Community

I divide magic items into two groups, one use items and permanent. For one use items I have players either buy componets or gather them theirselves. (example they need a wyvern wing, they can go hunting or pay people to hunt for them) Then they make their roll, if they roll higher than needed they get an additional item/usage per score. If they fail they fail. 

Say the mage wanted to make potions that would make the person drinking it look like an orc for an hour. If he needed a 13 and rolled a 16 he would have made 4 potions instead of one. Or if making a wand to cast burning hands and rolled a 18 instead of a 15 he can use the wand 4 times before it's "dead".

I do this because it seems to be absolutely moronic to pay to create a potion when you can buy a potion for the same amount.

Permanent item creation almost always involves a quest to gather componets. Depending on where the players are I might let a plain +1 dagger slide but nothing else. If a player wants to skip a componet or speed the process up they can pay 1d4 permanent HP loss per skiped part, to represent the transfer of magical essence.

@draegn: I like your methods. Keeping the numbers of charges under control makes using these items represent a significant expenditure of resources.

Mar 21, 2012 -- 4:37PM, XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

I would actually go in and list out the specific spells that are allowed to be made into a wand and I would lower the charges to something like 10 or 15.

With XP costs all you have to do is raise the cost of the XP for the higher level ones. I wouldn't start with 1/25 but with a higher number and increase that number the higher you go.

I on the other hand would limit the charge to just 1/day (maybe the option to use it a second time at the cost of destroying the item), remove the XP cost, but at the same time make it so difficult to craft:
1. It's impossible to craft without a proper laboratory or crafting area
2. The components are very difficult to acquire throughout the campaign
3. It takes several days of down time per individual item, making it an indirect XP cost instead of a direct XP cost (losing valuable time within the campaign -- especially if it's a time-constrained adventure -- as opposed to utilizing XP as if it were money)

Again, I'd rather make magical items magical, as opposed to just additional accounting. 

I agree with the spirit of the OP, though I never liked the idea of paying XP to make an item.

Draegn's idea above is pretty cool.

I have no problems with one shot items, but I really dislike easy manufacture of permanent items.

For me, one of the big reasons for characters to adventure is the promise of loot.   Why would anyone risk their neck in some monster infested ruin to get what they can already make in the comfort of their own home?

Mar 21, 2012 -- 7:30PM, Kishri wrote:

I agree with the spirit of the OP, though I never liked the idea of paying XP to make an item.

Draegn's idea above is pretty cool.

I have no problems with one shot items, but I really dislike easy manufacture of permanent items.

For me, one of the big reasons for characters to adventure is the promise of loot.   Why would anyone risk their neck in some monster infested ruin to get what they can already make in the comfort of their own home?

Also, why wouldn't the world be slammed with magic items? The PC's aren't the only ones that can create items.

Exactly, and it leads to a "Walmart" approach to getting magic items.

No need to adventure, just put it on the card.

It leads to the mentality that a player should automatically have whatever magic item he or she wants, not to mention the "flooding the world with magic items" issue mentioned above.

On the flip side, the idea of making your own magic items is pretty cool.  Likewise, the ability to make magic items can be salvation for those campaigns where the DM is too tight on giving out loot needed to be effective.

However, for most campaigns, I think the easy making of magical gear creates more problems and logic holes than it helps to solve.

When I give out magic items I actually make it a part of the campaign. When you find a magic sword or armor it fits into the campaign. I hate it when a situation comes up that the DM obviously had to shove a magic item into it because we are supposed to get an item at our level.

It's just like how I plan out my monsters. I use monsters that synergize with each other and have an actual reason for being there. I don't have just random monsters appearing out of no where without a trace of them afterwards. There will be a home near by, or maybe some place they escaped from etc...

I think that magic item creation originally was something that PCs just couldn't do because there was no system.  It was one of those NPC only abilities, and I don't remember any NPCs making items either in the earlier editions of the game.  As editions rolled by players started asking the question "I'm a high level caster type, why can't I make a magic item?".  It was a valid question but to me the wrong answer was given.  They said.. sure you can make them!  When the answer should have likely been, no you can't make them, as it's an art that you can NEVER figure out on your own.  And those who have the power and knowledge to make magical items will NEVER give up the secrets to your character as it's one of those things that is handed down to only the worthy.  (Read that as non-advernturing types)  You see, for a PC to be taught, they would have to stop adventuring.  It takes that much time and effort.  And once they knew how, they would never want to adventure again for fear of dying and never passing the ability on to a stable and able apprentice.  (Read that as, if your character learned the skill, he would instantly become an NPC)  

Be that as it may, to make a single little magical item should take months to years, not hours to days.  So all mechanics about XP loss, and anything else that needs to be done to make an item are pretty much  pointless to me.  The fact is that PCs should not be able to make magic items, as they are adventurers, not crafters.

I don't have a problem with PCs being able to create magic items, so long as it has two conditions: 1) it has to be equal, and 2) no XP cost.

I absolutely hate xp costs.  The stuff you need to level up should never become currency.  The only magic item creation that I liked was presented in an AD&D 2e book.  In that book, you designed a magic item, you got it approved by your DM, and you checked the book to see how many fantastical components you needed to create it.  This method actually solves all my problems.

If fantastical components are needed instead of xp, then non-casters can build magical items and no one has to spend their hard-earned xp.  If a fighter wants to build a flaming sword, he doesn't need the mage to cast spells into it.  He can instead harvest the materials from fire-based monsters, get them form npcs, and find them in unique magical locations.  This gives all kinds of plot hooks to the creation of magical items, and it allows for that master sword crafter living in the mountains to not have to be a caster to make magic swords.

Now if this is an option allowed in DDN, I'll be happy with that.  However, I really hope this is the basic assumption as it is very fantastical and can be applied to settings like Dark Sun where divine magic is a no go, and arcane is socially unacceptable.

to be honest, In AD&D, you used to get Experience Points for making magic items. The Process was simply that difficult. It typically cost constitution, several hundred pounds of gold, and months of questing.

in later editions, they started not awarding, but charging Experience points for making them. Put those two side by side and you have pure inversion, pure insanity, cats and dogs living together, the return of Gozer the Gozarian, TOTAL CHAOS, Maaan!

I had a thread proposing people get experience points for doing things besides killing monsters, and suggested magic item crafting and spell research be good sample challenges. Now instead of having some other way of getting exp, you get exp for killing stuff and then lose it for being constructive.

Talk about promoting megaviolence.

in 3rd we had a house rule that said you could replace the XP cost of an item by getting special materials or processes to make it.

It sent players all over the place looking for Dragon's Teeth, Tears of True love from a Succbus and then trekking their way to the Mountain of Fiery Doom to Forge their Righteous Sword of Demon Slaying.


But if the Wizard was in a hurry he could just sacrifice the XP and fall behind the rest of the group level wise.   Usually Players chose to go hunting for the special Mats and most of the time wanting to make a Magic item turned into a mini adventure.

(The idea of giving up a drop of xp for anything was anathama to my group.  We're damn glad Pathfinder got rid of the idea)

I rarely see the problem of 'flooding the world' with magic items, someone or something had to make them. It might just be that either you can only make magic items at certain sites (Say where the black winds converge, or a leyline nexus, or something similar). Also...well it's not like only the players have magic items.

Let me put it like this, back in 3.5 Eberron was my favorite setting, it used magic in a way that made sense to me, it had...i guess wide magic might be the way to describe it, magic existed and was part of the world, and was part of it in a tangible way, but high end stuff was rare and hard to find. Controlled by the powerful house cannith or only searchable in ancient ruins or by the strongest casters.

Also, while I get that some people might have an issue with the players feeling 'entitled' to certain items I also think that we should kind of wonder about a DM who says 'you'll take what I give you and like it' as an answer to everything. This might be very problematic depending on the nature of the game itself.

One idea might be this, two types of enchantments/item creations.

You can only easily make magic items like potions, scrolls and augment crystrals, but making true magic weapons and armor is difficult and/or time consuming. Maybe add in mundane ways to boost a weapon and armor as well as a kind of temporary enchantment that can be purchased or used.

To the main idea of making item creation hard or punishing...why? Unless a DM will hand make every single treasure pile or magic items are going to be REALLY rare why bother.

Hell, maybe one idea might be soulbinding weapons to people and have them work like the legacy items in 3.5 with a few tweaks of course.

I think setting is a huge factor. 

In Eberron it makes more sense to have items, especially common or low end, easily made by PCs or available for purchase.  In this case, the world is already "flooded" with magic in a similar way modern day Earth is "flooded" with technology.  To be sure, high end tech like military grade weapons are controlled and relatively rare, but one can stroll into a Walmart and buy a hunting rifle.  For this type of game, magic item creation and proliferation makes total sense.

Many campaigns are not like Eberron; however, and the ease of creation or purchase of items of power can be a serious and game breaking issue.  In the old days we called campaigns broken by magic item proliferation, "Monte Haul." 

And yes, to keep a balance of power regarding items in a non Eberron type setting, the DM does have to consider every item in every pile of treasure he hands out.  In these cases, making Item creation hard or punishing is a very valid way to go, or even, to prohibit purchase or manufacture all together.

For such campaigns it is not a sign of a tyrant DM, but more of a DM that is doing his job right.  In these games, the idea is not to make the item, but find it, usually via adventuring.  Though, it does beg the question where the items came from in the first place, and why can't no one make them now?

I personally have no problems with magic item creation rules being present in D&D Next, I just want it made clear that such rules are an option based on the campaign being ran.

The magic item rules should be designed with the generic fantasy world in mind while being able to increase the output of items in a world such as Eberron. I could understand if Eberron was the default world but it's not and thankfully so. The best thing is to have a default world that is right there in the middle and work from there. If you run a low fantasy game then you can limit the items created and if you run a high fantasy game then you can relax the restriction.

The difficulty of creating magic items should be apparent in the mechanics that represent that. Sure you can sit back and imagine how hard it must be to create it but if your mechanics don't reflect that then it becomes very blah.

I think magic item creation should depend on components that come only as treasure from the DM.  Be it a new magic dust mechanic, so PCs can stockpile the stuff to make something really awesome, or item specific components the DM weaves into the story - if they are available at all!

That leaves the DM with the control over the campaign, gives players a very open ended means to make items with the DM's input and approval and doesn't cost all the character's XP or coin!

Mar 22, 2012 -- 6:41AM, XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

The magic item rules should be designed with the generic fantasy world in mind while being able to increase the output of items in a world such as Eberron. I could understand if Eberron was the default world but it's not and thankfully so. The best thing is to have a default world that is right there in the middle and work from there. If you run a low fantasy game then you can limit the items created and if you run a high fantasy game then you can relax the restriction.

The difficulty of creating magic items should be apparent in the mechanics that represent that. Sure you can sit back and imagine how hard it must be to create it but if your mechanics don't reflect that then it becomes very blah.

Without requiring life drain or whatever you call "XP cost" in-game, there's ample enough ways to show those mechanics, IMHO, in the form of "component rarity".  You could even add in an Arcana check based on item level + rarity for items that are not plot-essential.

I'd rather have a Holy Avenger crafted with

• the purest heart/soul, willingly sacrificing self for the greater good
• a divine spark
• titanium-mithril alloy
• crafted during the alignment of all the planes, within the forge of the gods

Mar 22, 2012 -- 7:56AM, chaosfang wrote:

I'd rather have a Holy Avenger crafted with

• the purest heart/soul, willingly sacrificing self for the greater good
• a divine spark
• titanium-mithril alloy
• crafted during the alignment of all the planes, within the forge of the gods.

