offer you 20% of the retail price they would sell it for. This is a lot like the PoL common magic item economy where you sell for salvage (disenchant) value. The vendor has no guarantee that they can move the item at all. Its price is still very high (360 gp is easily 3-4 years wages for a peasant and still a pretty good chunk of change for even modestly well-off townspeople). The vendor really has little guarantee that he CAN sell the item in any reasonable amount of time. He's got to tie up a substantial amount of capital, a rare commodity in a PoL world, in order to carry the item. Under these conditions 500% markups are not really all that unusual. Additionally there is unlikely to be another vendor competing with him. Either you take his price, disenchant the item yourself, or sell it to some other arcane practitioner who really only wants it for the salvage value. The PCs could of course set up their own magic shop and maybe once in a while sell items at full value, meanwhile tying up THEIR capital and incurring overhead costs to boot. Presumably this business is unlikely to perform better than the existing vendor's business, given that logically he's making rational business decisions.

When it comes to uncommon and rare items there is no logic of any kind. Neither of these classes of items can be constructed at all. 

Presumably uncommon items exist and the few people that have the money to tie up in them have most of what they need. It is doubtful that there is really much of a market in these items at all, but they do have high utility value. Chances are someone will pay a reasonable amount for them. PCs might well be able to get full value, again IF they are willing to shop around. The market here is something like that for rare collectible items in the real world, if you want to sell it NOW you take a pretty good hit. In fact with the Internet allowing easy connection of buyers and sellers this has changed somewhat, but my mother used to buy and sell rare collectible books back in the day. I seriously doubt she ever paid 50% of market value for them and usually far less.

Rare items have no markup. They have no purchase price at all and the 100% is just some arbitrary number that the game provides as a sale price. Presumably this represents the PCs getting the best price that anyone in the local area can muster for this priceless item. If you COULD make such an item you can get the same price for it, which is the maximum amount of gold that is available in PoLand to be tied up in said item.

Retail economics simply isn't germane.


----------



## eamon (Aug 23, 2010)

The relation between more fluid and less fluid items should still be consistent.  Of course you don't expect these items to be as common or cheap as a pack of rice on a shop shelf, but many expensive things - say, oil tankers - are quite expensive and still display these dynamics.  Its nothing about "retail", it's about the risk and effort the salesman is in and the competition he's under to provide a good price.  The more common and tradable an item, the more competition and the less risk - meaning a lower margin.  _Particularly_ in a medieval world without telecommunications-based monopolies and oligopolies.

Rare items should be more expensive - not have a more fluid exchange.

As an aside, if there's buyers, there are sellers and vice versa (for obvious reasons) so if PC's can sell rare items with luck, they can buy them too - with luck.  And in any case, all these arguments apply uncommon items too, and these are explicitly mentioned in the article to be occasionally available.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 23, 2010)

I think it's important, when looking at these "How the rules translate" scenarios, to remember that the rules are built with the idea of keeping balance in mind.

Balance is a tool- and functions sort of like when an economist looks at the market under "perfect" conditions. It's not going to translate exactly to the real world. It just gives you an idea to start from. In oder to actually utilize it in the real world though, you have to consider a number of other factors (it's just a good baseline to give you a better understanding of the concepts.)

So in this case, we see that in order to maintain perfect balance, items buy and sell for the amounts listed in the books.

In the "real world" of the game, however, I generally let things like the diplomacy  skill come into play, or size of the town, proximity to power centers, etc...

The numbers in the book are a starting point to show you where balance lies. I then take this into account (as a tool) and apply other information to represent the economy of my worlds.

(They're like the Kelly Blue Book value of a magic item.)

I can then take this and filter it back against the numbers in the book to give me a better idea of where my balance is... If for instance I've noticed PCs buying a number of under priced items- I know they're probably getting a little more powerful on the balance curve. (Or the opposite if they've been buying a lot of overpriced items.)


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 23, 2010)

One of the key pieces here is that, by default, Rare and Uncommon magic items are not for sale to the PCs. So we know only know what merchants will pay for them; we have no idea at what they will sell. As a DM you can implement whatever you see fit.




Henry said:


> I see it a different way - I'll find a $10.00 coffee maker at the Local Maxway/Family Dollar/What-have-you, yet would find the exact same make and model at the Flea Market for $2.00, because no one in their right mind will pay $10 used for something they can buy at the same price new. However, I won't find the local discount store offering it at $2.00 either. "used from a second hand vendor" means cheaper price.
> 
> Now, if you want to go to the trouble of setting up discount magic item shops in the campaign, whose magic items have minor defects from their time in the field, that sounds like some fun for the players.




I concur .. And now I need to put my thinking cap on and write a dungeon article called, "Cursed and Malfunctioning Magic Items for Fun and Profit"...


----------



## Scribble (Aug 23, 2010)

I've never been a huge fan of used things... Something about it makes me... creeped out.

But a used food implement (ala Henry's Flea Market Coffee pot?)  Egads that makes my skin crawl!

BLECH!


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 23, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I've never been a huge fan of used things... Something about it makes me... creeped out.
> 
> But a used food implement (ala Henry's Flea Market Coffee pot?)  Egads that makes my skin crawl!
> 
> BLECH!




I wouldn't wear _used_ leather armour. It would be all sweaty and stuff.


----------



## Mengu (Aug 23, 2010)

I don't see much talk about this, but to me, it seems like Common items are going to be the most powerful ones. Currently it's the items with static properties that are the most attractive to players, like Iron Armbands, Staff of Ruin, Vanguard Weapon, Horned Helmet, Battle Harness, Dragon Shards, etc. I'm guessing there are details they haven't shared with us yet.

Anybody know how they are going to quickly classify 8000+ items as circle, diamond, or star?


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 23, 2010)

Oh, thats better. Much, much better.

**eamon:* if this article is taken at face value, "list price" doesn't mean the same thing anymore--you can't just make these items. The opportunity cost of a rare item could be far, far above its list price. 

**zaran*: they strongly imply that these are guidelines, and that the DM has control. This may all (or mostly) be in the DMs kit and not even appear in a player book. 

**mengu*: yes, this is a change to the core, and we don't know how it will be implemented.


----------



## jasin (Aug 23, 2010)

The article opens up with the observation that "there will always be better and worse items within a specific level. Sometimes that difference comes down to a character’s needs. Other times, players simply value one type of item over another, like one that deals extra damage." The better items will be more rare.

But I fail to see how they will avoid having better and worse items, within a specific level _and rarity class_.


----------



## Falstaff (Aug 23, 2010)

I dislike the idea of buying/selling magic items at all. That shouldn't even be an option. You want a magic item? Go adventuring.


----------



## DonAdam (Aug 23, 2010)

I'm really excited about these rules. I always liked having fewer but more special magic items (except for a setting like Eberron, which is also cool) so here's how I envision using the rarities:

-Inherent bonus rules in effect.
-No common items exist except expendables.
-Uncommon expendables can be made (they're not that great in 4e anyway).
-Permanent uncommon items can be made, but only if one has the "recipe." Like knowing a spell in earlier editions, these recipes will be valuable commodities.
-Making rare items requires both a recipe and quest-specific materials.


----------



## Storminator (Aug 23, 2010)

Clearly, the sales price is based on game play, and not world modeling. I'm good with that. If you get 1 rare item per tier - a "character defining item" - and your DM goofs and gives you something you don't want, you get full value for it. If he gives you an uncommon item you don't want, it's not critical an error, but it's still significant, so you get half. Common items come and go, so take the loss and buy your favorite one.

While I love a great economics debate, it's misplaced here.

PS


----------



## Storminator (Aug 23, 2010)

Mengu said:


> I don't see much talk about this, but to me, it seems like Common items are going to be the most powerful ones. Currently it's the items with static properties that are the most attractive to players, like Iron Armbands, Staff of Ruin, Vanguard Weapon, Horned Helmet, Battle Harness, Dragon Shards, etc. I'm guessing there are details they haven't shared with us yet.




I'm thinking unlimited daily powers will make powered items much more attractive. I know my dwarf has a magic axe that I've used once in 5 levels. Now I'll use it every day...

PS


----------



## abyssaldeath (Aug 23, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Awsome...just perfect.
> 
> I hope this will end all of the  arguements about these new rules.




Ha hahahahahahahahahahaha.  This is the internet. Right now there are probably people arguing about whether the sky is blue or azure.



In all seriousness, I wonder how this will effect creating a new character at higher levels.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 23, 2010)

Mengu said:


> I don't see much talk about this, but to me, it seems like Common items are going to be the most powerful ones. Currently it's the items with static properties that are the most attractive to players, like Iron Armbands, Staff of Ruin, Vanguard Weapon, Horned Helmet, Battle Harness, Dragon Shards, etc. I'm guessing there are details they haven't shared with us yet.
> 
> Anybody know how they are going to quickly classify 8000+ items as circle, diamond, or star?




So? The purpose of the rule is explicitly to remove the issue of PCs making or buying dozens of low level items that happen to have some amazingly useful power that when available in large quantities breaks the game. That and the practice of having a bunch of slightly below level items to choose from your golf bag, which may not be broken but does offend many people's sensibilities.

Mike never mentioned any goal of making players pick a greater diversity of items. We don't know exactly what items fall into what categories. Mechanically there's nothing wrong with a Staff of Ruin or IAoP being common items, there's no mechanical game issue with PCs having multiples of them. They MAY make said items uncommon for fluff reasons so the DM can avoid having every fighter using IAoP, but we don't know.

REALLY the main point of all this is that from the designer's standpoint they were boxed into a very small space of viable item design with the old system. Many fine items were nerfed simply due to abuse at high levels. With the new system those types of items can simply be uncommon and the problem goes away. If they're really strong items then they can be rare, which will tend to keep PCs from ending up decked out in large numbers of really potent items. This will let them give us a lot more fun items and deal with the complaint that items are too bland. 

So the rule is really aimed at designers more than players and DMs. My guess is you won't really see a huge amount of difference as a player. The DM is probably going to give you access to that uncommon item that really makes your build after all. He might now make you work more for it, but my guess is it won't be a big deal in most games. The rare items won't really change much, except now they can appear in books vs being DM specials.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 23, 2010)

I've merged the two threads into one.


----------



## Aenghus (Aug 23, 2010)

I can see benefits to the new system. 

I wonder if it is also supposed to make players more accepting of getting one of the large number of lacklustre magic items now detailed, now they can't automatically buy exactly what they want (obviously they couldn't in a lot of existing campaigns, but they could in many others, and some of the latter will change to the new rules).

Some character concepts require or at least greatly benefit from particular magic items which now may no longer be available without referee buy-in to the concept. While this includes optimised builds like _lasting frost_ and _frost_ weapons, it includes concepts requiring a _hat of disguise_ as well.

And has others have said, items with static bonuses can mechanically be the most powerful, all in all. I wonder if items with situational static bonuses will be classed as common or uncommon, given that they are generally less powerful than the unconditional items. There could be some unintuitive consequences hidden in this change.


----------



## Mengu (Aug 23, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So the rule is really aimed at designers more than players and DMs. My guess is you won't really see a huge amount of difference as a player. The DM is probably going to give you access to that uncommon item that really makes your build after all. He might now make you work more for it, but my guess is it won't be a big deal in most games. The rare items won't really change much, except now they can appear in books vs being DM specials.




Ya, I agree with that. I was mainly thinking "powerful" is in the eye of the beholder. I think an item that gives +X to initiative is more powerful than an item that gives ongoing 5 once per day. But with the new definitions the former may be common, while the latter uncommon. So rarity is not necessarily going to be a gauge for what's more powerful.

And I certainly don't mind items such as Iron Armbands or Staff of Ruin being around, as they fix some damage issues. I half wish they didn't eat up slots, and a level based damage increase system was in place. That said, I can see many common items being "higher priority" for a PC than uncommon items. Perhaps this is a good thing as they will be able to get those items more easily.


----------



## Prism (Aug 23, 2010)

Mengu said:


> That said, I can see many common items being "higher priority" for a PC than uncommon items. Perhaps this is a good thing as they will be able to get those items more easily.




I think it is a good thing to be honest. It allows those players who would typically focus on creating static bonus items mainly for the power level to still do so, while allowing those who aren't so bothered about raw damage output and prefer more interesting power driven items to feel less limited about use per day.