"Can you help us slay the demon?"
"Well magistrate--how can I put this? There is a way--but it won't be easy and it won't be without cost."
"Please! What must be done?"
"Bring us the fairest, purest soul in your town. In fact--just to be safe--bring us two."

-GiantDwarf 

Mar 22, 2012 -- 8:19AM, GiantDwarf wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 7:56AM, chaosfang wrote:

I'd rather have a Holy Avenger crafted with

• the purest heart/soul, willingly sacrificing self for the greater good
• a divine spark
• titanium-mithril alloy
• crafted during the alignment of all the planes, within the forge of the gods.

"Can you help us slay the demon?"
"Well magistrate--how can I put this? There is a way--but it won't be easy and it won't be without cost."
"Please! What must be done?"
"Bring us the fairest, purest soul in your town. In fact--just to be safe--bring us two."

-GiantDwarf 

I was thinking one of the Lawful Good PCs, but anyway, here's a cookie

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:44PM, chaosfang wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 8:19AM, GiantDwarf wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 7:56AM, chaosfang wrote:

I'd rather have a Holy Avenger crafted with

• the purest heart/soul, willingly sacrificing self for the greater good
• a divine spark
• titanium-mithril alloy
• crafted during the alignment of all the planes, within the forge of the gods.

"Can you help us slay the demon?"
"Well magistrate--how can I put this? There is a way--but it won't be easy and it won't be without cost."
"Please! What must be done?"
"Bring us the fairest, purest soul in your town. In fact--just to be safe--bring us two."

-GiantDwarf 

I was thinking one of the Lawful Good PCs, but anyway, here's a cookie

Wait.  You are actually suggesting that a PC would ever be willing to die for their companion to have a weapon?  Are you suggesting that a player would give up their own character for another player to have an item?  Because if you are, and you've actually met a person who would do this ever, you play with very different players than I do.

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:59PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:44PM, chaosfang wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 8:19AM, GiantDwarf wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 7:56AM, chaosfang wrote:

I'd rather have a Holy Avenger crafted with

• the purest heart/soul, willingly sacrificing self for the greater good
• a divine spark
• titanium-mithril alloy
• crafted during the alignment of all the planes, within the forge of the gods.

"Can you help us slay the demon?"
"Well magistrate--how can I put this? There is a way--but it won't be easy and it won't be without cost."
"Please! What must be done?"
"Bring us the fairest, purest soul in your town. In fact--just to be safe--bring us two."

-GiantDwarf 

I was thinking one of the Lawful Good PCs, but anyway, here's a cookie

Wait.  You are actually suggesting that a PC would ever be willing to die for their companion to have a weapon?  Are you suggesting that a player would give up their own character for another player to have an item?  Because if you are, and you've actually met a person who would do this ever, you play with very different players than I do.

I've actually programmed my death into my current campaign by telling the DM that I want to have a scene were I give my life for the party to survive,  The DM handed out a questionair asking us a bunch of questions.  One of these questions was what scenes we want to have with our characters.  I in fact built this character with the explicit knowledge he is going to die in the middle of the campaign.  It is unclear and undecided as to if that character will actually be comming back after he dies thats jointly up to me and the DM.

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:59PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:44PM, chaosfang wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 8:19AM, GiantDwarf wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 7:56AM, chaosfang wrote:

I'd rather have a Holy Avenger crafted with

• the purest heart/soul, willingly sacrificing self for the greater good
• a divine spark
• titanium-mithril alloy
• crafted during the alignment of all the planes, within the forge of the gods.

"Can you help us slay the demon?"
"Well magistrate--how can I put this? There is a way--but it won't be easy and it won't be without cost."
"Please! What must be done?"
"Bring us the fairest, purest soul in your town. In fact--just to be safe--bring us two."

-GiantDwarf 

I was thinking one of the Lawful Good PCs, but anyway, here's a cookie

Wait.  You are actually suggesting that a PC would ever be willing to die for their companion to have a weapon?  Are you suggesting that a player would give up their own character for another player to have an item?  Because if you are, and you've actually met a person who would do this ever, you play with very different players than I do.

It's not as preposterous as you think.  IIRC, there were rules for creating intelligent magic items (I think in AD&D 2e) that required the caster become the intelligence in the weapon.  So there is a precedent for characters becoming items.  Also, there is another idea.  Let's say a splatbook or module comes out that has a new class you think is really awesome and want to play.  Sacrificing your old character, at an appropriate plot moment, is a cool way to let your old character's legacy live on while you get to play the new hotness.

     Players want magic items.  Ideas about doing without them or making them other than routine items the player finds everywhere are just not good for the game.
     The player does not care if he gets the magic item at magic mart or in some high ceremony.  He does want something that does cool, whether negative or positive, things in battle or such, but where the item comes from is trivial.

      The ethos of D&D is that magic items are common and easily obtained.  The idea of the PC adventuring to get the essential parts sounds neat, but our PC is going to have 50+ magic items and we are talking about a party of 5+.  That means that the player must get the vast majority of his magic items from another source or he must be constantly be looking for these magic items and has no time for other types of adventures.

Seems like another mechanics / flavor divide. Before we talk about how belabored default magic item acquisition flavor should be (if it's not a plot device, a specific magic item for a teammate had better be show-stoppingly ****ing magnificent to adventure for), a few things need to be established.

1. What purpose do magic items serve? Math-crutch, ability crutch ("I need this to fly like my caster friends."), or fun collectible toys?
2. Depending on that first question, how easily are PCs supposed to acquire the items they want?
3. Depending on the second question, what is the mechanical benefit of item creation? Is it worth investing actual build resources, or is it just a ritual?

In 3e, magic items served all the above purposes, and were meant to be easily purchased when in a big enough city. Magic item creation was a way to get good stuff early and at a 50% discount. Your gear choice is part of your character identity, so even if you find good magic items they often just get pawned off so you can hire the local mage to put another enhancement on your weapon/armor.

In 4e, magic items serve as a math crutch and as fun toys. You can only purchase the really basic things, and without DM houserules you can't make things you can't buy. Gear is still a big part of character identity, though, and to facilitate that the game recommends DMs referring to wish-lists so players don't end up with mounds of treasure they'll just liquidate into cash. (A magic enhancement-transfer ritual helps in this regard as well).

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:59PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Wait.  You are actually suggesting that a PC would ever be willing to die for their companion to have a weapon?  Are you suggesting that a player would give up their own character for another player to have an item?  Because if you are, and you've actually met a person who would do this ever, you play with very different players than I do.

It depends. Can he be resurrected afterwards? Because I have seen people go "Crap, I'm ill. Mummy Rot or something. Oh well, resurrect me mkay?" *performs harakiri*

Mar 22, 2012 -- 8:42PM, DavidArgall wrote:

     Players want magic items.  Ideas about doing without them or making them other than routine items the player finds everywhere are just not good for the game.
     The player does not care if he gets the magic item at magic mart or in some high ceremony.  He does want something that does cool, whether negative or positive, things in battle or such, but where the item comes from is trivial.

      The ethos of D&D is that magic items are common and easily obtained.  The idea of the PC adventuring to get the essential parts sounds neat, but our PC is going to have 50+ magic items and we are talking about a party of 5+.  That means that the player must get the vast majority of his magic items from another source or he must be constantly be looking for these magic items and has no time for other types of adventures.

I hate to break it to you but not all players feel the way you think they do. I know for a fact that there are lots of players, that I know, who like for magic items to be special and they don't like tons of them. They would rather see most of their abilities in their class and not be magic item dependent.

Mar 22, 2012 -- 5:09PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

I've actually programmed my death into my current campaign by telling the DM that I want to have a scene were I give my life for the party to survive,  The DM handed out a questionair asking us a bunch of questions.  One of these questions was what scenes we want to have with our characters.  I in fact built this character with the explicit knowledge he is going to die in the middle of the campaign.  It is unclear and undecided as to if that character will actually be comming back after he dies thats jointly up to me and the DM.

Mar 22, 2012 -- 6:11PM, MechaPilot wrote:

It's not as preposterous as you think.  IIRC, there were rules for creating intelligent magic items (I think in AD&D 2e) that required the caster become the intelligence in the weapon.  So there is a precedent for characters becoming items.  Also, there is another idea.  Let's say a splatbook or module comes out that has a new class you think is really awesome and want to play.  Sacrificing your old character, at an appropriate plot moment, is a cool way to let your old character's legacy live on while you get to play the new hotness.

Both of these break my brain.  I'd never sacrifice my character for another player, and if something new comes out I'll wait to play the new awesome until I'm done with the old awesome.

Then again, I am 99% against permanent PC death, so I suppose that's part of it.

Mar 23, 2012 -- 7:49AM, XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

I hate to break it to you but not all players feel the way you think they do. I know for a fact that there are lots of players, that I know, who like for magic items to be special and they don't like tons of them. They would rather see most of their abilities in their class and not be magic item dependent.

Fair enough, I have seen plenty of players say they prefer inherent bonuses to items.  But:

• Why?  Why would you not want the super ****ing awesome sword of magical fire that consumes all enemies?
• What about the players that do want that high magic game, where even their fillings are magical items?

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:59PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:44PM, chaosfang wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 8:19AM, GiantDwarf wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 7:56AM, chaosfang wrote:

I'd rather have a Holy Avenger crafted with

• the purest heart/soul, willingly sacrificing self for the greater good
• a divine spark
• titanium-mithril alloy
• crafted during the alignment of all the planes, within the forge of the gods.

"Can you help us slay the demon?"
"Well magistrate--how can I put this? There is a way--but it won't be easy and it won't be without cost."
"Please! What must be done?"
"Bring us the fairest, purest soul in your town. In fact--just to be safe--bring us two."

-GiantDwarf 

I was thinking one of the Lawful Good PCs, but anyway, here's a cookie

Wait.  You are actually suggesting that a PC would ever be willing to die for their companion to have a weapon?  Are you suggesting that a player would give up their own character for another player to have an item?  Because if you are, and you've actually met a person who would do this ever, you play with very different players than I do.

Sacrifice doesn't have to mean death.  It just has to be meaningful/costly.

im not sure if I should post this in a Vancian thread or a Magic item thread, but I got to thinking, when comparing Spell points to a battery, and channelers to a battery with a heat sink, Vancian Magic is bullets.

like if you had a revolver, you would put in a silver bullet for the werewolf, a cold iron bullet for the fairy, a wood chip bullet for the vampire, an incendiary round for the troll, a blessed round for the demon, and a rubber rounnd for your berserk friend.

Each Vancian spell is like a bullet that is fired once and lost, until you get new bullets. For wizards who think magic is like a fluid energy or chants that simply work over and over, that's pretty awful. But for Outlaw Star, it's ideal for a magitek device called 'Caster shells'

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyG-TSs0ZdI
(sorry for the ska music if it's not your taste)

Basically its a bullet. You stick it in a special gun designed to shoot these bullets, and when they fire or hit their target, the spell goes off. Once used, you need another one to duplicate the effect. So I figure if we are talking about Vancian Magic, and Magic Items, the two could come together to make a mock up of one of my favorite "magic items", a caster gun.

When you think about it, there could be a small feat chain or character level that allows various spell effects to be contained in projectiles, such as Crossbow bolts, Arrows, and of course, Bullets.