----------



## Falstaff (Aug 23, 2010)

This is my favorite part of the article, and speaks directly to the way I want my D&D campaigns to be:



> In a world where magic is rare and wondrous, the characters can’t buy anything, while the only items they uncover are rare ones. Even then, a character can expect to find only two or three such items over the course of an entire campaign.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 23, 2010)

jasin said:


> The article opens up with the observation that "there will always be better and worse items within a specific level. Sometimes that difference comes down to a character’s needs. Other times, players simply value one type of item over another, like one that deals extra damage." The better items will be more rare.
> 
> But I fail to see how they will avoid having better and worse items, within a specific level _and rarity class_.



You just don´t have to worry, as long as the selling price is appropriate... You can´t say: before i buy item xxx, I can take item xxx for the same price...

You have a feather of a phoenix... you better take the flaming sword, or i make a simple potion of healing from it...


----------



## Vael (Aug 23, 2010)

I wonder how this will translate into generating high level PCs. I suppose the base rule (One Level+1, one at Level and one Level-1 item, plus GP equal to Level-1) is same, but you may only draw Common Items, and maybe a few Uncommons.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 23, 2010)

I think it is a shame the economics discussion has overwhelmed this thread. Especially since it is a largely meaningless point. It sounds like Eamon would be fine with "Rare items sell for only 10% of their value, but are worth 10x the normal value of an item of their level", but finds "Rare items sell for 100%" to be completely unreasonable. 

Anyway, I like the new system in general. I've got two real concerns. 

For one... common items will probably remain the most desirable things for PCs. I've seen plenty of PCs turn down awesome Epic belts because it would mean giving up the +2 Fort from a Paragon level belt. I've seen level 30 Bracers turned down because they are better off with Paragon level Iron Armbands of Power. 

It's frustrating, and this system doesn't really fix it. At least, not without making uncommon items even more powerful, and I'm not so sure we'll see that. (And if they become good enough that they _do _outclass the current defaults, that could be a problem in its own right.)

I'd really love to see some of the static bonuses toned down (Iron Armbands adjusted to +1/2/3, for example), or even just worked into the system. We've already got Masterwork Armor. I'd love if all existing items with +Fort/Ref/Will lost it... and instead, all Belts/Boots/Headbands gave +1 Fort/Ref/Will at Heroic, +2 at Paragon, and +3 at Epic. Or something like that - and ditch all the annoying feat-taxes that boost defenses at the same time, now that you've worked some more bonuses into the system.

My other concern is just that the removal of the daily item power limit is one I'm a fan of, but also one that is a bit harder to adjust for current games where the DM _hasn't_ had rigid control over items. I kinda wished there was still some limit, just a more reasonable one. You get one item use for each item slot per day, for example. So you can still use a bunch of items, but much less chance of any real abuse overall.


----------



## JohnnyO (Aug 23, 2010)

First off, I really like the new setup, I always disliked how when rolling new characters, you can cherry pick the 3 best possible items for your character and level, I plan on implementing these rules when I start up a new campaign.

However, I've noticed that most of the players in my campaign almost always choose items with static properties or encounter powers associated with them.  Almost no one wants an item with a daily power unless it also comes with a general property.

So, I'm guessing that the list of common items will be more restrictive than just "things that lack a daily power"


----------



## Baron Opal (Aug 23, 2010)

eamon said:


> Or, perhaps you're right and the market for simple magic items is _so fluid_ that merchants have _no_ margin - and sell these things at cost, making money on additional services or luxury items...
> 
> Put it this way - if you find a rare level 5 item is offered by a merchant (by coincidence since some other adventurer's sold it to him, not because the shopkeep stocks all rare items or even consistently stocks any at all) then would the shopkeep sell it to you for 100% of the nominal level 5 cost?  And could you then sell that item back to him for again 100% of the cost?  It doesn't make sense.  If rarity raises the cost, then the item isn't a level 5 item by cost, it's more.
> 
> The system proposed is not consistent.




It is consistant with the understanding that:

a) The PCs are adventurers, not merchants.
b) How the merchants do business isn't really relevant to gameplay.
c) What the PCs can buy and sell are two different things. 

Looking at magic item transactions from the PC PoV as I understand it:

Common
Sell: 20% of book.
Buy: 100% of book.

Uncommon
Sell: 50% of book.
Buy: Unavailable by default, possibly at 100% _or more_ depending on DM.

Rare
Sell: 100% of book.
Buy: Unavailable.

This seems very workable given that my game is about adventure and not economics. The merchant is still buying low and selling high. I don't particularly care what the merchant does with the rare items that he buys. In my particular game you wouldn't sell them to begin with. Rather, you would trade them to a wizard or lord in exchange for an item or favor that you needed more.


----------



## Baron Opal (Aug 23, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> re: Artifacts
> 
> Does anyone see this rule encouraging the devlaluation of artifacts. Going forward, I fear designers aren't going to use the great artifact rules since apparently, people couldn't be bothered to use them.
> 
> Seriously, to this day, I still don't understand why people want powerful items but don't use the artifact rules...



I love the artifact rules, but extrapolating what the "rules" are from existing artifacts and coming up with the stages of attunement can be a pain.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 23, 2010)

I don't think much will really help change the fact that a + whatever item will be generally liked (especially when the rules promote it and assume players have them.)

But they've already given us the tools to deal with that- and this only enhances it.

Cut common items out, and use inherent bonuses instead.

The new list gives you further info on how to divvy out magic from that point on.


----------



## Prism (Aug 23, 2010)

JohnnyO said:


> However, I've noticed that most of the players in my campaign almost always choose items with static properties or encounter powers associated with them.  Almost no one wants an item with a daily power unless it also comes with a general property.




Thats possibly because up until now you couldn't really use your daily power items fully because of the limits per day. It was fustrating to know you couldn't use an item when needed because you had use another a few rounds earlier. Maybe with the relaxing of this limit you players will be more open to them. Or maybe they simply like static items better, so this won't change anything. I wouldn't say thats something that needs a fix


----------



## Rex Blunder (Aug 23, 2010)

JohnnyO said:


> So, I'm guessing that the list of common items will be more restrictive than just "things that lack a daily power"




Agreed. I think we can assume that Staff of Ruin will NOT be a Common item, despite the fact that it it adds static damage. It has a property. I'd bet that most Common weapons, implements, armors, and neck slot items have no properties.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Aug 23, 2010)

Vael said:


> I wonder how this will translate into generating high level PCs. I suppose the base rule (One Level+1, one at Level and one Level-1 item, plus GP equal to Level-1) is same, but you may only draw Common Items, and maybe a few Uncommons.




I posted this concern too and I think I may have come up with something.

_When creating a PC at higher level you may choose one uncommon item level +1, one uncommon item at level, one uncommon item level -1  and gain GP equal to level -1 that can be spent on common items. Note: A DM can allow a player to choose a rare item in place of one of the uncommon items. _

I think this would work pretty well.


----------



## JohnnyO (Aug 23, 2010)

Prism said:


> Thats possibly because up until now you couldn't really use your daily power items fully because of the limits per day. It was fustrating to know you couldn't use an item when needed because you had use another a few rounds earlier. Maybe with the relaxing of this limit you players will be more open to them. Or maybe they simply like static items better, so this won't change anything. I wouldn't say thats something that needs a fix




I agree, I'm thinking that removing limits/day would make them more useful.  My players usually reserve their daily item use for a potion, so I'm curious to see how things like potions and whetstones (which count as a daily item use) will interact with this limit being lifted.

Personally, I'd be fine with lifting the potion as a daily item rule, and then adding back some potion mixing tables 
April Fools: Potion Miscibility


----------



## Baron Opal (Aug 23, 2010)

DonAdam said:


> ...Here's how I envision using the rarities:
> 
> -Inherent bonus rules in effect.
> -No common items exist except expendables.
> ...



That's the upshot for me as well.

Between this and paring down the races and classes, I've almost got my next campaign all set.


----------



## Prism (Aug 23, 2010)

Rex Blunder said:


> Agreed. I think we can assume that Staff of Ruin will NOT be a Common item, despite the fact that it it adds static damage. It has a property. I'd bet that most Common weapons, implements, armors, and neck slot items have no properties.




I'm not sure that will be the case at all. These rules are not being introduced to prevent certain items being taken as often. They are being brought in to allow daily items to be used many times a day without that being abusable. The staff of ruin doesn't fall into that category at all. I have no idea if that particular item will be common or not. If a player would prefer a simple damaging staff that hardly breaks the game, over something more complex/interesting why change it? I bet there will be a number of boring, static bonus common items for those that prefer them


----------



## mneme (Aug 23, 2010)

One thing people haven't considered: we haven't seen what Wizards consider rare and uncommon items.  I'd expect rare items, if anything, to have useful properties -and- powers.

One use of the c/u/r split is that you can have "just the bonus" available for cash, and have "the bonus + a cool power" as the rarer version, without killing the bonus version.  If IAoP are common, then there should be IAoP with powers available as uncommon or rare items.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Aug 23, 2010)

I have a few concerns and a single suggestion.

1. To me, one of the archetypes of fantasy is the wizard who specializes in crafting items.  My 3e wizard took all of the Craft Magic * feats and used them all.  I want to be able to do this in 4e as well.  I don't mind having to invest some time and effort into finding "recipes" and materials, but I don't want it to be just plain impossible to make interesting items.

2. I can accept that it will normally be impossible to to buy uncommon and rare items, but I'd like any DM I play to will interpret the word "normally" creatively.

3. Decreasing player control over magic items reduces the ability for a player to achieve certain concepts.  I have always maintained that PCs should start with more than one feat, and this change just makes me think it more strongly.

The suggestion:

For the purposes of crafting items, tier should be considered.  A paragon tier PC should be able to craft uncommon heroic tier items without much trouble.  An epic tier PC should be able to craft rare heroic tier items and uncommon paragon tier items without much trouble, and uncommon heroic tier items without any special effort at all.


----------



## fba827 (Aug 23, 2010)

mneme said:


> One thing people haven't considered: we haven't seen what Wizards consider rare and uncommon items.  I'd expect rare items, if anything, to have useful properties -and- powers.




There was some article or podcast (sorry, I don't recall the source - but i think it was one of the podcasts from gencon, perhaps the upcoming releases one?) where one of the designers said something like "the majority of the items currently released are uncommon" (or something to that effect).

So consider most existing items to be at the uncommon level.  With some exceptions being common (probably generic +1s without any properties or powers to be common), while other stuff as rare (like the properties and powers that you suggest)


----------



## JohnnyO (Aug 23, 2010)

Prism said:


> I'm not sure that will be the case at all. These rules are not being introduced to prevent certain items being taken as often. They are being brought in to allow daily items to be used many times a day without that being abusable. The staff of ruin doesn't fall into that category at all. I have no idea if that particular item will be common or not. If a player would prefer a simple damaging staff that hardly breaks the game, over something more complex/interesting why change it? I bet there will be a number of boring, static bonus common items for those that prefer them





Hmmm, you may be right.  A static boost to damage is a simple, set it and forget it type of property, like +2 to some property or whatever.

A thought occurred to me that it may have more to with reducing the complexity of situational bonuses, and the drag they have on the game at play time.  i.e.  A weapon that does +2 damage is common, while a weapon that does +6 damage against bloodied foes while adjacent to at most one ally within 5 squares of the caster would be more uncommon.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 23, 2010)

Don't forget the psychological impact too- Just calling something rare makes it slightly more "special" when you manage to acquire it.

I mean take two minis... Both are lumps of plastic about the same size, and equal in "actual" value.  One is purple and the other is green.

Make the purple one "rare" and suddenly opening the box and finding the mythical lump of purple plastic is more desirable. Then limiting the number you CAN find, also makes actually finding it even more exciting.


Calling a magic item rare puts a little seed of "I must have that!" in the players mind. 

And if you're rolling up the items randomly- finding something rare becomes even more exciting.


----------



## keterys (Aug 23, 2010)

Hopefully they've actually thought about how to do this, but I could easily see the following working:

Gauntlets of Smashing (Common)
Property: +4 item bonus to melee and close damage rolls

Fire Giant Gauntlets (Uncommon)
Property: +4 item bonus to melee and close damage rolls
Power (Encounter): Free Action. Use when you hit with a melee attack. That attack deals 10 extra fire damage.

Armageddon Gauntlets of Ashardalon (Rare)
Property: +4 item bonus to melee and close damage rolls
Property: Whenever you score a critical hit, add 1d10 extra fire damage.
Power (Encounter): Free Action. Use when you hit with a melee attack. That attack 10 extra fire damage.
Power (Daily): Standard Action. Close burst 2; Highest + 6 vs. Reflex; 6d8 fire damage and the target is pushed 2 squares and knocked prone.


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Aug 23, 2010)

I'm curious where consumables will fall on this.


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Aug 23, 2010)

Another thing I'm wondering about is how this dovetails into the Mark of Making for Eberron.


----------



## keterys (Aug 23, 2010)

They're good at using Enchant Magic Item, just like artificers (and others), who only make Common items now?


----------



## knightofround (Aug 23, 2010)

> Before we bring this discussion to a close, it’s worth mentioning that the limits on using daily magic item powers are no longer part of the game. They existed to prevent the characters from stockpiling items that were far below their level but still had useful, daily powers. Under this scheme, such items are uncommon. Stockpiling a number of them is impossible without house rules or a Dungeon Master who willingly awards multiple copies of such items as treasure. With our new rarity scheme in place, we no longer need such rules.



I'm very surprised that there has been no discussion of this little tidbit. This could end up causing a whollllle lot of balancing issues. Are they going to go through each magic item one-by-one and errata them appropiately? It also makes milestones even more worthless than they currently are.


----------



## Primal (Aug 23, 2010)

Storminator said:


> I'm thinking unlimited daily powers will make powered items much more attractive. I know my dwarf has a magic axe that I've used once in 5 levels. Now I'll use it every day...
> 
> PS




Color me confused... how are Essentials and Core players going to feel equal at the same table, if one guy can use magic item powers at will, and the other ("core guy") obviously can't? 

The more I read, the more it seems like a revised edition, no matter what WotC says.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 23, 2010)

Prestidigitalis said:


> For the purposes of crafting items, tier should be considered.  A paragon tier PC should be able to craft uncommon heroic tier items without much trouble.  An epic tier PC should be able to craft rare heroic tier items and uncommon paragon tier items without much trouble, and uncommon heroic tier items without any special effort at all.




When you look at the reasoning behind the change, you will notice, that this is the actual problem. It´s not the main problem that you craft items with daily powers which are around your own level (costs are very very high) The problem is crafting a plethora of low level items with good daily powers. (Like the old veterans armor)
It is PCs carrying 20 veteran armors +1 in a bag of holding, wearing one, recharging the daily etc.
You can sove the problem by not allowing more than one use of the same daily per day. But if you allow crafing items a lot under your level, you have to make up some metagaming limits.
Disallowing creation of uncommon items, items with components that are difficult to get seems less metagamey to me.
(Yes, I could use my phoenx feater to make your level 1 item, but I can also use it for an actual good item...)


----------



## Kelvor Ravenstar (Aug 23, 2010)

Primal said:


> Color me confused... how are Essentials and Core players going to feel equal at the same table, if one guy can use magic item powers at will, and the other ("core guy") obviously can't?
> 
> The more I read, the more it seems like a revised edition, no matter what WotC says.




The Essentials player will be playing by the updated rules, and the Core player could use his magic items an equal number of times. Would you expect a player in your game using rules from the pre-updates phb? Its no more a new edition than after every other big update since 4e has been published.


----------



## Primal (Aug 23, 2010)

Kelvor Ravenstar said:


> The Essentials player will be playing by the updated rules, and the Core player could use his magic items an equal number of times. Would you expect a player in your game using rules from the pre-updates phb? Its no more a new edition than after every other big update since 4e has been published.




So every time the group has players of both they first need to settle which ruleset (core or essentials) is being used? What if the DM insists of using core rules -- does the "essentials guy" convert his items to the core versions? And if the rule-of-thumb is to use the "latest" version of the rules (essentials), doesn't this make it a revised edition of 4E? Or am I missing something?


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Aug 23, 2010)

keterys said:


> They're good at using Enchant Magic Item, just like artificers (and others), who only make Common items now?




Seems to me they should be able to do more.  However you could easily tie it to a dragonshard item or something greater like a creation forge.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 23, 2010)

Primal said:


> So every time the group has players of both they first need to settle which ruleset (core or essentials) is being used? What if the DM insists of using core rules -- does the "essentials guy" convert his items to the core versions? And if the rule-of-thumb is to use the "latest" version of the rules (essentials), doesn't this make it a revised edition of 4E? Or am I missing something?



No, all players may use their daily item powers as they wish, next time you start a campaign. I would not change the rules in a game, even if someone with an essential character (not an "essential player") comes to your table.

It is just your choice as a DM if you want to restrict player choices by the arbitrary: "you can only use one daily item per milestone" or by the arbitrary: "you don´t get any daily item powers unless I give you some of them"

I guess a player who has started with essentials won´t mind if you tell him, that he can´t use one of his daily items until he reaches a milestone... as a payoff he gets a lot more of those items generally.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 23, 2010)

Primal said:


> So every time the group has players of both they first need to settle which ruleset (core or essentials) is being used? What if the DM insists of using core rules -- does the "essentials guy" convert his items to the core versions? And if the rule-of-thumb is to use the "latest" version of the rules (essentials), doesn't this make it a revised edition of 4E? Or am I missing something?




Essentials is using the same rules as are already in existence. Those rules have received a number of updates and errata throughout their lifetime. Essentials assumes you are playing using those updates/errata.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 23, 2010)

Primal said:


> So every time the group has players of both they first need to settle which ruleset (core or essentials) is being used? What if the DM insists of using core rules -- does the "essentials guy" convert his items to the core versions? And if the rule-of-thumb is to use the "latest" version of the rules (essentials), doesn't this make it a revised edition of 4E? Or am I missing something?




Well, the easy answer is that yes, it is a revised version of 4E. Just like the very first errata was, when they changed Stealth. Or when PHB2 clarified some keywords. 

But the question is, it is a revised enough version to consider a new edition? Well, that will really depend on the individual. I found the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 to be significantly more extensive (and farther reaching) than everything that has altered in 4E thus far. So I don't consider it as such - at least, not for me. 

In the case of this change... ok, your existing characters can now use their 3-4 daily item powers at the start of each day, rather than after a few fights. I don't forsee this as the end of the world. 

Honestly, the only real issue is making sure they don't have any existing items that become abuseable with this system, with certain consumables being the only danger. But I don't think we'll see too much fall-out from this, or any imbalance between characters.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 23, 2010)

Primal said:


> Or am I missing something?



That the changes will probably be folded into the official errata and update document here?

If the DM insists on a rules-as-printed and without errata game, this problem will have cropped up much earlier (since every new book assumes the use of updated rules).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## malraux (Aug 23, 2010)

Primal said:


> Color me confused... how are Essentials and Core players going to feel equal at the same table, if one guy can use magic item powers at will, and the other ("core guy") obviously can't?
> 
> The more I read, the more it seems like a revised edition, no matter what WotC says.




This new information puts me into the "4.5" camp as well.  Basically my standard was that if my old books stayed valid and fully usable (even if they get heavily modified) then its not a new edition.  The change in monster layout from MM1 to MM3 doesn't count, because I can still use the monster, it just looks a bit different.

However, this change in magic items would seem to invalidate AV1 (and possibly AV2). Either every single item is missing a keyword (commom, uncommon, rare) or the whole thing needs to get changed and updated.

So at least by my own standards, to me this is major edition point update.  

Now, of course, this doesn't horribly upset me.  At worst, it minorly inconveniences me.  My style of treasure management is pretty hands off.  I've been handing magic item coupons instead of items for a while (You find a coupon for one level 15 item instead of a +3 fire sword), so now I'll have to either start picking items again, or just let the party find uncommon items that way, and hand out rare items specifically.


----------



## Kelvor Ravenstar (Aug 23, 2010)

Primal said:


> So every time the group has players of both they first need to settle which ruleset (core or essentials) is being used? What if the DM insists of using core rules -- does the "essentials guy" convert his items to the core versions? And if the rule-of-thumb is to use the "latest" version of the rules (essentials), doesn't this make it a revised edition of 4E? Or am I missing something?






Lord Tirian said:


> That the changes will probably be folded into the official errata and update document here?
> 
> If the DM insists on a rules-as-printed and without errata game, this problem will have cropped up much earlier (since every new book assumes the use of updated rules).
> 
> Cheers, LT.



This

Now, I'm admit I'm biased being from a DDI heavy group, where I as DM, make sure that everyone has access to the Character Builder with latest updates, this way ensuring that we're all playing with the same ruleset. I can understand that from the perspective of people only playing things from the books this would be like a revised edition.
But really, if you're playing with the book versions of some items at this point, letting your players use less or more daily powers isn't going to make a big difference. I think the balance of things that will get nerfed with the October updates will put essential characters back on par if they can only use one daily item power per milestone.


----------



## mneme (Aug 23, 2010)

Indeed. If you're playing with book items/rules/powers at this point, everyone's still going all brokencheasy with reckless/bloodclaw, Salve of Power, righeous Brand, pre-eratta stealth, etc.

Basically, if you ignore eratta, then yes, Essentials presents a new edition as it's the first time the majority of eratta has appeared in print (and adds a lot of new eratta).  But if you don't, it's got some major changes--and the r/u/c item change does present some issues (though if they're going to go through and give every item a rarity, rather than just saying that 90% of them are uncommon, thus making legacy characters potentially overpowered, maybe they'll also add schools to every wizard spell?  Ok, probably not).


----------



## keterys (Aug 23, 2010)

malraux said:


> Either every single item is missing a keyword (commom, uncommon, rare) or the whole thing needs to get changed and updated.




They already answered that: Uncommon.

Unless clarified otherwise, everything from AV1, AV2, etc is Uncommon, and that pretty much works. Up the DM what they hand out, players can only make the new Essentials common items. I'm sure they'll have some items, like +1 through +6 Magic Weapons that'll be common in Essentials. But otherwise, we already know the deal, and can move on from there.

So, your party wants 6 Frost weapons so they can go crazy with frostcheese? Come Essentials time, you shrug and go 'Sorry, you got the one. Maybe you'll find another within the next 5 levels that is +1 higher. Maybe you guys shouldn't all do that tactic as it's not very sustainable.'


----------



## Kelvor Ravenstar (Aug 23, 2010)

As to the Wizard spell schools, WotC have said that they will be giving the keywords to the old spells during one of the Gencon seminars. This will be necessary if you want to make a Mage with spells mostly from pre-essentials without being underpowered, as the school specialization replaces the benefits like Implement Mastery.


----------



## epochrpg (Aug 24, 2010)

Rex Blunder said:


> The article on item rarity is up. This is actually one of the Essentials changes I'm most looking forward to.
> 
> Common items are the boring stat-boosting items like +2 swords. They're the ones that characters can make and buy. This is a huge fix: I'm sick of giving out magic items, only to find that the PCs have already cherrypicked the best items and don't want my treasure.
> 
> *Characters get one Rare item PER TIER. That is an exciting - as they say, "character defining" - level of rarity. I like the idea of characters having a signature item power. I wish the article had included an example rare item, so we could see exactly what its level of complexity was.*




So I guess then that us dummies who bought the Adventurer's Vault should stack it on the woodpile?  Will the existing magic items cease to exist then?  This doesn't sound like 4.5... more like 5.0.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Aug 24, 2010)

epochrpg said:


> So I guess then that us dummies who bought the Adventurer's Vault should stack it on the woodpile?  Will the existing magic items cease to exist then?  This doesn't sound like 4.5... more like 5.0.



All magic items (up till this point) are uncommon. There are no rare items yet, unless you count artifacts.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Aug 24, 2010)

epochrpg said:


> So I guess then that us dummies who bought the Adventurer's Vault should stack it on the woodpile?  Will the existing magic items cease to exist then?  This doesn't sound like 4.5... more like 5.0.




You could try reading the article before you set your books on fire.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 24, 2010)

Eh. Essentials introduces a lot of errata, either concurrent with its launch (new race mechanics, magic item rules, new feat categorizations, lots of changes to wizard powers) and introduces new builds for PH1 classes designed to pretty nearly completely replace the PH1 builds (or in a few cases, the PH2 builds) for that class. IMO, they're changing enough that calling Essentials + the July rules update + the post-Essentials rules update 4.5 is not unreasonable. 

Heck, I'd argue in at least a few cases, doing 4.5 or 4e Revised would have been somewhat cleaner. With one flexible stat modifier, you don't really need Elves and Eladrin to do woodsy elves and magic elves. And while we'll have to see the Essentials paladin (or anything else getting a defender role build) and monsters to confirm this, it certainly looks like they're stealth-eliminating the marked condition (which has been pretty core to defenders to date) by just not including marking ability in future classes and monsters and providing rules for how its replacements interact with marks.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 24, 2010)

drothgery said:


> With one flexible stat modifier, you don't really need Elves and Eladrin to do woodsy elves and magic elves.