I'm just saying the Vancian spell system is so limiting to some people, and so much like bullets, that perhaps the two should come together in magic item form?

Mar 23, 2012 -- 7:49AM, XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 8:42PM, DavidArgall wrote:

     Players want magic items.  Ideas about doing without them or making them other than routine items the player finds everywhere are just not good for the game.
     The player does not care if he gets the magic item at magic mart or in some high ceremony.  He does want something that does cool, whether negative or positive, things in battle or such, but where the item comes from is trivial.

      The ethos of D&D is that magic items are common and easily obtained.  The idea of the PC adventuring to get the essential parts sounds neat, but our PC is going to have 50+ magic items and we are talking about a party of 5+.  That means that the player must get the vast majority of his magic items from another source or he must be constantly be looking for these magic items and has no time for other types of adventures.

I hate to break it to you but not all players feel the way you think they do.

    Of course not.  But what is the majority vote?  Rather obvious heavily in favor of more magic items.

 

Mar 23, 2012 -- 7:49AM, XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

I know for a fact that there are lots of players, that I know,

      Lots of players that you know...  The physical fact is that you don't know lots of players.  You don't know 1% of D&D players, and depending on how we define that, you may not know 1% of 1%.

Mar 23, 2012 -- 7:49AM, XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

who like for magic items to be special

    Now what does that really mean? Other than sounding better that "rare", which is clearly not the case.  Most players are eager to grab that generic +2 sword and throw away the +1 with whatever cool ability. 

Mar 23, 2012 -- 7:49AM, XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

 and they don't like tons of them.

    Nonsense.  Our D&D PC would be so burdened down with magic items he couldn't move [except by ignoring encumbrance rules] if the players had their way.  Item slots are viewed as limits on the magic you can use, and slotless items are praised for that reason alone.  But these burdensome limits allow the player to have dozens of items.  Yet the slots are critized as too strict and the player tries to get around them.

Mar 23, 2012 -- 7:49AM, XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

 They would rather see most of their abilities in their class and not be magic item dependent.

    Now the main problem here is that the vast majority of players have not even considered the point.  And to the extent they have, they would probably reject it out of hand, saying they want a magic sword.
   From our view as game designers, magic items have tremendous advantages over class abilities.  One is that class abilities are generic and you end up with cookie-cutter characters.  The variety of magic items makes for variety in the chacters as well.
      More important, it gives the player incentive to keep on playing.  "One more adventure and I will be able to buy this cool sword and will be a stud."  That may be a delusion, but it is a very effective delusion from our view.  The player comes back for another game. 
     The superhero games featured characters that were more or less constant.  I don't think I have seen a game in years.  My local store doesn't even stock them.  [Pathfinder has full shelves.]  Having this ability to mold the character and improve him is very useful in keeping the player playing.

Just a personal opinion here...

I dislike magic items.  I'd rather play in a campaign without any at all sometimes, or, at the very least, a campaign where every item has a unique story and role to play in the campaign.  One idea I've used as a DM fairly often is the signature item: one magic item per PC that gains in power as the the PC does.  And that's it, no other magic items.

There are times when I've found ways to enjoy having magic items, but that's generally because my character is making them (example - dwarf fighter/wizard who only wields weapons he's crafted himself...nothing else is good enough for him).

I realize I'm probably in a minority on the preference scale in this regard, though.       

Mar 23, 2012 -- 7:49AM, XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

I hate to break it to you but not all players feel the way you think they do. I know for a fact that there are lots of players, that I know, who like for magic items to be special and they don't like tons of them. They would rather see most of their abilities in their class and not be magic item dependent.

I'm not sure if many folks I've gamed with feel as I do, but yeah, it would be great to have few or no magic items work in the rules. It's pretty easy just to shift the math around and make hit/damage/AC work. The biggest issue IMO in D&D to date is healing - pre-4E it was either magic or days and days of rest, and in 4E there are still a lot of ways magic keeps characters standing.

I'd love for an optional system to address how to compensate characters for the lack of magic items, perhaps through access to bonus feats that would not be otherwise available. I didn't make much use of it, but the training option in 4E was a cool idea. 

I think the key in 5e is to allow the DM to control the frequency of magic item drops in his game.  If they can be created like in 3e, then you have one type of game only - a high magic item game.   Instead let the DM control the appearance and then you can have different campaigns have different results.

Also, don't let magic items become necessary to function as expected at level. 

Mar 23, 2012 -- 1:45PM, crazy_monkey wrote:

Just a personal opinion here...

I dislike magic items.  I'd rather play in a campaign without any at all sometimes, or, at the very least, a campaign where every item has a unique story and role to play in the campaign.  One idea I've used as a DM fairly often is the signature item: one magic item per PC that gains in power as the the PC does.  And that's it, no other magic items.

There are times when I've found ways to enjoy having magic items, but that's generally because my character is making them (example - dwarf fighter/wizard who only wields weapons he's crafted himself...nothing else is good enough for him).

I realize I'm probably in a minority on the preference scale in this regard, though.       

I've just finished a 2+ year high-magic 4e campaign where magic items were very important and each level was a scramble to load out with the latest +whatever tricks and gizmos (Multiple Exodus Knives ftw).

I've started playing a spellplagued pixie ranger (Flutterwing the Destroyer!) which uses the alternate advancement rules from DMG2(pg138iirc) and when other players get items he gets a spellplague ability as though he had just spent a feat. Apart from looking to get a bag of holding and upgrade to a tiny greatbow he's going to have the same stinking ratty hide armour and dagger his whole adventuring carrer, and treasure to him is meaningless. Now I can concentrate on adventure without worrying about items.

What a refreshing change!

Now I'm not saying that every player should be forced to do one or the other, but there should definately be an option open to players where they don't need magic items.

On crafting items - they are a cool way to put your stamp on the gameworld, but all too often I've seen crafting either fall into the hands of munchkins who abused it - or fall into the hands of whatever the opposite of a char-opper is and the party consisted of fighter + cleric + wizard + that-crafter-who-hangs-round-with-us-and-can't-do-anything-useful.

I thought that the artificer in 4e was a good stab in the right direction with regards to crafting-related-combat, though lacked somewhat in the flexibility of what he or she could do outside combat with crafting.

Perhaps 5e should have an artificer theme that can be added to an existing class to give some extra crafting-flavoured combat options and a bonus to crafting off the combat grid*.

Provided crafting is propperly balanced for out-of-combat crafting so that it becomes neither an uber-powerful ability nor a trap choice it's fine with me.


Also - it can't be a 'big deal'. If a group has no interest in crafting their play experience should be equivilent (though not identical to) that of a group which contains players interested in the crafting part of the game.



* or gridless map or whatever module your GM is using.

Mar 23, 2012 -- 10:44AM, Maxperson wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:59PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:44PM, chaosfang wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 8:19AM, GiantDwarf wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 7:56AM, chaosfang wrote:

I'd rather have a Holy Avenger crafted with

• the purest heart/soul, willingly sacrificing self for the greater good
• a divine spark
• titanium-mithril alloy
• crafted during the alignment of all the planes, within the forge of the gods.

"Can you help us slay the demon?"
"Well magistrate--how can I put this? There is a way--but it won't be easy and it won't be without cost."
"Please! What must be done?"
"Bring us the fairest, purest soul in your town. In fact--just to be safe--bring us two."

-GiantDwarf 

I was thinking one of the Lawful Good PCs, but anyway, here's a cookie

Wait.  You are actually suggesting that a PC would ever be willing to die for their companion to have a weapon?  Are you suggesting that a player would give up their own character for another player to have an item?  Because if you are, and you've actually met a person who would do this ever, you play with very different players than I do.

Sacrifice doesn't have to mean death.  It just has to be meaningful/costly.

I just kind of assumed that losing one's soul would kill you.

Mar 23, 2012 -- 4:36PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 23, 2012 -- 10:44AM, Maxperson wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:59PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:44PM, chaosfang wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 8:19AM, GiantDwarf wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 7:56AM, chaosfang wrote:

I'd rather have a Holy Avenger crafted with

• the purest heart/soul, willingly sacrificing self for the greater good
• a divine spark
• titanium-mithril alloy
• crafted during the alignment of all the planes, within the forge of the gods.

"Can you help us slay the demon?"
"Well magistrate--how can I put this? There is a way--but it won't be easy and it won't be without cost."
"Please! What must be done?"
"Bring us the fairest, purest soul in your town. In fact--just to be safe--bring us two."

-GiantDwarf 

I was thinking one of the Lawful Good PCs, but anyway, here's a cookie

Wait.  You are actually suggesting that a PC would ever be willing to die for their companion to have a weapon?  Are you suggesting that a player would give up their own character for another player to have an item?  Because if you are, and you've actually met a person who would do this ever, you play with very different players than I do.

Sacrifice doesn't have to mean death.  It just has to be meaningful/costly.

I just kind of assumed that losing one's soul would kill you.

Nope.  It just makes you a grown-up.

Mar 23, 2012 -- 3:26PM, Emerikol wrote:

I think the key in 5e is to allow the DM to control the frequency of magic item drops in his game.  If they can be created like in 3e, then you have one type of game only - a high magic item game.   Instead let the DM control the appearance and then you can have different campaigns have different results.

Also, don't let magic items become necessary to function as expected at level. 

    And how are you going to do that?  Your low paragon party has +3 stuff.  You can, with effort, do something like increase PC stats to give them a +3, or you can find some way to give the monsters a -3, but you still have two games that use highly different rules.  Either way a certain level of magic items become necessary, whether you make that none and anybody who can get any magic becomes overpowered, or make it high and those without magic become wimps.

i haven't read the whole tread but here are some of my ideas.

i don't like using Xp to make magic items i prefer the material cost in the 4th edition ritual.
but there is 1 thing i realy diden't like with rituals in 4th edition and that is that you can subtitute residium for any ritual component.

I would like to see that you can use residium but if you use residium instead of the proper components the cost of the ritual should be higer. 
So there would be a benifit to getting the proper components some that you might need adventure for to find.

each enchantment and magic item would list specific components you would need. 

Mar 23, 2012 -- 6:20PM, DavidArgall wrote:

Mar 23, 2012 -- 3:26PM, Emerikol wrote:

I think the key in 5e is to allow the DM to control the frequency of magic item drops in his game.  If they can be created like in 3e, then you have one type of game only - a high magic item game.   Instead let the DM control the appearance and then you can have different campaigns have different results.

Also, don't let magic items become necessary to function as expected at level. 

    And how are you going to do that?  Your low paragon party has +3 stuff.  You can, with effort, do something like increase PC stats to give them a +3, or you can find some way to give the monsters a -3, but you still have two games that use highly different rules.  Either way a certain level of magic items become necessary, whether you make that none and anybody who can get any magic becomes overpowered, or make it high and those without magic become wimps.

Part of this approach would be getting rid of +X to hit items.   The other is for DMs to design their encounters appropriately.  if they give few magic items then perhaps the XP budget for that level is a little lower.   If they give a lot then the budget is higher.   Maybe the DMG could discuss these options.

Mar 23, 2012 -- 6:31PM, edwin_su wrote:

i haven't read the whole tread but here are some of my ideas.

i don't like using Xp to make magic items i prefer the material cost in the 4th edition ritual.
but there is 1 thing i realy diden't like with rituals in 4th edition and that is that you can subtitute residium for any ritual component.

I would like to see that you can use residium but if you use residium instead of the proper components the cost of the ritual should be higer. 
So there would be a benifit to getting the proper components some that you might need adventure for to find.

each enchantment and magic item would list specific components you would need. 

I'd actually prefer for residiuum to make magic item creation less expensive, but if the DM hands it out, you know it's going to be rough because along with the residuum, you have to give up some health which will only be restored by a spell, ritual, visit to a temple, etc.  Basically, residuum would be more cost effective, but more dangerous to your overall health.  In 4th ed terms, it would drain you of surges that could only be healed by spells or rituals, not simply by an extended rest.

Mar 23, 2012 -- 4:55PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Mar 23, 2012 -- 4:36PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 23, 2012 -- 10:44AM, Maxperson wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:59PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:44PM, chaosfang wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 8:19AM, GiantDwarf wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 7:56AM, chaosfang wrote:

I'd rather have a Holy Avenger crafted with

• the purest heart/soul, willingly sacrificing self for the greater good
• a divine spark
• titanium-mithril alloy
• crafted during the alignment of all the planes, within the forge of the gods.

"Can you help us slay the demon?"
"Well magistrate--how can I put this? There is a way--but it won't be easy and it won't be without cost."
"Please! What must be done?"
"Bring us the fairest, purest soul in your town. In fact--just to be safe--bring us two."

-GiantDwarf 

I was thinking one of the Lawful Good PCs, but anyway, here's a cookie

Wait.  You are actually suggesting that a PC would ever be willing to die for their companion to have a weapon?  Are you suggesting that a player would give up their own character for another player to have an item?  Because if you are, and you've actually met a person who would do this ever, you play with very different players than I do.

Sacrifice doesn't have to mean death.  It just has to be meaningful/costly.

I just kind of assumed that losing one's soul would kill you.

Nope.  It just makes you a grown-up.

I haven't lost my soul yet.  My hope, possibly, my trust in mankind, surely, but my soul is still intact, and I am most definitely an adult.

Mar 22, 2012 -- 2:13AM, Kishri wrote:

I think setting is a huge factor. 

In Eberron it makes more sense to have items, especially common or low end, easily made by PCs or available for purchase.  In this case, the world is already "flooded" with magic in a similar way modern day Earth is "flooded" with technology.  To be sure, high end tech like military grade weapons are controlled and relatively rare, but one can stroll into a Walmart and buy a hunting rifle.  For this type of game, magic item creation and proliferation makes total sense.

Many campaigns are not like Eberron; however, and the ease of creation or purchase of items of power can be a serious and game breaking issue.  In the old days we called campaigns broken by magic item proliferation, "Monte Haul." 

And yes, to keep a balance of power regarding items in a non Eberron type setting, the DM does have to consider every item in every pile of treasure he hands out.  In these cases, making Item creation hard or punishing is a very valid way to go, or even, to prohibit purchase or manufacture all together.

For such campaigns it is not a sign of a tyrant DM, but more of a DM that is doing his job right.  In these games, the idea is not to make the item, but find it, usually via adventuring.  Though, it does beg the question where the items came from in the first place, and why can't no one make them now?

I personally have no problems with magic item creation rules being present in D&D Next, I just want it made clear that such rules are an option based on the campaign being ran.

The problem is that monty hall games aren't games of 'craploads of items' it's more that the players get tons of anything valuable for relatively little work. If there are no magic items monty hall games still happen, it's just with a different type of currency, maybe exotic materials or just having more raw cash.

Part of it is also this, how do you mean balance of power? For one thing in 3.5 players had to spend both XP and feats to be able to produce magic items. Which was a fair expenditure, hell in pathfinder they did away with XP and I have yet to see 'floods' of items. Most of the time I've been in groups where only a few people even want to make magic items, and if they do they lose a lot of personal firepower to improve the group.

Let me ask this, how are they 'breaking the game in half'? Since part of me wonders if this might be less a case of crazed players and more a case of a whiny DM getting angry because the players can have a bit more control over what the treasure is and how they use it. I find it strange that so many DMs seem to have this panic aversion to magic item creation, is the problem that they gave too much gold so the players then doubled it? Is it that the players were able to be smart in use of items and were able to stretch resources farther?

In 4th ediiton I could have givne my players and infinite amount of GP and it wouldn't have changed the game that much, the hit numbers and defenses were so static that at worst it would make a few early encounters faster, the horror the horror.

I would argue that it's best to have creation rules as a default, with varying levels of it for different kinds of games. If we make it an optional feature, one possibly with rules for each 'module' it's only going to be a mess.

Mar 23, 2012 -- 6:34PM, Emerikol wrote:

Mar 23, 2012 -- 6:20PM, DavidArgall wrote:

Mar 23, 2012 -- 3:26PM, Emerikol wrote:

I think the key in 5e is to allow the DM to control the frequency of magic item drops in his game.  If they can be created like in 3e, then you have one type of game only - a high magic item game.   Instead let the DM control the appearance and then you can have different campaigns have different results.

Also, don't let magic items become necessary to function as expected at level. 

    And how are you going to do that?  Your low paragon party has +3 stuff.  You can, with effort, do something like increase PC stats to give them a +3, or you can find some way to give the monsters a -3, but you still have two games that use highly different rules.  Either way a certain level of magic items become necessary, whether you make that none and anybody who can get any magic becomes overpowered, or make it high and those without magic become wimps.

Part of this approach would be getting rid of +X to hit items.   The other is for DMs to design their encounters appropriately.  if they give few magic items then perhaps the XP budget for that level is a little lower.   If they give a lot then the budget is higher.   Maybe the DMG could discuss these options.

    These are not options at the DM level.  What they are is a blank sheet of paper where the DM must create his own game.  Not "can", "must".  You do not flick a switch and start play.  You have to flick a whole array, and the pattern can be quite complex.
    If you get rid of +X items, what do you replace them with?  Or do you deduct from other things?  Do you actually know the proper amount to add or deduct?  And will Joe Average know when he wants to run a game?  Don't forget that DMs are in short supply and we may need to recruit Joe Below-Average to have a game.  We do not want a set of "rules" he just can not manage.   You talk of getting DMs designing their encounters properly.  But many DMs can't design an encounter at all.  We do not want a system that requires a genius to run it.  We normally won't have that genius.
     Recall here that we want the improving PC.  The player gets a charge from ignoring the monster the PC used to run from.  +X items are very useful in providing that feeling.

Mar 24, 2012 -- 1:20AM, Archangel62 wrote:

...in 3.5 players had to spend both XP and feats to be able to produce magic items. Which was a fair expenditure, hell in pathfinder they did away with XP and I have yet to see 'floods' of items. Most of the time I've been in groups where only a few people even want to make magic items, and if they do they lose a lot of personal firepower to improve the group.

If you're the DM, count yourself lucky. I've found you have to really, really limit downtime in Pathfinder because otherwise 'Craft Wondrous Item' and 'Craft Arms and Armor' become easily some of the very best feats in the game, probably on par with 'Leadership.'

Mar 24, 2012 -- 12:24AM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 23, 2012 -- 4:55PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Mar 23, 2012 -- 4:36PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 23, 2012 -- 10:44AM, Maxperson wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:59PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:44PM, chaosfang wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 8:19AM, GiantDwarf wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 7:56AM, chaosfang wrote:

I'd rather have a Holy Avenger crafted with

• the purest heart/soul, willingly sacrificing self for the greater good
• a divine spark
• titanium-mithril alloy
• crafted during the alignment of all the planes, within the forge of the gods.

"Can you help us slay the demon?"
"Well magistrate--how can I put this? There is a way--but it won't be easy and it won't be without cost."
"Please! What must be done?"
"Bring us the fairest, purest soul in your town. In fact--just to be safe--bring us two."

-GiantDwarf 

I was thinking one of the Lawful Good PCs, but anyway, here's a cookie

Wait.  You are actually suggesting that a PC would ever be willing to die for their companion to have a weapon?  Are you suggesting that a player would give up their own character for another player to have an item?  Because if you are, and you've actually met a person who would do this ever, you play with very different players than I do.

Sacrifice doesn't have to mean death.  It just has to be meaningful/costly.

I just kind of assumed that losing one's soul would kill you.

Nope.  It just makes you a grown-up.

I haven't lost my soul yet.  My hope, possibly, my trust in mankind, surely, but my soul is still intact, and I am most definitely an adult.

Physically.  But if you have your soul, then you're just a kid at heart (like me), even if we do wear big-boy pants.

Mar 24, 2012 -- 12:03PM, Arcane_Guyver wrote:

Mar 24, 2012 -- 1:20AM, Archangel62 wrote:

...in 3.5 players had to spend both XP and feats to be able to produce magic items. Which was a fair expenditure, hell in pathfinder they did away with XP and I have yet to see 'floods' of items. Most of the time I've been in groups where only a few people even want to make magic items, and if they do they lose a lot of personal firepower to improve the group.

If you're the DM, count yourself lucky. I've found you have to really, really limit downtime in Pathfinder because otherwise 'Craft Wondrous Item' and 'Craft Arms and Armor' become easily some of the very best feats in the game, probably on par with 'Leadership.'

Also you have to limit the gold that you give out but it's just like with spellcasters in Pathfinder. If you stop the 5 minute work days and actually make people have to find their spells and not just go into a Magic Mart then the game becomes even better. In otherwards, if you play the game the way it was meant to played then, not playstyle, then most everything is cool.

I agree that something has to be done about creating magic items, no version of the game yet has perfected this.

Requiring rare ingredients (that are either expensive or require a quest to obtain) would be great. The vast majority of magic items should be made by NPCs. IF players want something truly unique and specific, ok they can make that themselves, but they shouldn't become magic-item-factories.

One good way around this is to require item creation to take time. An NPC has all the time in the world, a PC racing to stop an evil plot does not.

Rare ingredients - that are either expensive or require a quest to obtain.

Although not a fan of spending xp, I must admit I can't come up with a better method to discourage PCs from becoming magic-creation-factories. 

Get rid of discounts. Creating an item that only Good aligned PCs can use should cost more not less. In 3.5 it was actually cheaper to make items that only the good (or bad) guys could use, making the item useless if picked up by the enemy. That should cost more, not less. It quickly became abused by both players and DMs (no bad guy could ever use an item made by a PC, and no PC could ever use an item made by the main bad guy).

Personally, I'd be happy (wait as I duck behind my desk to avoid the debris that will be thrown my way) if PCs were disallowed from making mundane magic items. It was the threat of every PC mage being able to make a ring of invisibility that made rings of invisibility rare to the point of non-existence in 3.5. In Advanced and 2nd edition, every group I ever played in eventually got a hold of a ring of invisibility. In all the years I've played 3.5, I've never even seen one.

Make it so that if a player wants to make a magic item, they need to cast a specific item creation spell (or ritual) that is very expensive and requires a lot of time to complete, with rare ingredients and lots of input from the DM in order to make one unique item... not, "let's spend a week making wands and potions for the entire group".

I'm sorry, but the game would be better if we just went back to saying that only NPCs can make magic items. 

Obviously some DMs like rare magic items that are difficult or impossible to builde, others like magic items to be more like uncommon commodities that players can purchase or craft. Both styles are valid, it's just a question of aesthetic preference. Therefore I believe the best way to go for the rules themselves is to provide magic item prices or a simple pricing system for the DMs who want players to be able to buy items, provide a simple crafting system for DMs who want that, and put in a few paragraphs on suggestions for DMs who want magic item crafting to be very difficult. 