There's more to those races to define them as the woodsy and magic elves than just a +2 Int or Wis. The Elf is still trained in the weapons of a wilderness hunter, while the Eladrin is trained in the weapon of a fey noble. The Elf is experienced at easy moving through brush and wilderness to the extent that shifting through such terrain is second nature, while the eladrin's culture focus on education grants them a broader knowledge base (extra skill).



> And while we'll have to see the Essentials paladin (or anything else getting a defender role build) and monsters to confirm this, it certainly looks like they're stealth-eliminating the marked condition (which has been pretty core to defenders to date) by just not including marking ability in future classes and monsters and providing rules for how its replacements interact with marks.




Marked is being stealth-eliminated... which is why they put in rules for how the Defender Aura interacts with the marked condition and also why the put Marked on the list of conditions on the new Essential's DM screen and in the DM Kit.

...that makes sense....?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 24, 2010)

From the Article:"Second, characters cannot normally create or buy rare items. They are simply too hard to find to show up in the hands of a merchant or trader. You must find them or, at the DM’s option, track down the rare and wondrous reagents needed to create one. You can’t simply stock up on them or buy one for each item slot."

This is /exactly/ how all magic items (other than potions and scrolls) worked in 1e.  Everyone remember how /wonderfully well-balanced/ magic items were in 1e?  How they never caused any trouble?  No?  Me neither.


There's a hard guideline for giving out rare items - 1 per character per tier.  That's not a bad guideline.  It's still a guideline, though, leaving the DM plenty of room to screw up by giving too many or too-powerful rare items out.  And, afterall, part of the point of rare items is that they won't be carefully balanced, they'll be quite potent for their 'level.'

There is only a soft "less than half the items found" guideline for uncommon items.  More room for the DM to mess up.

Common items are basically a slot tax, you need to get those Enhancement bonuses to stay on the 4e treadmill, since the monsters and challenges get harder every level, but you only get better every other level.  Flip the damn 'inherent bonuses' switch and be done with it.


One truism with 1e was that characters - particularly the non-casters - were defined primarily by their magic items.  Stats were just bland numbers, and there was virtually no customization or choice within a class.  You were your items.  Some folks liked that, many objected strongly to it.

The 'feedback' the article says they've been gettting about items starting to overshadow character choices would seem to echo that ancient complaint.  Players want their character to be special and defining (in ways they choose), not their character's sword to be special and defining (in ways chosen by the DM).


Yet, that's exactly what rare items are likely to do.


Then there's uncommon items.  They're mostly dailies.  They'll account for something less than half the items you find, so, you'll still have quite a few item dailies available as you go up in levels.  

One of the complaints mentioned in the article was: "Particularly at high levels, a character’s boots, armor, gloves, belt, weapon, and other gear add quite a few powers and abilities that might overshadow other character aspects."

So, having too many items dailies was a problem.  The solution:  scrap the limit on item dailies.  ???   

Characters will still have multiple item dailies.  There'll be less effort to assure that they're balanced and don't overshadow character abilities - that responsibility is being pushed on the DM.  Characters will get to use /all/ their item dailies, every day.  So, they're not likely  sell an item with a daily - it might come in handy, and it's always available.


Once again, the line from WotC about Essentials isn't quite making sense.  If the idea was to keep items from overshadowing PC abilities, you wouldn't add in even more-powerful items.  If the idea is to limit the use of many item dailies, you wouldn't lift a restriction on item dailies. 


If the idea is to make the game feel more like older editions, when items could rarely if ever be bought or sold, needed bizarre rare materials to make, and could be arbitrarily powerful and character-defining, all giving the DM a major headache when it came to maintaining balance within his party, OTOH....


----------



## drothgery (Aug 24, 2010)

The Little Raven said:


> There's more to those races to define them as the woodsy and magic elves than just a +2 Int or Wis. The Elf is still trained in the weapons of a wilderness hunter, while the Eladrin is trained in the weapon of a fey noble. The Elf is experienced at easy moving through brush and wilderness to the extent that shifting through such terrain is second nature, while the eladrin's culture focus on education grants them a broader knowledge base (extra skill).




Why did I know someone was going to say this? The point is that the main reason you needed two races of elves was because the stat bonuses magical elves and woodsy elves need to be effective are different. It would have been easy enough to design more generic class abilities for a standard elf (every previous edition of D&D managed it).





The Little Raven said:


> Marked is being stealth-eliminated... which is why they put in rules for how the Defender Aura interacts with the marked condition and also why the put Marked on the list of conditions on the new Essential's DM screen and in the DM Kit.
> 
> ...that makes sense....?




Well, yes. It's a condition that's only there for backward compatibility with pre-Essentials classes and monsters. WotC is maintaining the polite fiction that Essentials + the July rules update + the post-essentials rules update are not 4.5 (or 4e Revised or whatever), which means that pre-Essentials stuff has to work, at least with errata. This is introducing some degree of clunkiness into Essentials stuff.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 24, 2010)

drothgery said:


> Well, yes. It's a condition that's only there for backward compatibility with pre-Essentials classes and monsters. WotC is maintaining the polite fiction that Essentials + the July rules update + the post-essentials rules update are not 4.5 (or 4e Revised or whatever), which means that pre-Essentials stuff has to work, at least with errata. This is introducing some degree of clunkiness into Essentials stuff.




There is utterly no support for the marked condition being removed. It's actually still on the list of conditions in the new essentials DM screen, so very clearly you're barking up the wrong tree here.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 24, 2010)

Dare I say... this makes rare items... "essential."
[SBLOCK]
*"YEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!"*




[/SBLOCK]


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 24, 2010)

epochrpg said:


> So I guess then that us dummies who bought the Adventurer's Vault should stack it on the woodpile?  Will the existing magic items cease to exist then?  This doesn't sound like 4.5... more like 5.0.



I'd hold off on the book burning. AV1 still has some good rules for mounts, mount statistics, vehicle rules, and vehicle statistics.


----------



## fba827 (Aug 24, 2010)

if the changes don't work for your group (be it for whatever reason), you could always hold off on implementing the rules updates on magic items until the next campaign (or next campaign arc if there is a good 'break' in action that provides a natural reset point), or not implement it at all.

It's a modular enough rule that it won't break anything and even if you're using character builder and such, it's simple enough to know you can pick any magic item vs. the ones specified as common.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 24, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> There is utterly no support for the marked condition being removed. It's actually still on the list of conditions in the new essentials DM screen, so very clearly you're barking up the wrong tree here.




I disagree.  There's a lot of evidence to say that the entire philosophy on the default balance level of 4e is different going forward.  Some of it certainly seems linked to nostalgia reasons.

I mean, it appears as if the reason there's no dailies for the martial classes in Essentials, that there is a class named Thief, that Wizard spells are doing half damage on a miss, that Clerics powers are more based on their choice of god, and now that the magic items are being changed is to make the game "feel" more like 2e or 1e.  This is especially confirmed when the first product in the series is the "Red Box".

As for why I think the magic item change is related to nostalgia is because the primary reason given by WOTC for the change is that the current system restricted them from making more powerful items.  I'm guessing that they did some focus groups amongst players who hadn't played D&D since 2e and one of the things they felt was odd was that there were no (or at least very little) items that had an effect at will.  But their current magic item philosophy says that items don't have at-will powers.  So, they came up with rare items so they could make some of these.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 24, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I disagree.  There's a lot of evidence to say that the entire philosophy on the default balance level of 4e is different going forward.




Your disagreement is irrelevant. There is no evidence that the marked condition is going to be absent from 4E after essentials (considering marked is still described on the DM screen _from_ essentials). The Knight uses different mechanics to make sure it has an alternative niche to the 4E fighter. In no way does this support the concept marks will be abandoned as a game concept.

Absolutely nothing else you wrote has anything to do with supporting the argument marks aren't going to be supported by future classes and monsters.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 24, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Absolutely nothing else you wrote has anything to do with supporting the argument marks aren't going to be supported by future classes and monsters.




I admit, we don't know for SURE.  But the marked condition is kind of fiddly.  You have to remember to use your power to mark people, you have to remember when you can mark, how often you can mark, and which creatures are marked and when they end.

Even amongst players who are very experienced some of these things are forgotten nearly every round.  The solution used by the Knight is a pretty good one in that it eliminates most of the confusion.  If I was in charge, I certainly wouldn't publish another class that uses the marked condition when you can use a variation of the Knight's power instead.


----------



## keterys (Aug 24, 2010)

Marked is a complex and hokey mechanic to explain to certain people. Thus, the Essentials defender uses a different mechanic. That's it. Doesn't affect any of the old mark using classes. Doesn't mean that an Essentials Paladin couldn't take powers that mark or sanction, and get some mileage out of it.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Aug 24, 2010)

keterys said:


> Marked is a complex and hokey mechanic to explain to certain people. Thus, the Essentials defender uses a different mechanic. That's it. Doesn't affect any of the old mark using classes. Doesn't mean that an Essentials Paladin couldn't take powers that mark or sanction, and get some mileage out of it.



The essential paladin probably does mark considering that the Knight's aura mentions that is doesn't work on a marked creature. Seems to me that since the marked conditions is directly mentioned in the feature, instead of a side bar, that one of the other essential class's utilizes the marked mechanic.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 24, 2010)

abyssaldeath said:


> The essential paladin probably does mark considering that the Knight's aura mentions that is doesn't work on a marked creature. Seems to me that since the marked conditions is directly mentioned in the feature, instead of a side bar, that one of the other essential class's utilizes the marked mechanic.




I doubt it.  I'm fairly certain that it just reinforces the concept that these powers work with the standard rules.  Of course they have to refer to the marked condition.  The power will be printed exactly as it appears in the Compendium where players who haven't even read the Essentials rules will be taking it.  You can't hide how the class feature works with the Paladin or Warden in a sidebar.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 24, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I'm guessing that they did some focus groups amongst players who hadn't played D&D since 2e and one of the things they felt was odd was that there were no (or at least very little) items that had an effect at will.




I'm guessing they did some focus groups on people who have played any edition before 4th and who mentioned that 4e magic items are ....underwhelming.

I personally don't have a problem with items that have dailies, I don't even necessarily have a problem with items that only have a single daily. But so many daily abilities are just downright crappy.

A 1/day ability to add +5 to a single damage roll....yawn city. There are so many items like this.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 24, 2010)

Yep, that was one of the things I liked about 4e:  items no longer overwhelmed character abilities or defined characters or broke things too badly.

Of course, that didn't last long.  But, at least the broken ones generally got updated eventually.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 24, 2010)

My personal hope is that they take the opportunity provided by the "rare" distinction to make items that aren't necessarily more _powerful_, but more _interesting_.

I couldn't really care less about any more +X items, or items that let you make a special attack. Give me items that do funky stuff. Give me back my _decanter of endless water_. My _folding boat_. My precious, precious _wand of wonder_.

I agree that magic items shouldn't overshadow the PCs. But I also feel that magic items--or at least the truly _interesting_ magic items--do more than just make the PCs better; they provide options that PCs otherwise could never have. (And I don't necessarily mean combat options.)


----------



## eamon (Aug 24, 2010)

Uncommon items with daily powers have become more attractive by virtue of the removal of the daily item use limit - and though some static bonus items were among the most attractive items, not all were.

In particularly, this change is going to make wondrous items much more fun and meaningful.  There's quite a few cool wondrous items out there which end up being pointless because they aren't worth the daily magic item use - since you may need that daily item use for your armor or weapon to save the day.

In general, this change is definitely good, even though the pricing issue seems poorly explained; perhaps the books do better.  In particular, hopefully there will be suggestions how to price rare and uncommon items - or at least a note that such things should be much more expensive than the book list price if the PC's happen to come across a dealer with such an item.

I do wonder how this will affect wishlist use and the unlikely presence of tailored items - I don't use them or like them - but will that be sustainable with rare items in play?

Also, previously items could be "upgraded" (raised 5 levels) using the enchant magic item ritual - should this be possible for rare and uncommon items?

How will this affect the guidelines for new character creation?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 24, 2010)

Mengu said:


> I don't see much talk about this, but to me, it seems like Common items are going to be the most powerful ones. Currently it's the items with static properties that are the most attractive to players, like Iron Armbands, Staff of Ruin, Vanguard Weapon, Horned Helmet, Battle Harness, Dragon Shards, etc. I'm guessing there are details they haven't shared with us yet.




I agree.

statements like this 







			
				wotc said:
			
		

> Common items lack activated powers. They usually confer a simple bonus or a static effect that you note on your character sheet and forget about.




seem strange, because when I was playing 4e I found that magic items with properties which were always on were far better, far more useful than magic items with a 1/day or 1/encounter power. Give me the Iron Armbands, Staff of Ruin etc every time!

Second point - I would have thought that the position of 'career defining magic items' would have been perfectly covered by the artifact rules - the best bit of 4e magic items by a long shot IMO. Especially since different artifacts are aimed at different tiers. It introduces items which are designed to be with people for a certain time, which are interesting and powerful. Why have a separate group of 'rares' then?

Cheers


----------



## eamon (Aug 24, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> I couldn't really care less about any more +X items, or items that let you make a special attack. Give me items that do funky stuff. Give me back my _decanter of endless water_. My _folding boat_. My precious, precious _wand of wonder_.




Timing timing - I was thinking the same thing!  Although some old classics have no 4e equivalent, there actually are quite a few items like this already - it's just that they're often daily item powers meaning they're useless with the current daily item rules - but essentials promises to fix that!


----------



## Edwin_Su (Aug 24, 2010)

wil they be maked with the colors green, blue and purple ?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 24, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> My personal hope is that they take the opportunity provided by the "rare" distinction to make items that aren't necessarily more _powerful_, but more _interesting_....Give me back my _decanter of endless water_. My _folding boat_. My precious, precious _wand of wonder_.
> 
> I agree that magic items shouldn't overshadow the PCs.



Well, those are unlikely to be the 'rare' items.  Wonderous items with non-combat functions already evaded the daily limit by not having daily powers, even if they did have powers that functioned once a day.  Everlasting Provisions, for instance:  a 'property' that functions only at the end of an extended rest.  




Plane Sailing said:


> Second point - I would have thought that the position of 'career defining magic items' would have been perfectly covered by the artifact rules - the best bit of 4e magic items by a long shot IMO.



Artifacts are a little involved, I guess.  Another options would have been to give PCs a build option for a special, character-defining magic item.  Something like a power swap feat, only you're swaping a power for a particularly awesome item.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 24, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> My personal hope is that they take the opportunity provided by the "rare" distinction to make items that aren't necessarily more _powerful_, but more _interesting_.




I'm in complete agreement.  I worry slightly that some of the most powerful items were actually the non-combat items.  The ability to pour infinite water out of a decanter at-will could often be more campaign defining than the fact that someone got a hold of a holy avenger.

I actually think that's why there are so many limitations on the number of uses and the price of non-combat items in 4e.

Who knows if some of the rare items will actually be non-combat items.  I'd like to see some that are.  That would allow a DM who wanted to see a default level of magic closer to 2e to give out lots of rare items instead of the default amount.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 24, 2010)

Edwin_Su said:


> wil they be maked with the colors green, blue and purple ?



No. But if you disenchant them, you will find the Residium to blink green, blue or purple depending on the item.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 24, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> I agree.
> 
> statements like this
> 
> ...



But maybe then you are missing the point of the classification - it's not merely about power, it's also about simplification and "fiddlineness".

Daily Item use tracking per character is gone, apparantly. Since Daily Items are uncommon and rare, you can't stack them up anyway. So, one fiddly bit removed. 

You won't have many daily item powers since those are uncommon and rare. A fiddly bit removed.

Static bonuses that you can rely on are common. No fiddly bits to worry about.

Balance-Wise, the static properties were good and strong, but they had little issues interacting with other items. The ability to deal 5 extra points of damage per attack cannot be abused by combining it with a odd daily or encounter power. It's just 5 extra points of damage. All the time. But it's not part of any "infinite (or just ridicilous) damage/healing" loops you might be able to create by having a specific daily utility power, a item encounter power, and a daily item power and a certain at-will attack power.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 24, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> It introduces items which are designed to be with people for a certain time, which are interesting and powerful. Why have a separate group of 'rares' then?



Well, I see rare items as a bridge between artefacts and normal items. The problem with artefacts, aside from the above-mentioned complexity, is that they have a time limit until they move on and that they are more-or-less NPCs with their motivations and their interaction with the party.

Artefacts are not simply career-defining, they're story-defining (or at least influencing) - unless you downplay the concordance _a lot_. Rare items are "dumb" items that can define a character without impacting the story more than wanted.

Filling that niche of powerful "dumb" item has the advantage it a) works straight out of the box and b) protects the artefacts' niche, making them more special when found, since you can then embrace and emphasise into the "Item NPC" role.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## epochrpg (Aug 24, 2010)

abyssaldeath said:


> All magic items (up till this point) are uncommon. There are no rare items yet, unless you count artifacts.




Thanks for the clarification.  however, that is still a little upsetting, since those books were marketed to players and not GMs... but since they're uncommon items, it will be the GM who decides which ones you get, since PCs can only choose their own common items, right?  Or can you choose uncommon items based on your level?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 24, 2010)

The article says that players can't normally make or buy uncommon or rare items.  It doesn't say anything about the items a character created above first level can simply choose.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 24, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But maybe then you are missing the point of the classification - it's not merely about power, it's also about simplification and "fiddlineness".
> 
> Daily Item use tracking per character is gone, apparantly. Since Daily Items are uncommon and rare, you can't stack them up anyway. So, one fiddly bit removed.



This is a trade-off.  On the one hand, you don't have to track how many item dailies you have available based on milestones.  OTOH, you have less incentive to keep going in a given day.  You can now 'nova' with all your item dailies, and they all come back after a long rest.  You may not have as many item dailies as you might have if you were intentionally abusing a much lower level item with a good-at-any-level daily, but they're much more available.  Daily item use tracking gave a further incentive for the party to take on multi-encounter days.  Reach a miles stone, get an action point and an item daily.  



> You won't have many daily item powers since those are uncommon and rare. A fiddly bit removed.



For the player, maybe.  It may also be that a given player had mostly encounter and property type items - some players prefer them.  The DM, though, now has to consider the balance implications of each item he hands out - since /all/ of the item dailies he hands out, over the course of the whole campaign, could all be used in any given situation.



> But it's not part of any "infinite (or just ridicilous) damage/healing" loops you might be able to create by having a specific daily utility power, a item encounter power, and a daily item power and a certain at-will attack power.



Didn't catch the reference.  But, in general, it's better to fix a broken combo by un-breaking it, than by making part of it 'uncommon' and leaving it to the DM to notice the combo and decline to give out the uncommon bit of it.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 24, 2010)

epochrpg said:


> Thanks for the clarification.  however, that is still a little upsetting, since those books were marketed to players and not GMs... but since they're uncommon items, it will be the GM who decides which ones you get, since PCs can only choose their own common items, right?



The DM has always chosen what items a pc gets. 

The 4e DMG advice is to encourage players to create a wishlist of items they'd like to get. It is still up to the DM to decide what treasure to place. So, the new rarities really don't change anything, except item creation.

Item creation is clearly no longer as useful as it once was.


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 24, 2010)

epochrpg said:


> Thanks for the clarification.  however, that is still a little upsetting, since those books were marketed to players and not GMs... but since they're uncommon items, it will be the GM who decides which ones you get, since PCs can only choose their own common items, right?  Or can you choose uncommon items based on your level?




It will be at the DM's discretion, but - as a player - you could use the book to quest for items and - in game - look to track down ones that you covet. I don't want magic items to disappear back behind the DM screen, I think that is a step backwards.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 24, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Second point - I would have thought that the position of 'career defining magic items' would have been perfectly covered by the artifact rules - the best bit of 4e magic items by a long shot IMO. Especially since different artifacts are aimed at different tiers. It introduces items which are designed to be with people for a certain time, which are interesting and powerful. Why have a separate group of 'rares' then?




Artifacts are a different kind of beast entirely though. They were never part of the parcel system at all. They weren't ever intended to be a defining part of your character. They were intended to be plot devices. An artifact isn't ever really YOURS as a player, it is something you interact with, more like a Companion Character. A rare item would be different. It would be something that belongs to the character that they keep, like other items, but with more history and significance. It seems to me like there's a niche for this kind of item.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 24, 2010)

Are the going to need to change the alternative reward system at all because of this?


----------



## ferratus (Aug 24, 2010)

I hope so.   Neither of my DM's will use the reward system as given.  They keep looking for a treasure generating table to look up.  Since my DM's don't prepare rewards, they look on the rewards table for magic items, then sift through the books until they find something they like.   If it is at the end of the session, they will generally "forget" to give out rewards at all.

So if there is a common, uncommon and rare treasure table to roll on, I'll get more rewards as a player, and it would be faster.  Some residuum and rituals on the tables would be great as well.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 24, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> My personal hope is that they take the opportunity provided by the "rare" distinction to make items that aren't necessarily more _powerful_, but more _interesting_.




I'm going to go out on a limb here and disagree with this. As a DM, or a game designer, interesting magic items are fun. As a player, the folding boat is neat and all, but 90% of the time you'd rather have another +1 on your weapon/implement, armor, or neck slot item. Boring magic items are _great_. They're consistently useful, and it's easy to remember what they do (and in fact you can just figure them is being active all the time on character sheet and forget about it).


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 24, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I disagree. There's a lot of evidence to say that the entire philosophy on the default balance level of 4e is different going forward. Some of it certainly seems linked to nostalgia reasons.




Yes. However, providing options to appeal to those who enjoy those nostalgic elements doesn't require removing the existing options from the game. Hence why claiming that "Marked" has been eliminated is blatantly incorrect - it is part of the rules, it remains part of the rules. Existing classes use it. One build that doesn't? That hardly overrides every other aspect of the game.


----------



## Prism (Aug 24, 2010)

drothgery said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here and disagree with this. As a DM, or a game designer, interesting magic items are fun. As a player, the folding boat is neat and all, but 90% of the time you'd rather have another +1 on your weapon/implement, armor, or neck slot item. Boring magic items are _great_. They're consistently useful, and it's easy to remember what they do (and in fact you can just figure them is being active all the time on character sheet and forget about it).




I think it depends on the player. As a player i find boring magic items...well boring. I'd generally prefer to have a folding boat, or wand of wonder, or instant campsite than an extra +1. The basic upgrade stuff needs to come in eventually but its rarely the thing I get excited about. I'd rather have a lower plus weapon with some interesting powers than a higher level basic version


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 24, 2010)

Like Prism, I think I'd be happy in completely ditching vanilla magic items. Literally get rid of every item that gives a +x bonus to something.

Make all magic items interesting, some usable in combat, some not.

Lose the whole +1-6 grading of stuff entirely.

Can't see it happening, but I think it would be a huge improvement.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 24, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Like Prism, I think I'd be happy in completely ditching vanilla magic items. Literally get rid of every item that gives a +x bonus to something.
> 
> Make all magic items interesting, some usable in combat, some not.
> 
> ...




We already have the tools to pretty much do that though. (Through the inherent bonus system.)


----------



## drothgery (Aug 24, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Like Prism, I think I'd be happy in completely ditching vanilla magic items. Literally get rid of every item that gives a +x bonus to something.
> 
> Make all magic items interesting, some usable in combat, some not.
> 
> ...




The thing is that although there are tools do that (with inherent bonuses), it seems to me that acquiring lots of magic items is pretty core to D&D. And if you have lots of magic items, they had better be uncomplicated, always-on items because otherwise you'll forget what they do.


----------



## keterys (Aug 24, 2010)

Hence, the common items that provide basic bonuses and no activated abilities at all.

I don't see why you can't have all kinds of uncommon rods of wonder and decanters of endless water now, though. Well, maybe rare for that rod of wonder, depending on what you make it do. There's a big difference between 'showers of flowers' and 'open the ground up underneath someone' or 'turn them into a newt'


----------



## Scribble (Aug 24, 2010)

drothgery said:


> The thing is that although there are tools do that (with inherent bonuses), it seems to me that acquiring lots of magic items is pretty core to D&D. And if you have lots of magic items, they had better be uncomplicated, always-on items because otherwise you'll forget what they do.




Once long ago I was playing a halfling cleric named Roofus Thistleknot wearing chain mail... He fell into a river and almost drowned... Towards the end of the session I suddenly remembered Roofus was wearing a ring of water walking. 