Leaving out magic item pricing and straightforward magic item crafting as options in the rules, though, is a terrible idea because it is much, much harder for DMs who use that information to create it from scratch than it is for DMs who don't use it to ignore it. Since purchasing, crafting and questing/rituals for magic items are all used by various D&D groups the rules should have systems that support all three methods leaving the DM the choice to decide which to use.

AD&D: there used to be prices and experience point values. The experience point values were sometimes the experience you would get for making the item. The prices were what you might get for selling it. In either case, there was no guarantee that magic items could be located for purchase, nor was there this 'you get XP because you find a magic item', though barbarians used to get XP for breaking them.

I didn't like the idea that cursed items or powerful items had no listed XP value, or got shortchanged on price. Honestly, if I was selling a cursed item to a Mafia Guild and they had plans for the item, they might pay top coin, and I should also get some XP for going through the trouble of making it.

Clear guidelines on Magic item construction should exist. I suggested they be similar to spell research and psionic mediation, and all three have solid rewards at the end of several weeks or months, full of checks with penalties and bonuses proportional to difficulty and extra measures taken.

Whatever process you come up with for Magic items, there might be a lesser but still important process for blacksmiths making custom items of quality, or for Psionicists to Empower crystals or making the Stuff you see in disney movies like Atlantis and John Carter.

Mar 23, 2012 -- 4:36PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 23, 2012 -- 10:44AM, Maxperson wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:59PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 4:44PM, chaosfang wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 8:19AM, GiantDwarf wrote:

Mar 22, 2012 -- 7:56AM, chaosfang wrote:

I'd rather have a Holy Avenger crafted with

• the purest heart/soul, willingly sacrificing self for the greater good
• a divine spark
• titanium-mithril alloy
• crafted during the alignment of all the planes, within the forge of the gods.

"Can you help us slay the demon?"
"Well magistrate--how can I put this? There is a way--but it won't be easy and it won't be without cost."
"Please! What must be done?"
"Bring us the fairest, purest soul in your town. In fact--just to be safe--bring us two."

-GiantDwarf 

I was thinking one of the Lawful Good PCs, but anyway, here's a cookie

Wait.  You are actually suggesting that a PC would ever be willing to die for their companion to have a weapon?  Are you suggesting that a player would give up their own character for another player to have an item?  Because if you are, and you've actually met a person who would do this ever, you play with very different players than I do.

Sacrifice doesn't have to mean death.  It just has to be meaningful/costly.

I just kind of assumed that losing one's soul would kill you.

Who says the soul has to be lost?

Mar 24, 2012 -- 9:32PM, XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

Mar 24, 2012 -- 12:03PM, Arcane_Guyver wrote:

I've found you have to really, really limit downtime in Pathfinder because otherwise 'Craft Wondrous Item' and 'Craft Arms and Armor' become easily some of the very best feats in the game, probably on par with 'Leadership.'

Also you have to limit the gold that you give out but it's just like with spellcasters in Pathfinder. If you stop the 5 minute work days and actually make people have to find their spells and not just go into a Magic Mart then the game becomes even better. In otherwards, if you play the game the way it was meant to played then, not playstyle, then most everything is cool.

Easy-access spells aren't problems, either. Pathfinder made Spellcraft pretty key for item crafting, to the point where it can be used in place of pretty much any prereq other than Item Creation feats. If you're giving out level-appropriate loot, an Item Creation feat + decent Spellcraft skill + enough downtime = getting any item desired at a 50% discount.

Ah, that's right, Pathfinder also put in a rule where you can get 2 hours worth of item creation time in per day even while adventuring. Well, at least creation speed has been slowed by 1/4, ya? =/

Well you need prices even if you are not permitted to buy items.  You still surely can sell them.  So I'm for pricing information.  I'd be for it though anyway.  Data that modules need to even exist I'm for including.  There is no reason someone can't ignore a price if they really want to ignore it.

I would like for the mechanics of the game to work without a magic item bonus assumption.  Then have a module that explains how to add that back in if you want it.  

I don't mind a magic item creation module.  I won't use it.  And from what I've seen on the polls a whole lot of people won't use it.  But if even 20% want something I think a module is worth doing.  Let's keep as many happy as possible.

 

Mar 25, 2012 -- 7:32PM, Emerikol wrote:

Well you need prices even if you are not permitted to buy items.  You still surely can sell them.  So I'm for pricing information.  I'd be for it though anyway.  Data that modules need to even exist I'm for including.  There is no reason someone can't ignore a price if they really want to ignore it.

I would like for the mechanics of the game to work without a magic item bonus assumption.  Then have a module that explains how to add that back in if you want it.  

I don't mind a magic item creation module.  I won't use it.  And from what I've seen on the polls a whole lot of people won't use it.  But if even 20% want something I think a module is worth doing.  Let's keep as many happy as possible.

I completely agree.

I like the rarity system and it's effects of magic item creation.
In that creating simple magical items is no big deal when you're appropriate level. Potions and scrolls and the like should always be relatively cheap and producable.

But powerful magic items should be a little trickier, produced after questing and gathering components or through destroying a more powerful magic item.
Rare items should be the product of the most powerful creators, and as such should be all but impossible to create.

Mar 26, 2012 -- 8:45AM, The_Jester wrote:

I like the rarity system and it's effects of magic item creation.
In that creating simple magical items is no big deal when you're appropriate level. Potions and scrolls and the like should always be relatively cheap and producable.

But powerful magic items should be a little trickier, produced after questing and gathering components or through destroying a more powerful magic item.
Rare items should be the product of the most powerful creators, and as such should be all but impossible to create.

    The rarity system is trash that hurts the game.  We have a much superior system without it.
    The explanation that some stuff should be harder to make fails the reasonableness test.  That an heroic PC might have trouble making an heroic rare item is reasonable, but that an epic character can't make it either?  He can't even make a heroic uncommon?
     Then there is the matter of a game balance.  If a rare item is properly priced, it doesn't need to be called rare.  If it is well underpriced, you have problems giving the party the proper challenge, problems that vanish if you just price it right.
     And you have more work for the DM.  He now must [not can, must] moniter the players to make sure they get a rare item at the right time and of the right level.  Much easier for the DM to just toss some gold at the players and let them buy what they want.

Mar 26, 2012 -- 4:04PM, DavidArgall wrote:

Mar 26, 2012 -- 8:45AM, The_Jester wrote:

I like the rarity system and it's effects of magic item creation.
In that creating simple magical items is no big deal when you're appropriate level. Potions and scrolls and the like should always be relatively cheap and producable.

But powerful magic items should be a little trickier, produced after questing and gathering components or through destroying a more powerful magic item.
Rare items should be the product of the most powerful creators, and as such should be all but impossible to create.

    The rarity system is trash that hurts the game.  We have a much superior system without it.
    The explanation that some stuff should be harder to make fails the reasonableness test.  That an heroic PC might have trouble making an heroic rare item is reasonable, but that an epic character can't make it either?  He can't even make a heroic uncommon?
     Then there is the matter of a game balance.  If a rare item is properly priced, it doesn't need to be called rare.  If it is well underpriced, you have problems giving the party the proper challenge, problems that vanish if you just price it right.
     And you have more work for the DM.  He now must [not can, must] moniter the players to make sure they get a rare item at the right time and of the right level.  Much easier for the DM to just toss some gold at the players and let them buy what they want.

I've always thought there should be a rule that characters can make rare items a tier below them, which is a very, very simple fix and implies epic rares are the creations of gods alone, which adds a nice flavour. 

The rarity system is broken in 4e because the edition was not designed to accommodate it from the ground up, and it was tacked on and poorly supported. This won't be a problem for 5e. And pricing balance becomes much, much easier with the crowdsourceing playtesting. 

I hate, hate, HATE just tossing gold at my players and letting them go shopping. I hate having magic stores in my game. Now, if they work for that's fine and you can ignore the "awarding treasure" advice or "difficult crafting" module and instead use the "easy crafting" option. But let me keep magic special in my games!

Yeah I despise magic stores and players having free rein to make any item in the books they want if they have the gold.   It's a recipe for disaster.   Magic item dispersal is the job of the DM.

I magic stores, and all they entail.

I really like the way GURPS dungeon fantasy does magic items. An adventurer cannot be an enchanter. It just takes too much time and effort for one profession or the other. Adventurers can seek out legendary enchanters to purchase magic items (assuming they have the money or reagents) or quest to find lost treasures. I hate how 4e dd things before inherent bonuses. I don't want to become a magical Xmas tree or need to replace my gear every 5 levels. I would much prefer findin only a few magic items of my characters whole career as long as tey stayed relevant.

Mar 27, 2012 -- 2:03PM, Emerikol wrote:

Yeah I despise magic stores and players having free rein to make any item in the books they want if they have the gold.   It's a recipe for disaster.   Magic item dispersal is the job of the DM.

     Note the word "Job".  It's a bunch of flaming and unnecessary work.  And the DM has too much to do as it is.  And as said, the rarity system makes it harder to do.  Rarity gives you only 9 grades vs 30 at the magic shop.  You simply can't grade things as well.

I think magical item (creation) and crafting in general is the single most important component too a good D&D campaign. I would like to see item creation tied to a crafting system ( read skills), with players questing for rare components and special materials to produce items, these materials being another form of treasure. By making magic item materials and integral part of treasure you put the amount of magic items squarely in the DMs hands. If you want wands to be very rare in you campaign, well they can only be made from lich bones, if you want them to be common well any willow wood will do.

I'm sort of new to DND, but here's what I think, based on what I know from reading the various 4E books friends have been kind enough to lend me:

I don't care for Magic Item Creation all that much, to be honest.  I was rather surprised it was even an option when I got into DND: I'd always thought of magic items as something you had to do hard questing work to acquire.  Mind you, it's cool to think that you can get to a high level, get rich and then imbue your gear with the power of gods, but I'd still prefer to kill monsters and solve puzzles for my schwag.

Alchemy, on the other hand...  I like the idea of brewing crazy potions, poisons, and other bizarre concoctions.  Which is why I was confused that Alchemy in 4E doesn't make potions (at least, not healing ones): instead, that's reserved for a Ritual. That makes sense if you're trying to make a potion in the middle of nowhere with the wrong ingredients (aka potions getting conjured), but makes absolutely no sense for someone who'd be trying to make the potion with the right ingredients and equipment in his labratory.  The only healing item I remember from Alchemy is an... Herbal Poultice?  That seems like more of a medicine/Healing skill deal, not an Alchemy thing.

Basically if they keep Rituals and Alchemy for the next edition, I'd like to A) See both in the first book and B) Have them be more diverse.  Three rituals for gathering various levels of information is kind of silly when you can roll it all into one ritual which has different levels with different costs, and you can then use the space to add two new rituals that do cooler stuff.  Alchemy, they had in like one book and apparently that was it, so I'd like them to introduce it sooner.

Mar 29, 2012 -- 11:17AM, Asperdn wrote:

I think magical item (creation) and crafting in general is the single most important component too a good D&D campaign. I would like to see item creation tied to a crafting system ( read skills), with players questing for rare components and special materials to produce items,

     A PC gets maybe 50 major magic items over his 30 levels.  He exists in a party of others who need their own magic.  So he has to complete 250 quests just for his equipment?  He hasn't got the time to be doing anything else and unless the "quest" is little more than a hike to the nearest store, he can't even do most of them.
     A special item quest is just one of a great many adventure themes and can not be the explanation for the PC's equipment.  When the PC does go on such a question, it will be for the maguffin, which will save the girl/village/town/city/country/world..., not for something the PC will actually use.