Everyone laughed at me.


----------



## eamon (Aug 24, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Like Prism, I think I'd be happy in completely ditching vanilla magic items. Literally get rid of every item that gives a +x bonus to something.
> 
> Make all magic items interesting, some usable in combat, some not.
> 
> ...



But some of those plain +X items aren't must have.  I suppose you could argue that must-have items are a kind of item-tax, but items that aren't must-have hardly can be described that way...

And even must-have items can be part of the reward system - I mean, levelling is also a "must have"; required items are just yet another means for the DM to control those rewards.

In any case, for _optional_ +X items (certainly things like +3 to thievery checks or perhaps even limited item bonuses to damage - something weaker than the iron armbands) there's a real element of variation - a character might have some such bonuses but not others; or he might forgo many of those basic items and focus on other benefits (e.g. read another language instead, or gain a situational bonus that's larger).

Having the option of simple items is good.


----------



## ferratus (Aug 24, 2010)

We've had one or two polls on getting rid of +x items before.   Generally, the majority of people polled generally support keeping them.   So handing out lots of "boring" magic items still seems to be the preferred way.

I think the inherent bonuses combined with the rare magic items is a good way to model handing out only a few character defining items.   You can hand out 3 or 4 rare items (over the course of 30 levels) that make you a better combat character, and generally hand out consumables and interesting and quirky minor magical items the rest of the time.  That way of doing treasure should still work.


----------



## shmoo2 (Aug 24, 2010)

Mengu said:
			
		

> I don't see much talk about this, but to me, it seems like Common items are going to be the most powerful ones. Currently it's the items with static properties that are the most attractive to players, like Iron Armbands, Staff of Ruin, Vanguard Weapon, Horned Helmet, Battle Harness, Dragon Shards, etc. I'm guessing there are details they haven't shared with us yet.






Plane Sailing said:


> when I was playing 4e I found that magic items with properties which were always on were far better, far more useful than magic items with a 1/day or 1/encounter power. Give me the Iron Armbands, Staff of Ruin etc every time!




This change seems like a useful addition to the game, but the details will be important-
i.e. exactly which magic items are assigned to each category.

Rather than simply assigning entire books worth of items to one category, the designers need to consider each item separately to decide which category it should be assigned based on the design goals for this rule change.


----------



## mneme (Aug 24, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I'm in complete agreement.  I worry slightly that some of the most powerful items were actually the non-combat items.  The ability to pour infinite water out of a decanter at-will could often be more campaign defining than the fact that someone got a hold of a holy avenger..




You bet!  Of the many overpowered magic items the party in the 3.5 game I played in from levels 1-17 acquired (and there was a lot; the GM loves his items), the most campaign defining was the "stone cutting sword" we picked up for a song at 3rd level.  We -destroyed- encounters, or even entire adventures with that sword -- using it to mine out dungeons and colapse it on foes, bypass encounters by digging through walls or dig tunnels under castles or fortresses--I think we were still using it at 13th level (and only stopped because it got destroyed or sacrificed a bit after then, I think).

But you know what?  It was fun!  As powerful as such an item can be, it also defines the campaign and encourages creativity in the players, making them feel -really- heroic (not to mention distinishing it from any other campaign with those characters).  That's the kind of stuff a rare item -should- do.


----------



## Mengu (Aug 24, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Lose the whole +1-6 grading of stuff entirely.




I've been on board with this since before 4e came out. But I guess they wanted to tie some properties to the + of the weapon such as crit dice, and kept the +'s. Those enhancement bonuses should just be baked into the system ala inherent bonuses.

As DM, I don't want to constantly worry about giving weapon upgrades, armor upgrades, neck upgrades, etc. I end up hand waving half the stuff anyway. One morning you wake up and suddenly all your neck items went from +1 to +2. The faerie mother visited you. Whatever. It's not interesting to find upgrades. It's interesting to find new stuff.

Instead of party finding 4-5 items per level, that number could easily be reduced to 2-3, making things a lot more interesting. In 5 levels, of the 25 items the party finds (counting cash as item), 15 of them are neck, armor, and weapon upgrades anyway.

Oh and bake the item bonus to damage into the system while you're at it. Don't need the arm slot or staff slot (or goblin totem or radiant weapon or what have you) taken up for that.

With this method you also happen to win on equality since everyone gets their bonuses at the same time.

For my next campaign, I'm definitely using inherent bonuses of some sort. But I kind of wish core rules more inherently supported that system. Critical dice, bonuses tied to enhancement bonuses, etc. can still pose problems that need to be hand waved. I'll likely just equip the characters with the bonus I want them to have in CB, rather than using the inherent bonus.


----------



## knightofround (Aug 24, 2010)

They should make all magic items tiered imo.

Common version of a magic item would be a static bonus or property.
Uncommon version would be common+ an addition bonus/property, or an encounter power
Rare version would be common+uncommon+ a third bonus/property/encounter, one of which could be at-will power.
Artifacts would essentially be 2x rare. Makes it easy to create your own artifact by melding two existing items.

This would also save space in item design, as you wouldn't have to design a bajillion separate items with different properties and powers. You'd just start with one very good item, and pare it down.

The key point is to make it so you can get the "cool" abilities without sacrificing necessary static bonuses.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 24, 2010)

Mengu said:


> As DM, I don't want to constantly worry about giving weapon upgrades, armor upgrades, neck upgrades, etc. I end up hand waving half the stuff anyway. One morning you wake up and suddenly all your neck items went from +1 to +2. The faerie mother visited you. Whatever. It's not interesting to find upgrades. It's interesting to find new stuff.




To make life easy on me I've had a simple house rule for this.  Every level up each PC gets 1 magic item of new level + 1 (if you are going from 1 -> 2 it would be a L3 item or less - L2 + 1).  As I'm almost to Epic (currently level 18 PCs) I'm somewhat regretting this and look forward to the changes they've added.  I would definitely go Inherent + Rares only in a new game.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 24, 2010)

drothgery said:


> The thing is that although there are tools do that (with inherent bonuses), it seems to me that acquiring lots of magic items is pretty core to D&D. And if you have lots of magic items, they had better be uncomplicated, always-on items because otherwise you'll forget what they do.




Well, I don't know what the majority of people want. Obviously, it makes sense for WotC to tailor the game (at least to an extent) in that direction.

But me personally? I'd rather the "necessary" bumps come entirely (or at least mostly) from inherent bonuses, and that all (or at least most) magic items be interesting and flavorful.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 24, 2010)

I think inherent bonuses are boring, and I´d rather use magic item NPC tresholds.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Aug 24, 2010)

Another approach to the "boring" +N items would be to eliminate the bonus as a standard trait of weapons, armor and neck items, and RE-introduce it as mega-powerful trait of rare- and artifact-level items.

So for example, a common magic sword might be a flaming weapon with a +0 bonus, while the rare version _might_ actually have a +1 attack bonus, or might instead just have some extra cool flamey stuff.

That would allow the bonus-hungry to get what they want, but only at the DM's discretion.


----------



## keterys (Aug 24, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think inherent bonuses are boring, and I´d rather use magic item NPC tresholds.




What's the difference?


----------



## nightspaladin (Aug 25, 2010)

In light of these changes, our group is considering allowing Common and rare items, but banning uncommon items.

Common items will be considered masterwork, or minorly magical( I..E. this sword is extra sharp because it was made with magic, as opposed to crackling with magic.) 

"Real" magic items will all be rares.

So you may have a +2 sword, that is uber sharper than normal because of the construction and way it was made, but when you see a sword burst into flames, you know it's bad ass.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 25, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Once long ago I was playing a halfling cleric named Roofus Thistleknot wearing chain mail... He fell into a river and almost drowned... Towards the end of the session I suddenly remembered Roofus was wearing a ring of water walking.
> 
> Everyone laughed at me.



Your DM just forgot to tell you that they were boots of (river bottom) water walking.


----------



## Ahrimon (Aug 25, 2010)

I love all of the miscilaneous magic items.  All the stuff that has virtually no effect on game play but is awesome roleplaying fodder.  Of course I can never afford them since once I get the necessities I don't have enough cash left.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 26, 2010)

Rex Blunder said:


> [/I]Oh - I hope they respec the Holy Avenger as a Rare item. In earlier editions, the Holy Avenger is the classic example of a character-defining magic weapon.



I hope that before they do so, they redo implement/weapons so that the "you can use this as a holy symbol" benefit of the avenger is not needed.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 26, 2010)

keterys said:


> What's the difference?



Tresholds are always +1 behind magic items of a certain level range, inherent bonuses to attack are only "1 level" behind magic items of a certain level.

So IMHO you have the best of both worlds: if you find the right magic items, you are granted a bonus. If you don´t, you will still be only +1 behind the expected curve.

If you switch to a different weapon, you are also only slightly behind, but a little bit worse than with a magic weapon.

So magic weapons are still meaningful, but using a nonmagic weapon doesn´t make you "useless".


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 26, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Tresholds are always +1 behind magic items of a certain level range, inherent bonuses to attack are only "1 level" behind magic items of a certain level.
> 
> So IMHO you have the best of both worlds: if you find the right magic items, you are granted a bonus. If you don´t, you will still be only +1 behind the expected curve.
> 
> ...




You do realize that those two mechanics are trying to accomplish two entirely different goals right?

One is a replacement for magic items entirely (good if you want to run a low magic world, but still want the PC's to have their "expected" bonuses).  The other is a way to "equip" magic items on monsters (for verisimilitude reasons) without breaking the game math.

What you're talking about is much closer to house rules territory.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Aug 26, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> What you're talking about is much closer to house rules territory.




OH NO! Somebody move this thread to the houserules forum!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 26, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> You do realize that those two mechanics are trying to accomplish two entirely different goals right?
> 
> One is a replacement for magic items entirely (good if you want to run a low magic world, but still want the PC's to have their "expected" bonuses).  The other is a way to "equip" magic items on monsters (for verisimilitude reasons) without breaking the game math.
> 
> What you're talking about is much closer to house rules territory.



Actually yes... my part of the discussion started with: I don´t like inherent bonuses as a replacement for magic items...

then I was asked why i would use the treshold of monsters.

then I explained that I don´t really like characters falling too much behind without getting rid of the satisfaction, getting a magic sword early.

And yes, this would be houserule territory. But do I care? No. Inherent bonuses as implemented are lame.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 26, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Actually yes... my part of the discussion started with: I don´t like inherent bonuses as a replacement for magic items...
> 
> then I was asked why i would use the treshold of monsters.
> 
> ...




Ok then...I just misunderstood where you were going with that.  No problem!


----------



## corwyn77 (Aug 27, 2010)

Mengu said:


> For my next campaign, I'm definitely using inherent bonuses of some sort. But I kind of wish core rules more inherently supported that system. Critical dice, bonuses tied to enhancement bonuses, etc. can still pose problems that need to be hand waved. I'll likely just equip the characters with the bonus I want them to have in CB, rather than using the inherent bonus.




At the risk of verging further into house rule territory, I'll just link this thread on the wotc boards which solved all my problems with dull 'monster math'.  I think this, a smattering of rare and uncommon items and limiting PC creation to consumables (mostly) suits my gm style perfectly.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 27, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> An artifact isn't ever really YOURS as a player, it is something you interact with, more like a Companion Character. A rare item would be different. It would be something that belongs to the character that they keep, like other items, but with more history and significance. It seems to me like there's a niche for this kind of item.




Yes. To use _The Lord of the Rings_ as an example, the One Ring is an artifact. The elven rope and the Hobbits' barrow-blades would probably count as "common." The elven cloaks would probably count as "uncommon," as would Gandalf's sword Glamdring and Frodo's Sting.

Anduril (Narsil), Boromir's horn, and Frodo's star-glass (and perhaps the mithril coat) are probably rare. An imperfect example, but there ya go.


----------



## keterys (Aug 27, 2010)

Not being a scholar, though I am reasonably well read... what about Boromir's Horn and Frodo's Star-Glass or Coat make them Rare?

I mean, the horn may not have even been magical, as old and respected as it was. It was chopped in two by an errant attack.

The Phial is a light source. Potentially a less powerful one than a sunrod, at that.

The coat is pretty cool, I'll grant, but it could just as easily have only been a high level common item or mid-level uncommon item. There's no real flash or specialness to it except the fact that it's a good suit of armor.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 27, 2010)

keterys said:


> Not being a scholar, though I am reasonably well read... what about Boromir's Horn and Frodo's Star-Glass or Coat make them Rare?
> 
> I mean, the horn may not have even been magical, as old and respected as it was. It was chopped in two by an errant attack.
> 
> ...




Well, Tolkien's really circumspect on what "magic" means when it comes to items, so some of this is speculation.

Boromir's horn supposedly had the property that if it was blown anywhere in the bounds of Gondor, it could be heard and would bring aid. One can argue about the "magical property" of it, but I'm inclined to take the horn's lore at face value.

The Phial of Galadriel seems to be a light source, a source of healing, and to provide some benefit in dark places. In D&D terms, it would probably DO more than Tolkien ever shows overtly, but it's pretty clearly a "rare" item.

Frodo's mithril coat is better than simple mail. It stops a thrust that should have killed him outright. Damage Reduction wouldn't be out of the question. And given that it's essentially mail with the encumbrance of cloth...

Tolkien tends to shy away from super-overt magic. But the mithril coat is a pretty unusual (and character-defining) item.


----------



## keterys (Aug 27, 2010)

I guess my point is that reduced to D&D terms, they're not terribly impressive. An attempt to D&D-ify them and make them rare would likely result in bedecking them in potentially too many things.

But, sure, you could end up with a
Frodo's +2 Mithril Mail Shirt
Property: This shirt functions as chainmail with no speed or check penalty.
Power (Encounter): Immediate Interrupt. Use when hit by an attack. Reduce the damage dealt by the attack by 10. 
Power (Daily): No Action. Use when an attack kills your character or reduces you below 0 hp. You do not die, take no damage from the attack that would bring you below 0 hp, and are stabilized. 

You could also just have a +6 Masterwork Uncommon Mail Shirt on a level 4 guy  That'd be pretty darn impressive.

You could make the horn more impressive than the fairly lackluster wondrous item, Horn of Summons, but... eh: Standard Action. When you sound the horn, all creatures within 1 mile hear its call. Allies within that range are awakened if they are sleeping, and instantly know your current location, hit point total, and any effects currently affecting you.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 27, 2010)

keterys said:


> You could also just have a +6 Masterwork Uncommon Mail Shirt on a level 4 guy  That'd be pretty darn impressive.




But by the rules of 4e, Frodo can't possibly have that _26th-level_ item.

Which I guess is my feeling about "Rare" items. The mithril shirt is mostly a FLAVOR thing on a fighter character like Frodo. When juiced out with the powers you listed, it's a nice, character-defining item. And it's one that doesn't break the power-curve.

One idea I've had is to flatten the cost curve of magic items to eliminate the 1:5 trading of high-level items. Aside from the "magic item market" problem, why doesn't it work this way?


----------



## Atlemar (Aug 27, 2010)

I went looking for an example of rare, trying to start thinking of character-defining items for my party. The paladin is easy -- a Crusader's Weapon to become Holy Avenger. But I'm seeing here assertions that there are no rare items yet, which doesn't quite match my reading of the Wizards article, that most but not all of the items out are uncommon. 

It sure would have helped if Mike Mearls had used a real example instead of weapons that don't exist yet.


----------



## keterys (Aug 27, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> But by the rules of 4e, Frodo can't possibly have that _26th-level_ item.




By the rules of 4E, he wouldn't be in the same party with Aragorn who wouldn't be in the same party with Gandalf.

I'm sure Smaug could very well have been an epic-level red dragon and his hoard included an epic suit of armor for Bilbo, who could gift it to Frodo.



> Which I guess is my feeling about "Rare" items. The mithril shirt is mostly a FLAVOR thing on a fighter character like Frodo. When juiced out with the powers you listed, it's a nice, character-defining item. And it's one that doesn't break the power-curve.




Yep. Now do Boromir's Horn, and you'll have a lot more difficulty really making it Rare-worthy. Especially since he wasn't blowing it all over the place.



> One idea I've had is to flatten the cost curve of magic items to eliminate the 1:5 trading of high-level items. Aside from the "magic item market" problem, why doesn't it work this way?




Uncommons sell for 50%, Rares for 100%. So... now it does work that way?

Otherwise, if you're comparing a +1 Uncommon Sword (5th, sells for 500g) to a +2 Common Sword (6th, buys for 1800g, sells for 360g)... less than a x5 starts actually looking odd, since people will almost always take the extra +1.


----------



## Someone (Aug 27, 2010)

keterys said:


> I'm sure Smaug could very well have been an epic-level red dragon and his hoard included an epic suit of armor for Bilbo, who could gift it to Frodo.




Nah, he went down with just 1 arrow. Clearly a minion, though he had an AC so high that no one managed to hit him before Bard.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 27, 2010)

Someone said:


> Nah, he went down with just 1 arrow. Clearly a minion, though he had an AC so high that no one managed to hit him before Bard.



 Interestig one, in earlier edtions Smaug's death would be accounted by a save or die effect on Bards arrow but in 4e you would have to go with minion to Bard with high defences that the special arrow allows him to overcome but the rest of Laketown Smaug is a badass level +3 solo.

A true Heisen-monster whose stats depends on the level of the characters interacting with it.


----------



## Someone (Aug 27, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> Interestig one, in earlier edtions Smaug's death would be accounted by a save or die effect on Bards arrow but in 4e you would have to go with minion to Bard with high defences that the special arrow allows him to overcome but the rest of Laketown Smaug is a badass level +3 solo.
> 
> A true Heisen-monster whose stats depends on the level of the characters interacting with it.




Actually I forgot to put the [tongueincheek] tags.

I just missed the discussion about what level, race and templates Gandalf had.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 27, 2010)

keterys said:


> By the rules of 4E, he wouldn't be in the same party with Aragorn who wouldn't be in the same party with Gandalf.
> 
> I'm sure Smaug could very well have been an epic-level red dragon and his hoard included an epic suit of armor for Bilbo, who could gift it to Frodo.
> 
> ...




Which of course all just illustrates the impossibility of comparing literary magic to RPG magic. 

Consider, the Phial of Galadriel had a SEVERE effect on Shelob. This was described as far more than just the effects of a light source, it was the holy light of the Star lady herself 'A Elbereth Gilthoniel...' but literary magic lacks any requirement to follow some set of rules. In a D&D game, even one built to the setting conventions of Middle Earth you'd have a pretty hard time creating a sensible narrative that followed the books and made any sense in game terms. The point being I don't think you can meaningfully discuss the rarity system in 4e in terms of literary magic. You couldn't really discuss it in terms of any other edition's rules either. However it will give the DM a way to create a more interesting narrative than is possible using the current rules straight out of the book.

I think rarity will come in handy. I'm not sure it really can exactly replace daily item use restrictions, but that will vary from table to table. It's a workable system at any rate.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 27, 2010)

Yeah, the point of my comparison wasn't to do a point-by-point conversion of _The Lord of the Rings_ to _Dungeons & Dragons_. It was to point out that even in that work, some items exist that are just more special than others.

In most fantasy fiction, these categories can be hard to sport. However, both artifacts and signature non-artifact items show up routinely. Generally, artifacts drive the story, whereas rare items are those still special items unique to the main hero. 

Uncommon is the hard category, as sometimes it's hard to tell when something is "uncommon" rather than "common," or "rare." To steal again from Tolkien, Sting and Glamdring (& Orcrist too) would probably count as uncommon items, possessing special powers to detect orcs/goblins. They're more unique than the simple "magic swords" in the story, like the blades the hobbits find in the Barrow Downs (pretty clearly common). But there are 3 of them, with nearly the same properties, so they're hardly "Rare."

As should be obvious, high-level common (or uncommon) items tend to be "rare" in low-level campaigns. On further reflection, I think I'd put the mithril shirt in this category. While rare, t's not a "Rare" item, it's just a near Epic-level "Common" item in a high heroic (or low Paragon) campaign.

As for Smaug? Unless Black Razor is an arrow of slaying, it's gotta be a combination of a critical hit, and lots of stacked up damage.

Granted, a 21st-level ranger can do like...100+ damage on a crit. But that's a drop in the bucket to an Elder Red Dragon. Granted, it might just have been the finishing shot. But yeah, the implication is that Black Razor is a slaying arrow.


----------



## Pssthpok (Aug 27, 2010)

The phial of Galadriel was, well... a phial, obviously, but it was filled with well water that had captured the light of Earendil. Earendil was the 1st Age hero born of all the major bloodlines: Maia, Noldo, Sinda and Adan. He was able to get the Valar to come over to Middle-earth and crush Melkor because he sailed the seas while wearing a Silmaril on his brow.

Mind you, the Silmarils were jewels created by Feanor, the high prince of the Noldor, way before they even started counting years. These jewels captured the light of the Trees of Valinor - the only light in the world at the time. It's said that the Silmarils were the greatest work of art in all of history, save the actions of the Valar (who crafted the world itself).

After Earendil reached Valinor, they gave him a boat so he could sail the night sky and watch the borderlands of the Void, in case Melkor ever tried to reenter the world.

Nothing about the Phial or the light contained therein is Common or Uncommon. That thing is 100% Rare/Artifact level magic.


----------



## Pssthpok (Aug 27, 2010)

Smaug I put down to an old houserule: the 20-20-kill.
Roll a 20, confirm on a 20, dead. No quesitons asked.

In 4E, the rules don't allow for that sort of thing, but Bard's "black arrow" was a legendary thing. I'd go so far as to say that (in 4E terms) it was some sort of slaying arrow that dealt bloodied damage to its target on a hit (save ends). Bard got a lucky shot, Smaug dropped to 50% health, failed his save and died.

The same sort of thinking resolves the Eowyn/Merry/Witch-king issue. Merry's blade was enchanted against the Witch-king and Eowyn was a woman (fulfilling Glorfndel's prophetic pronouncement). Merry's attack dealt 50% health, Eowny finished him off.


----------



## Pssthpok (Aug 27, 2010)

Boromir's horn was probably a mundane item characteristic of the Captain of Gondor. When orcs heard it, they pooped a little. When the Gondorians found it split in half, they pooped a little as well.


----------



## Pssthpok (Aug 27, 2010)

In any case, Tolkien's work is replete with examples of people having items way beyond their "level" of power. Gollum alone is a perfect example of someone breaking all sorts of wealth-by-level rules, so any D&D adaptation would have to reassess those rules and act in accordance with the spirit of the story over the spirit of the rules.

Sorry for so many replies; I read this thread backwards


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 27, 2010)

The Ring in LotR was an unusual item - for DND - in that it's power was related directly to the power of it's owner at that time and it had a will of it's own.

It would be modeled  better by being an Artifact I think.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 27, 2010)

I think there should be a new theory that states all internet D&D discussions will inevitably lead back to LoTR (and how the current edition is good/bad at modeling it.)


----------



## Someone (Aug 27, 2010)

vagabundo said:


> The Ring in LotR was an unusual item - for DND - in that it's power was related directly to the power of it's owner at that time and it had a will of it's own.
> 
> It would be modeled  better by being an Artifact I think.




Speaking from a literary point of view, there are only Rares and Artifacts
. Rares are character defining, since you as a general rule don't want to mention anything that's not related to the plot somehow and there's no much sense in pointing out that the protagonist's sword was slightly more sharp than a normal sword. If you're going to include a magic item in your narrative, it'd better be dramatic.

(Wait, I'm wrong. Boromir's sword in the books is implied to be magical, and it's only purpose is to show how tough trolls are and how Sting, wielded by a hobbit, could hurt them where a powerful warrior with a lesser weapon couldn't.)

Artifacts are plot defining. If they are not literally the tale's McGuffin, their involvement in the narrative makes them another character. The line sometimes blurr, however - I'm thinking on Stormbringer, for example.

Common items are a D&D neccesity. Player characters need something to spend their gold on, and a way to keep the math consistent. Uncommon items are a way for the DM to control how complex his game is and avoid multiple activated cheesiness. There's no need for them into narrative.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 28, 2010)

Do PCs /really/ need something to spend their gold on?

In 1e, 'training' was used as a giant gp suck.  In 3.x and 4e, magic items can be made/bought, and that's the giant gp (and astral diamond) suck - plus, of course, the balancing yardstick for items is their cost.  

The only reason to do that is if the /only/ way to motivate a band of adventurers is to wave levels or magic items - ie, personal power - under their noses.  Actual heroism isn't even considered as a motivation.  Could adventurers do something just for the love of adventure?  Could they do something because it's the right thing to do?  How about just to get rich and live the high life for a little while?