It's a "difference in the medium" problem - the "epic quest for the components to create the item" shtick works in a novel or movie where that forms the basis of the whole plot and the story ends shortly thereafter, but not when you're dealing with D&D and other pen-and-paper RPGs where magic items are relatively commonplace and a character will have or acquire a large number of them over the course of play.

  Unless you intend to name your campaign "Magic: The Gathering" and make it all about the endless chain of gather-quests that the PCs go on, of course. Computer games are generally better suited to that sort of grinding, though.

Mar 31, 2012 -- 12:24PM, DavidArgall wrote:

Mar 29, 2012 -- 11:17AM, Asperdn wrote:

I think magical item (creation) and crafting in general is the single most important component too a good D&D campaign. I would like to see item creation tied to a crafting system ( read skills), with players questing for rare components and special materials to produce items,

     A PC gets maybe 50 major magic items over his 30 levels.  He exists in a party of others who need their own magic.  So he has to complete 250 quests just for his equipment?  He hasn't got the time to be doing anything else and unless the "quest" is little more than a hike to the nearest store, he can't even do most of them.
     A special item quest is just one of a great many adventure themes and can not be the explanation for the PC's equipment.  When the PC does go on such a question, it will be for the maguffin, which will save the girl/village/town/city/country/world..., not for something the PC will actually use.

First, the concept of "major" is going to be different from group to group and doesn't always match up with what the game books describe as major. 

Second, very often one quest results in the party getting such "major" items. 

I don't think the idea is for the group to have to run around questing for "major" items for their entire careers

I still prefer the idea of having it cost one feat (or whatever) to craft a magic item.

And I mean a single magic item.

Have the benefits of those items be equivilent to the benefits the character could have gotten from that one feat (or whatever).

It would have the benefits of (a) keeping "magic item creation" in the hands of PCs who want it; (b) keeping "magic item creation" balanced; and (c) being an easily added-on (or removed) "modular" rule.


Though I guess I'd like it to go still further, and have the game balanced around the idea that any (significant) magic item the player receives is going to cost feat(s) (or whatever).  That would allow no- or low-magic (or just magic-item) games to function right out of the box, without needing additional rules to patch up the gaps later.

So I'd need to pay a feat-tax to use a +1 Sword, then wait another three levels before I take the "Use +2 Sword" feat?
Unless 5E features a ridiculous feat proliferation (like one or two per level), such a concept is a non-starter.

The root cause of the problem is that nobody writes adventures with scaling in mind, and DMs generally have no idea how to scale a written adventure. 
That "adventure four 4th level characters" assumes whatever baseline a 4th-level guy is assumed to be (whether it's 1E/2E's mostly ignoring loot, or 3E/4E's Munchkin-based 'Loot is part of advancement!'), which means a party going in with inadequate stuff is going to get mauled, while a party who picked up a pile of cool stuff during the Level-3 adventure are going to mop up.

How many written adventures scale for pre-existing party loot?
How many written adventures even bother to scale for a 5th player?

Apr 2, 2012 -- 11:41AM, Qmark wrote:

So I'd need to pay a feat-tax to use a +1 Sword, then wait another three levels before I take the "Use +2 Sword" feat?

Well, for one, why would you presume those two things would each cost seperate feats?  Did we require you to take Expertise again for each and every +1 it provided?
And for two, I presumed it was implied (and I guess it was not) that it would go hand-in-hand with a general reduction in the number of magic items given out, and the reduction (or outright elimination) of the number of "boring" items given out.

So, yeah, it might mean a "feat" every level, with however many of those given over to (important) magic items as the player desires (or the DM requires).  But it should also mean the removal of "+X attack/defense" items - or just having those offered automatically if you have to include them.  (ie. "+X" itself doesn't ever cost anything)

Apr 2, 2012 -- 11:14AM, Maxperson wrote:

Mar 31, 2012 -- 12:24PM, DavidArgall wrote:

Mar 29, 2012 -- 11:17AM, Asperdn wrote:

I think magical item (creation) and crafting in general is the single most important component too a good D&D campaign. I would like to see item creation tied to a crafting system ( read skills), with players questing for rare components and special materials to produce items,

     A PC gets maybe 50 major magic items over his 30 levels.  He exists in a party of others who need their own magic.  So he has to complete 250 quests just for his equipment?  He hasn't got the time to be doing anything else and unless the "quest" is little more than a hike to the nearest store, he can't even do most of them.
     A special item quest is just one of a great many adventure themes and can not be the explanation for the PC's equipment.  When the PC does go on such a question, it will be for the maguffin, which will save the girl/village/town/city/country/world..., not for something the PC will actually use.

First, the concept of "major" is going to be different from group to group and doesn't always match up with what the game books describe as major. 

Second, very often one quest results in the party getting such "major" items. 

I don't think the idea is for the group to have to run around questing for "major" items for their entire careers

Also, 50 separate items, or one item he quests for and crafts near the beginning levels that he either reforges or that is empowered by the user's strength?  That makes, for example, 6 items into one item.

Alright, since apparently we have a lot of people that have a hissy fit if anyone can make magic items without it requiring them to saw off a limb I might as well throw some ideas in to placate.

1) Use a variant version of the legacy weapon setup for things like big weapons and armor. Where questing with the item can unlock different powers in it. Maybe say the weapon is soulbound, IE linked to the spirit of the wielder and loses its power when that wielder dies or relinquishes it.

2) Have some of the higher end stuff require things like the bones of an ancient dragon or something similar, IE they can make little stuff easily but the big stuff requires unique components or special sites to work at.

3) Maybe have creation options linked to skills or rolls, or have it be point based for creation.


On a somewhat different note, what exactly do you expect all the gold to go to then, or are we radically changing the internal game economy? Since otherwise the gold and stuff that they get is mostly just going to sit there unless you figure they're going to be buying a lot of ale and whores.

Mar 24, 2012 -- 12:03PM, Arcane_Guyver wrote:

Mar 24, 2012 -- 1:20AM, Archangel62 wrote:

...in 3.5 players had to spend both XP and feats to be able to produce magic items. Which was a fair expenditure, hell in pathfinder they did away with XP and I have yet to see 'floods' of items. Most of the time I've been in groups where only a few people even want to make magic items, and if they do they lose a lot of personal firepower to improve the group.

If you're the DM, count yourself lucky. I've found you have to really, really limit downtime in Pathfinder because otherwise 'Craft Wondrous Item' and 'Craft Arms and Armor' become easily some of the very best feats in the game, probably on par with 'Leadership.'

Words of advice on Pathfinder.

Watch how much gold you throw out and just follow the rules for time when it comes to crafting and you will be alright. It's just like the 5 minute work day, if you just say "boom" it happens then yes it can get out of hand.

Apr 3, 2012 -- 2:47AM, Archangel62 wrote:

On a somewhat different note, what exactly do you expect all the gold to go to then, or are we radically changing the internal game economy? Since otherwise the gold and stuff that they get is mostly just going to sit there unless you figure they're going to be buying a lot of ale and whores.

I weep to read this statement.  In every edition prior to 3e there was practically no magic item creation.  

The gold can go for
1.  A castle, fortress, hideout, temple or tower.
2.  An army / gang / holy order to defend said domain or conquer someone elses
3.  To purchase influence.  
4.  To buy noble titles.
5.  To buy ships, airships, mounts, luxuries
6.  To buy art, to fund artisans
7.  To fund future expeditions that involve travel or deep underground exploration. 
.... I'm sure you get the idea ... with a little imagination I'm sure you can extend this list even farther.

#1 through #6 mainly work if you're into the "transition to being a ruler at Name Level" shtick that the game originally assumed, but that's definitely not applicable to most (or even many) characters nowadays.

  #7 might work for the purpose of PCs' activities (although a lot of that also falls under the "we assume you'll become a landed ruler" bit), except that in absence of magical items there's only so much you can buy in the way of mundane gear before you're again stuck with piles of useless cash.

Apr 3, 2012 -- 4:53PM, XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

Watch how much gold you throw out and just follow the rules for time when it comes to crafting and you will be alright. It's just like the 5 minute work day, if you just say "boom" it happens then yes it can get out of hand.

As someone who tried to run a campaign that gave players a few weeks worth of downtime between adventures (so the characters don't hit level 20 within an in-game year or less of adventuring), and sticking to the treasure-per-encounter/level guidelines...these feats are just 50% discount coupons.

-----

As far as castles and other things go, I've tried to get my players interested in such things, to no avail. I've one player who drops tons of cash for random goofy things, but he's told me before he'd rather find his "cool stuff," not buy or make it. I think there's an aversion to putting a huge chunk of your wealth into something that a) doesn't make you better at adventuring, b) is easy for the DM to 'break' or take away, and c) may involve upkeep or responsibility. I also get the impression most players don't mind / prefer playing simple murder-hobos who reside outside the socio-economic construct.

Apr 4, 2012 -- 6:59AM, Arcane_Guyver wrote:

Apr 3, 2012 -- 4:53PM, XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

Watch how much gold you throw out and just follow the rules for time when it comes to crafting and you will be alright. It's just like the 5 minute work day, if you just say "boom" it happens then yes it can get out of hand.

As someone who tried to run a campaign that gave players a few weeks worth of downtime between adventures (so the characters don't hit level 20 within an in-game year or less of adventuring), and sticking to the treasure-per-encounter/level guidelines...these feats are just 50% discount coupons.

-----

As far as castles and other things go, I've tried to get my players interested in such things, to no avail. I've one player who drops tons of cash for random goofy things, but he's told me before he'd rather find his "cool stuff," not buy or make it. I think there's an aversion to putting a huge chunk of your wealth into something that a) doesn't make you better at adventuring, b) is easy for the DM to 'break' or take away, and c) may involve upkeep or responsibility. I also get the impression most players don't mind / prefer playing simple murder-hobos who reside outside the socio-economic construct.

I run Pathfinder every week and I don't have problems. Even if you take your group on the "APs" they still don't have much downtime to actually do anything. You as the GM control the downtime and the amount of gold that you hand out, just like you control what monsters attack and how many.

Apr 3, 2012 -- 8:17PM, Neutronium_Dragon wrote:

#1 through #6 mainly work if you're into the "transition to being a ruler at Name Level" shtick that the game originally assumed, but that's definitely not applicable to most (or even many) characters nowadays. #7 might work for the purpose of PCs' activities (although a lot of that also falls under the "we assume you'll become a landed ruler" bit), except that in absence of magical items there's only so much you can buy in the way of mundane gear before you're again stuck with piles of useless cash.

I'm not talking about a specific rule.  I'm just saying that wealth can be roleplayed a number of different ways.  If all you do is go from dungeon to dungeon and never interact with the world then yeah you may have issues with too much gold.  If as you level, you become and influental member of the world you live in then you won't have a problem.  To me a pure dungeone game is hardly more than a board game and I love dungeons.   I just think in a roleplaying game there is more to the game than adventures.  If you are missing out on this seek out a new DM that will introduce you to these aspects of roleplaying, it really is a lot of fun.

Apr 4, 2012 -- 10:04AM, Emerikol wrote:

Apr 3, 2012 -- 8:17PM, Neutronium_Dragon wrote:

#1 through #6 mainly work if you're into the "transition to being a ruler at Name Level" shtick that the game originally assumed, but that's definitely not applicable to most (or even many) characters nowadays. #7 might work for the purpose of PCs' activities (although a lot of that also falls under the "we assume you'll become a landed ruler" bit), except that in absence of magical items there's only so much you can buy in the way of mundane gear before you're again stuck with piles of useless cash.

I'm not talking about a specific rule.  I'm just saying that wealth can be roleplayed a number of different ways.  If all you do is go from dungeon to dungeon and never interact with the world then yeah you may have issues with too much gold.  If as you level, you become and influental member of the world you live in then you won't have a problem.  To me a pure dungeone game is hardly more than a board game and I love dungeons.   I just think in a roleplaying game there is more to the game than adventures.  If you are missing out on this seek out a new DM that will introduce you to these aspects of roleplaying, it really is a lot of fun.

      We are still facing the same problem.  Effectively the "real" part of the game is combat and something that doesn't affect that is just junk.  A castle?  OK, but how does that help me kill a giant?  A good DM in a home game can sometimes disguise this enought to not have a problem, but the player is still apt to ask "Just what is gold good for?" and interpret "out of combat" to mean "nothing". 
      We can work around it some, but ultimately saying you can't buy magic means gold is worthless.

Apr 4, 2012 -- 11:22AM, DavidArgall wrote:

      We are still facing the same problem.  Effectively the "real" part of the game is combat and something that doesn't affect that is just junk.  A castle?  OK, but how does that help me kill a giant?  A good DM in a home game can sometimes disguise this enought to not have a problem, but the player is still apt to ask "Just what is gold good for?" and interpret "out of combat" to mean "nothing". 
      We can work around it some, but ultimately saying you can't buy magic means gold is worthless.

For me putting in magic mart forces the players to buy magic at the expense of everything else.  They can't afford to not advance their combat power and thus the entire rest of the game is hindered or outright harmed.  Since in my campaign that aspect of it is a very vibrant part I don't want to put something that forces the players to choose between roleplaying and being effective in combat.

 

Re: "Feeling Magical"
I don't really buy the "X needs to be rare (and solely in the hands of the DM) to feel magical" thing.  I mean, case-in-point, 3.X magic and spellcasting.  It's common.  It's known.  It's in the hands of the players.  Hell, it's a character resource.  But I've never seen complaints about it "not feeling magical". 

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places?

Apr 4, 2012 -- 11:36AM, Emerikol wrote:

For me putting in magic mart forces the players to buy magic at the expense of everything else.  They can't afford to not advance their combat power and thus the entire rest of the game is hindered or outright harmed.  Since in my campaign that aspect of it is a very vibrant part I don't want to put something that forces the players to choose between roleplaying and being effective in combat.

I give out extra gold for "screwing around" - especially when "screwing around" is important to the players.  Caps and/or restrictions on magic item use keep them from effectively using the "extra" money for extra combat power.  As does the absolutely ridiculous pricing of magic items in 4e.

Apr 4, 2012 -- 11:44AM, greatfrito wrote:

Re: "Feeling Magical"
I don't really buy the "X needs to be rare (and solely in the hands of the DM) to feel magical" thing.  I mean, case-in-point, 3.X magic and spellcasting.  It's common.  It's known.  It's in the hands of the players.  Hell, it's a character resource.  But I've never seen complaints about it "not feeling magical". 

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places?

That's because nobody is trying to "sell" you on the idea. People are just stating how it makes them feel that magic items have become just another "cog in the machine" and that the mystery has gone. Comparing spellcasters and magic items are comparing apples and oranges. Magic may not be a mystery but magic items can be and need to be once again. 3rd edition starting to make magic items a part of the math but 4th edition went even further and made magic items as common as AC and hit points.

A +1 longsword used to give you a +1 "bonus" to hit and damage. Take a moment to reflect on what the word "bonus" means. 4th edition completely shattered that notion and should have written it like: +1 longsword gives you a "mandatory" +1 to hit and damage.

Apr 3, 2012 -- 8:17PM, Neutronium_Dragon wrote:

#1 through #6 mainly work if you're into the "transition to being a ruler at Name Level" shtick that the game originally assumed, but that's definitely not applicable to most (or even many) characters nowadays. #7 might work for the purpose of PCs' activities (although a lot of that also falls under the "we assume you'll become a landed ruler" bit), except that in absence of magical items there's only so much you can buy in the way of mundane gear before you're again stuck with piles of useless cash.

Yeah, I doubt I could get my players to spend much on any of that, ever.  They're just not interested.  It's not like I wouldn't provide them with the "things to do between adventures".  It's more the player mentality of not wanting that stuff.  And Emer, that's what's being asked to be addressed: the groups that don't avoid, but instead are uninterested in castles, armies, influence, etc.  They don't want to be rulers sitting on thrones, they want to be adventurers.

Apr 4, 2012 -- 11:36AM, Emerikol wrote:

Apr 4, 2012 -- 11:22AM, DavidArgall wrote:

      We are still facing the same problem.  Effectively the "real" part of the game is combat and something that doesn't affect that is just junk.  A castle?  OK, but how does that help me kill a giant?  A good DM in a home game can sometimes disguise this enought to not have a problem, but the player is still apt to ask "Just what is gold good for?" and interpret "out of combat" to mean "nothing". 
      We can work around it some, but ultimately saying you can't buy magic means gold is worthless.

For me putting in magic mart forces the players to buy magic at the expense of everything else.  They can't afford to not advance their combat power and thus the entire rest of the game is hindered or outright harmed.  Since in my campaign that aspect of it is a very vibrant part I don't want to put something that forces the players to choose between roleplaying and being effective in combat.

 

    It is not the magic mart, but the game itself that forces that, and the players seem quite eager to be "forced".  If the game design means the PC needs +2 stuff to be effective, the PC is to get that and it really doesn't matter if he gets it by DM gift or buys the equipment at some market. 
    Shift to thinking of a SF game where everything is made by "science".  Our PC can be awarded things made by some mad scientist or he can just buy it at the super store.  But he still needs the +2 items to fight his foes effectively.  And in either case, the player sees that money really has no purpose beyond buying better equipment.
   Or we can play "Students and Schools" where the student needs to pass tests.  He can get the texts he needs by buying them or he can get them by out competing other students at the library.  He still needs better texts as he advances in grades.
     Whether we are talking castles, spaceships, or being taken to school in a new car, we have to show benefits for the PC and pure roleplaying benefits do not cut it. 

Apr 4, 2012 -- 9:34AM, XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

You as the GM control the downtime and the amount of gold that you hand out, just like you control what monsters attack and how many.

..

Mar 24, 2012 -- 12:03PM, Arcane_Guyver wrote:

If you're the DM, count yourself lucky. I've found you have to really, really limit downtime in Pathfinder because otherwise 'Craft Wondrous Item' and 'Craft Arms and Armor' become easily some of the very best feats in the game, probably on par with 'Leadership.'

I'm not sure why you're trying to tell me that the key to not having broken item creation is to not give PCs the necessary downtime when what I originally posted pretty much said just that. I know it's broken in my campaign because I give PCs breathing room between adventures.

This has been fairly off-topic; I'll just say that hopefully whatever form of item creation exists in 5e, a DM won't have to alter his campaign specifically to keep players from using it.

Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:15PM, DavidArgall wrote:

    It is not the magic mart, but the game itself that forces that, and the players seem quite eager to be "forced".  If the game design means the PC needs +2 stuff to be effective, the PC is to get that and it really doesn't matter if he gets it by DM gift or buys the equipment at some market. 
    Shift to thinking of a SF game where everything is made by "science".  Our PC can be awarded things made by some mad scientist or he can just buy it at the super store.  But he still needs the +2 items to fight his foes effectively.  And in either case, the player sees that money really has no purpose beyond buying better equipment.
   Or we can play "Students and Schools" where the student needs to pass tests.  He can get the texts he needs by buying them or he can get them by out competing other students at the library.  He still needs better texts as he advances in grades.
     Whether we are talking castles, spaceships, or being taken to school in a new car, we have to show benefits for the PC and pure roleplaying benefits do not cut it. 

In a game that requires magic item bonuses, the DM can give the items out.  I want a game that does not require those bonuses but if required the DM can give them out.  If the DM does not provide a means of buying magic in the game then the gold he also hands out can then be used for roleplaying purposes.  It's not complicated.  I don't think gold should be used for personal character power advancement.  It's fine for power in a broad indirect sense (hiring of allies, armies, etc..)

 

Apr 4, 2012 -- 5:42PM, Emerikol wrote:

Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:15PM, DavidArgall wrote:

    It is not the magic mart, but the game itself that forces that, and the players seem quite eager to be "forced".  If the game design means the PC needs +2 stuff to be effective, the PC is to get that and it really doesn't matter if he gets it by DM gift or buys the equipment at some market. 
    Shift to thinking of a SF game where everything is made by "science".  Our PC can be awarded things made by some mad scientist or he can just buy it at the super store.  But he still needs the +2 items to fight his foes effectively.  And in either case, the player sees that money really has no purpose beyond buying better equipment.
   Or we can play "Students and Schools" where the student needs to pass tests.  He can get the texts he needs by buying them or he can get them by out competing other students at the library.  He still needs better texts as he advances in grades.
     Whether we are talking castles, spaceships, or being taken to school in a new car, we have to show benefits for the PC and pure roleplaying benefits do not cut it. 

In a game that requires magic item bonuses, the DM can give the items out.  I want a game that does not require those bonuses but if required the DM can give them out.  If the DM does not provide a means of buying magic in the game then the gold he also hands out can then be used for roleplaying purposes.  It's not complicated.  I don't think gold should be used for personal character power advancement.  It's fine for power in a broad indirect sense (hiring of allies, armies, etc..)

 

+1

Apr 4, 2012 -- 5:42PM, Emerikol wrote:

Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:15PM, DavidArgall wrote:

    It is not the magic mart, but the game itself that forces that, and the players seem quite eager to be "forced".  If the game design means the PC needs +2 stuff to be effective, the PC is to get that and it really doesn't matter if he gets it by DM gift or buys the equipment at some market. 
    Shift to thinking of a SF game where everything is made by "science".  Our PC can be awarded things made by some mad scientist or he can just buy it at the super store.  But he still needs the +2 items to fight his foes effectively.  And in either case, the player sees that money really has no purpose beyond buying better equipment.
   Or we can play "Students and Schools" where the student needs to pass tests.  He can get the texts he needs by buying them or he can get them by out competing other students at the library.  He still needs better texts as he advances in grades.
     Whether we are talking castles, spaceships, or being taken to school in a new car, we have to show benefits for the PC and pure roleplaying benefits do not cut it. 

In a game that requires magic item bonuses, the DM can give the items out.  I want a game that does not require those bonuses but if required the DM can give them out.  If the DM does not provide a means of buying magic in the game then the gold he also hands out can then be used for roleplaying purposes.  It's not complicated.  I don't think gold should be used for personal character power advancement.  It's fine for power in a broad indirect sense (hiring of allies, armies, etc..)

Why shouldn't my hard won cash be used to make me specifically stronger?  Why hand it to others?  I'm just not getting it?  What use does a wandering guy have for a castle?  What does a truly powerful rogue need with hirelings?  What's the point of anything other than more magical tomes for a wizard?