----------



## Someone (Aug 28, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Do PCs /really/ need something to spend their gold on?




Not really. I ran a (3.5) campaing once where I houseruled most of magic item's mechanical benefits with inherent bonuses and spell-like abilities, and the characters were essentially penniless all the time. However, the pile of gold guarded by the monster has been a trope since ever. And if they have money, they should have something to spend it on. So far TSR nor Wizards considered the idea that you spend 3d20% of your current cast on booze and whores each day and instead took the more peregrine idea that you spend all your gold on magic items you use to kill monsters so you can loot their gold to spend it on magic items to kill monsters... which is something Donald Trump would do, but I don't really depict a barbarian doing.


----------



## Bundersnatch (Sep 25, 2010)

eamon said:


> The idea is good - the sale price thing isn't.  It's completely counter to common sense that _common_ items have the highest disparity between selling and buying price.  The more common the item, the less the disparity between buying and selling an item should be.



Yes, I agree, but the problem is more serious. It actually just doesn't make sense that the sale price is 20% for an item that does not deteriorate in value!

True enough, if I can only sell an item for 20% of what I originally paid, then the item is very common. However, if an item is common, then I would not have had to pay 100% for it in the first place!

An example: my character wants to buy a +1 sword, and goes to the local merchant who is asking 360 gp. Finding this price too high, my character stands outside the merchant's shop with a sign saying "I buy +1 sword for 100 gp!". Since +1 swords are common and everyone who tries to sell only gets 72 gp, I will soon find a seller at that price!!

The only thing the merchant is offering me, is a wider choice of items, and the fact that I can save myself some time and effort in acquiring it myself. But this does not justify a 400% markup!

Realistic would be that the buying and selling prices are fairly close together for both common, uncommon and rare items, because the items do not deteriorate in value. And, as you say, the bigger difference in buy and sell prices is most likely to be for the rare items (and the reason for this is because the merchant has access to more buyers than I do). 

Basically, the huge difference between buying and selling price is economic nonsense, and this has not been corrected by the new rules.

But, we probably have to accept this strange system because it just makes sense from a game mechanics point of view, for a number of reasons:


It provides a way for the D&D economy to "burn" cash.
It makes you more careful about the items you choose to buy (make a mistake, and you loose cash!).
And it also makes items that you find "more valuable" than those that you can buy (because you can't just sell them to buy what you really want!)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 25, 2010)

edit: nevermind...


----------



## keterys (Sep 25, 2010)

Bundersnatch said:


> Finding this price too high, my character stands outside the merchant's shop with a sign saying "I buy +1 sword for 100 gp!". Since +1 swords are common and everyone who tries to sell only gets 72 gp, I will soon find a seller at that price!!




How many +1 swords do you really think are being sold? If you have to stand outside that store for four months to get your sale, that's a net loss.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Sep 25, 2010)

keterys said:


> How many +1 swords do you really think are being sold? If you have to stand outside that store for four months to get your sale, that's a net loss.




That's what I was going to say. I mean "Common" is a term that describes the item's rarity in relation to OTHER such items. It doesn't especially mean the item is common in actual terms. Most importantly it doesn't mean the item is very FUNGIBLE. This is where the simple economic arguments break down. The "common is cheap, has low markup" concept is TRUE for items that are commodities. Not all items ARE however commodities. Consider wedding rings. They are dime-a-dozen in the sense that you can get one in 100 different places, usually inside an hour. The resale value is still close to zilch. They just aren't all that fungible.

That's the situation I think with magic items. Even the common ones are expensive luxury goods. At best they're specialist tools that are mostly purchased and retained for a long time. The turnover isn't large, so they aren't easy to move quickly.

The REALLY hard to find items are equally difficult to move and just as expensive, but they are also unique enough that if someone DOES want it, they'll pay a premium because it is unusual or one-of-a-kind.


----------



## nookiemonster (Sep 25, 2010)

Something that seems to have been ignored is that by RAW, PCs don't buy their magic items at list price, but at list + 10-40%. At least under PHB1/DMG1 rules, I don't know if this rule is in Essentials. Even if the manufacturer's cost is list price, the manufacturer is still making a profit. So enchanting their own gear is always cheaper. 

If only Essentials rules are being used, then PCs don't have the Ritual Caster feat (AFAIK), and cannot enchant their own items. I don't know whether the markup rule is in force in Essentials, but either way, it's still going to be better for PCs to find common items rather than buy them. Found items are free and you get 20% of the list price back when you sell it, as cash, and they're pretty much instantly saleable in any large town. In addition, a common item is useful in your adventures, which gold isn't. Gold is only useful when you buy something useful with it.

As for uncommon and rare items, the list price is meaningless as a purchase price because once sold, these items are removed from the game completely as far as the PCs are concerned.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 26, 2010)

vagabundo said:


> The Ring in LotR was an unusual item - for DND - in that it's power was related directly to the power of it's owner at that time and it had a will of it's own.
> 
> It would be modeled better by being an Artifact I think.




The funny thing is that the Ring is perhaps the best example of a LEVEL limited item.

A 1st level character can use the ring to go invisible
A 30th level character can do ANYTHING with the ring


----------



## Saeviomagy (Sep 26, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> The funny thing is that the Ring is perhaps the best example of a LEVEL limited item.
> 
> A 1st level character can use the ring to go invisible
> A 30th level character can do ANYTHING with the ring




I didn't think that was ever really detailed: I mean it's not like Isildur went around forging new forms of life or creating volcanos.

Hell, the ring could be as simple as:
property: The wearer of the ring gains invisibility
property: The bearer of the ring gains a one-ring bonus to intimidate, diplomacy and bluff equal to one-half his level
property: The bearer of the ring gains a one-ring bonus to intimidate, diplomacy, bluff and insight equal to his level against wearers of the other rings of power


----------



## Grabuto138 (Sep 26, 2010)

Bundersnatch said:


> Finding this price too high, my character stands outside the merchant's shop with a sign saying "I buy +1 sword for 100 gp!". Since +1 swords are common and





This would then be a skill challenge and the additional money you make would be the treasure parcel you expect to receive for successfully completing an encounter.

The 20% assumes you are dumping the item for quick cash to the most convenient person with little or no haggling. Anything more is a roleplaying encounter or more properly a skill challenge.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE (Sep 26, 2010)

If you play in a game where your DM is a stickler for inane rules like the 20% selling price rule, then you might be better off playing with another DM. Ours, makes it somewhat tricky / difficult to get the specialty items you want (this was even pre-Essentials rarity rules, it just made sense to him as a DM and we were all fine with it), but since we befriended some high level wizards and nobles, we can access a better re-sale value (especially as a reward for completing quests for said NPCs), and thus you could see the difference between 20-100% resale value as another, hidden  level of gold reward for successfully completing a mission. It's all about who you know and how you talk to them.

Once, our rogues even managed to convince the thieves' guild PO to buy a crate of poison at a markup from the PHB price, by simply bluffing them. Of course, this is risky because a failure could mean immediate negative repertcussions, or at least expulsion or ostracization from that guild. It was nail-biting and fun at the same time, which to me is the point of Dnd. The players shouldn't get stuff handed to them on a silver plate, but neither should magic items disappear from the market for such items like a cash sink in an MMO bazaar. Those items should still exist and be locatable, by an enterprising thief who wants to pull the coin-slot trick by selling a rare item then stealing it back again. Lots of fun adventures can be had this way, by merely letting players do what is possible to do, and let the dice and common sense decide what's do-able.

In theory, you should be able to buy something that you could just steal, except at a huge price. The DM can always make the selling price of an item your party gold +1gp to keep it out of your hands. Why not steal a whole armory worth of stuff? Isn't that what rogues are supposed to do? You might have to lay low or try to fence it all in another kingdom or have assassins trailing you for many levels, but that's part of the fun. I really, really hate all this nonsense about not being able to buy items. Any given particular rare item might be hard to find / buy, but rare items cannot that different in price if their actual mechanical value isn't that much better. For instance, why would a merchant buy a lackluster rare item that he can't sell at that big a markup, when a common item gives him a 400% markup, as others have noticed?

Uncommon vs common is a different issue, and I really hope to not be spending endless hours arguing with these new rules that with access to the royal high court wizards and armory that it would be that difficult to trade, say, a Staff of the Storms +2 (worth 5000gp, and uncommon), for some Iron Armbands of Power. Upgrading the tier of these items should also be do-able as an exception. Like just pumping up the +1 to a +2. If a player can do a +1 to +2 upgrade with Enchant Magic item on a common item, he should be able to do it on an uncommon or rare too. Why not...the property hasn't changed, just the basic bonus.

That's an incredibly annoying nerf they just did for Enchant Magic item, right when we just got a ritual casting wizard join our group.


----------



## Victim (Sep 26, 2010)

This change seems more like an excuse not to properly balance items.  With tons of magic items across all the books, there are only a handful that appeal to a wide variety of characters.  When you look at optimization threads, there are a few items that pop up over and over: Iron armbands, frost based keyword swaps, radiant swaps, Staff of Ruin. 

And a lot of characters are better off with +X Frost (or whatever their desired item type) than X+1 anything else.  Our group has had players pass up X+1 magic to keep X Staff of Ruin (which seemed poor to me, but whatever).  

It seems like instead of making more items desirable (or diminishing the importance of specific items), the change will just make the preferred items harder to get.  Especially for multiple characters.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Sep 26, 2010)

RLBURNSIDE said:


> In theory, you should be able to buy something that you could just steal, except at a huge price. The DM can always make the selling price of an item your party gold +1gp to keep it out of your hands. Why not steal a whole armory worth of stuff? Isn't that what rogues are supposed to do? You might have to lay low or try to fence it all in another kingdom or have assassins trailing you for many levels, but that's part of the fun. I really, really hate all this nonsense about not being able to buy items. Any given particular rare item might be hard to find / buy, but rare items cannot that different in price if their actual mechanical value isn't that much better. For instance, why would a merchant buy a lackluster rare item that he can't sell at that big a markup, when a common item gives him a 400% markup, as others have noticed?



Merchant's wouldn't buy rare items, I suspect. They would be taking a chance with uncommon items, but mostly would deal in common items. Rare items are too much trouble. They get nearly no profit, and they get targeted by thieves and evil doers once they catch wind that the merchant has the item. Uncommon items are essentially the same problem, but lessened. Still not worth taking the risk as a merchant, even if you're 'lucky' enough to come across an uncommon item.

The people buying and selling uncommon and rare items are fellow adventurers, powerful beings, etc... AKA, plot points. Sure, you can buy a rare item from the Underdark Circle of Thieves that they don't use for themselves, or try the coin-slot trick, but that's all part of an adventure. The idea is to make it fun and adventurous, whenever you can just say "I go to the store and buy this Uncommon or Rare item," it becomes mundane just as it has been for 3E and 4E out of the book.

And if that's not interesting, then the game proceeds with the rare or uncommon items coming from dungeons as normal. It's just a matter of defining your dungeon I guess. It's the Bazaar or it's the Orc Mines.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Sep 27, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> Merchant's wouldn't buy rare items, I suspect. They would be taking a chance with uncommon items, but mostly would deal in common items. Rare items are too much trouble. They get nearly no profit, and they get targeted by thieves and evil doers once they catch wind that the merchant has the item. Uncommon items are essentially the same problem, but lessened. Still not worth taking the risk as a merchant, even if you're 'lucky' enough to come across an uncommon item.
> 
> The people buying and selling uncommon and rare items are fellow adventurers, powerful beings, etc... AKA, plot points. Sure, you can buy a rare item from the Underdark Circle of Thieves that they don't use for themselves, or try the coin-slot trick, but that's all part of an adventure. The idea is to make it fun and adventurous, whenever you can just say "I go to the store and buy this Uncommon or Rare item," it becomes mundane just as it has been for 3E and 4E out of the book.
> 
> And if that's not interesting, then the game proceeds with the rare or uncommon items coming from dungeons as normal. It's just a matter of defining your dungeon I guess. It's the Bazaar or it's the Orc Mines.




See, this is a very good point. What you can sell an item for is really the price you can get for it WITH NO DANGER. It is the "I didn't have to take any risk" way. As soon as selling becomes an adventure, then the sale price can be anything because the DM now owes the players additional treasure.

Honestly, I've never had the least trouble with the 4e economy. Cash sales are so uncommon as to be virtually non-existent in my game. In fact I think there has never been one. ONCE an item was disenchanted, IIRC.


----------