Please, please, explain in depth what you mean.  I'm just not getting it at all.

A basic problem is going to be this, the game will need a kind of skinner box. Or to put it another way, the game needs a means of rewarding and amplifying the players abilities as they advance in a way that isn't just their class features. My reasoning is simple, if we make items relatively unimportant compared to normal abilities then we run into the problem of 4th edition, and we also face the obvious problem of what the players are rewarded with aside from XP. It creates a kind of meta problem in terms of adventuring goals, if cash is not useful for anything 'game related' IE mechanical then any goal to amass wealth is merely an RP goal. But it can be hard to motivate players to check out the dark tomb where there are treasures of the second age of Narinkal when those treasures basically mean nothing except an RP element.

And before people slam the idea of RP vs. optimization or whatever you want to do, there does need to be an appeal for people that might not want to build kingdoms or retire in a nice seaside mansion. Roleplay is a nice part of the game, but it shouldn't be seen as the key element, a player and a character can see the use in the ebon sword of the thrice dead. The player sees something badass his character can use and the character sees a powerful and legendary weapon that will both enhance his personal legend as well as better enable him to advance through the adventures that he goes on with his companions.

If we say that magic items aren't going to be able to be made by players, fine, but then I'd ask where the items came from in the first place, and I'd also ask what's to be done if the DM or the RNG inadvertently favors one player over others. I've had situations where I've forgotten certain things about a character when I made a treasure hoard, or just cases where when following the RNG the loot tended to skew. As an example, the RNG kept making arcane scrolls, the wizard was happy but the rest of the group was somewhat less so.

The ability to make magic items also gives characters a means of directing their own advancement economically. A wizard can trade spells with another mage, a fighter however can't really pick up new techniques aside from levelling (if they add in elements for this I would be all for it). The ability of someone to make magic items, be it caster or non, means that the group can deal with item gaps that can happen with a loot table (also true when the group is up to their eyeballs in gold and lean on magic items) and maybe make something special for a struggling team member.

Apr 5, 2012 -- 12:23AM, Kalnaur wrote:

Why shouldn't my hard won cash be used to make me specifically stronger?  Why hand it to others?  I'm just not getting it?  What use does a wandering guy have for a castle?  What does a truly powerful rogue need with hirelings?  What's the point of anything other than more magical tomes for a wizard?

Please, please, explain in depth what you mean.  I'm just not getting it at all.

Kalnaur, for a lot of us D&D goes way beyond just going through one adventure after another.  We do immerse ourselves in the world.  As a player, the very first reason I would reject a DM is because his world is boring or unimaginative.  We play our characters like people living in a world.   Going on dangerous adventures is all well and good but the reward has got to be something more than just equipment for the next adventure.  

Also keep in mind.  I'm not anti magic items.  I'm anti players spending their gold to make magic items.  The reason is it essentially just turns gold into a magic item reserviore.  I prefer magic items and gold.  If you want magic mart why not just give the group x amount of residuum per level for choosing their own magic items.  I wouldn't do that because I'm also anti-players choosing magic items but that would work for you I'd think.

I would probably allow the Gygaxian answer to magic item making.  Oh it's allowed.  How say you?  Ask your DM.   DM, when allowing players to make magic items never make it worth it.  Bleed them white, many will try anyway.  Now I paraphrase but that is essentially the 1e position on magic item creation.  I'd be ok with that.  Of course, if the core game requires no bonuses built in then the DM can also use a module that has rules for crafting magic items and thats fine by me.   


@Archangel62
Roleplaying as always been a key element to the game for a lot of people.  Not for some.  But let me say that if I want all the goodness of D&D without the roleplaying, I would play DDO online in a heartbeat.  I have a perfect DM, I have tactical battles, I have preparation,  I have optimization.   If my style were yours I really don't know why I wouldn't choose that.  It is done a lot better if that is all you want.

In a game I DM'd one of my player's built a temple to his diety.  A small town nearby grew into a bigger town as this guy poured his wealth into establishing a religious power base.   He recruited Paladins to guard the temple and of course paid them well.   He dealt with his own religious heirarchy.  He dealt with local rulers and supported good ones. (He was good).    

In another game I had a rogue that wanted to be the big crime boss in the city.  He'd often persuade his "friends" to take out rival gangs of "evil" criminals.   I played that he was a brother to two of the other players and that his out of game activities where in the shadows a good bit.  It was cool because it showed a fun conflict between good and evil.  

From this came....
1.  Many adventures driven by the story conflict that comes of this.  (This is a really huge deal because it creates all sorts of extra motives for action in the game.)
2.  Many of my players enjoy detailing out their temples, castles, etc...  This brings a lot of new NPC allies and enemies into the game.
3.  Things like gather information take on a whole new meaning.  If you are plugged into the underworld you can find all kinds of things out.

It really is a different sort of game from what I believe they promote nowadays.  Now my PCs are constantly adventuring but often to a purpose.   If you look at Monte's Ptolus campaign notes you can see a lot of things they did.  (And Monte had magic mart but then again Monte probably had some really awesome roleplayers too).







 

Apr 5, 2012 -- 5:28AM, Emerikol wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 12:23AM, Kalnaur wrote:

Why shouldn't my hard won cash be used to make me specifically stronger?  Why hand it to others?  I'm just not getting it?  What use does a wandering guy have for a castle?  What does a truly powerful rogue need with hirelings?  What's the point of anything other than more magical tomes for a wizard?

Please, please, explain in depth what you mean.  I'm just not getting it at all.

Kalnaur, for a lot of us D&D goes way beyond just going through one adventure after another.  We do immerse ourselves in the world.  As a player, the very first reason I would reject a DM is because his world is boring or unimaginative.  We play our characters like people living in a world.   Going on dangerous adventures is all well and good but the reward has got to be something more than just equipment for the next adventure.  

Also keep in mind.  I'm not anti magic items.  I'm anti players spending their gold to make magic items.  The reason is it essentially just turns gold into a magic item reserviore.  I prefer magic items and gold.  If you want magic mart why not just give the group x amount of residuum per level for choosing their own magic items.  I wouldn't do that because I'm also anti-players choosing magic items but that would work for you I'd think.

I would probably allow the Gygaxian answer to magic item making.  Oh it's allowed.  How say you?  Ask your DM.   DM, when allowing players to make magic items never make it worth it.  Bleed them white, many will try anyway.  Now I paraphrase but that is essentially the 1e position on magic item creation.  I'd be ok with that.  Of course, if the core game requires no bonuses built in then the DM can also use a module that has rules for crafting magic items and thats fine by me.   


@Archangel62
Roleplaying as always been a key element to the game for a lot of people.  Not for some.  But let me say that if I want all the goodness of D&D without the roleplaying, I would play DDO online in a heartbeat.  I have a perfect DM, I have tactical battles, I have preparation,  I have optimization.   If my style were yours I really don't know why I wouldn't choose that.  It is done a lot better if that is all you want.

In a game I DM'd one of my player's built a temple to his diety.  A small town nearby grew into a bigger town as this guy poured his wealth into establishing a religious power base.   He recruited Paladins to guard the temple and of course paid them well.   He dealt with his own religious heirarchy.  He dealt with local rulers and supported good ones. (He was good).    

In another game I had a rogue that wanted to be the big crime boss in the city.  He'd often persuade his "friends" to take out rival gangs of "evil" criminals.   I played that he was a brother to two of the other players and that his out of game activities where in the shadows a good bit.  It was cool because it showed a fun conflict between good and evil.  

From this came....
1.  Many adventures driven by the story conflict that comes of this.  (This is a really huge deal because it creates all sorts of extra motives for action in the game.)
2.  Many of my players enjoy detailing out their temples, castles, etc...  This brings a lot of new NPC allies and enemies into the game.
3.  Things like gather information take on a whole new meaning.  If you are plugged into the underworld you can find all kinds of things out.

It really is a different sort of game from what I believe they promote nowadays.  Now my PCs are constantly adventuring but often to a purpose.   If you look at Monte's Ptolus campaign notes you can see a lot of things they did.  (And Monte had magic mart but then again Monte probably had some really awesome roleplayers too). 

For the record, this is another thing we agree on. I'm all for detatching magic items from gold. I'd even go as far as to say I don't like magic items at all. Unless they are cool artifacts. :3

Apr 5, 2012 -- 5:39AM, TheMormegil wrote:

For the record, this is another thing we agree on. I'm all for detatching magic items from gold. I'd even go as far as to say I don't like magic items at all. Unless they are cool artifacts. :3

I lean your way theMormegil on magic items but I probably fall short of artifacts only.  I love carpets of flying and helmets of teleportation (using my modified teleport rules of course).  I'm against +X items of any sort.  I could live with damage only though.   To me magic should be "magical" and not so mechanical.  It you let you do something neat.  Ring of invisibility would be another.

 

Apr 5, 2012 -- 5:28AM, Emerikol wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 12:23AM, Kalnaur wrote:

Why shouldn't my hard won cash be used to make me specifically stronger?  Why hand it to others?  I'm just not getting it?  What use does a wandering guy have for a castle?  What does a truly powerful rogue need with hirelings?  What's the point of anything other than more magical tomes for a wizard?

Please, please, explain in depth what you mean.  I'm just not getting it at all.

 for a lot of us D&D goes way beyond just going through one adventure after another.  We do immerse ourselves in the world. 

      And for a lot more of us, we prefer to dip a toe in the water and stay on the shore.  There are tremendous numbers of players whose response to roleplay is "Yah, yah, yah.  Now when do we get to kill something?"  And for such players, you want to make gold useless.  You are ironically reducing what little roleplay they do do.
     

Apr 5, 2012 -- 5:28AM, Emerikol wrote:

   Going on dangerous adventures is all well and good but the reward has got to be something more than just equipment for the next adventure.   

   Not for a lot of players.  This can be said to be their entire existence.  Gold's only purpose is to get better equipment.  You may deem this an inferior way to play, but it is the most common way.

Apr 5, 2012 -- 5:28AM, Emerikol wrote:

In a game I DM'd one of my player's built a temple to his diety.   (He was good).    

In another game I had a rogue that wanted to be the big crime boss in the city.  

     Now a point here is that you remember the rare.  The common just blends into a vague background where you can't tell Joe from Sam.  These people are the rare exception and are not who we design the game for.  We try to make their preferences possible, but they are not even close to mandatory. 
     A major problem is that D&D is a team game, which means it has problems dealing with individual goals.  To win the battle is a team goal and the game deals well with it, but while Joe builds his castle, what are Sam & Mary doing?  In the battle, they would be cheering him on as he contributes to the shared goal, but outside of battle... Why should they care about his temple?
     If you try to focus on roleplay, you risk boring most of the players.  That is not the way to a successful game.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />

Apr 5, 2012 -- 11:35AM, DavidArgall wrote:

 but it is the most common way.

If you have some proof beyond your opinion here I would like to see it.  I don't deny there are people who play the way you say.  Of course there are.  I'd say most in store encounters type games go that way for sure.  In the campaigns I know enough to judge in my area though I don't see this attitude.  I'm not saying there are absolutely no magic marts.  I am saying they are all involved in outside the adventure activities.  

In a game where you have some players more motivated for roleplaying and others less motivated, I see the less supporting the more.  My last campaign had pretty much everyone motivated.  One of the reasons was that I started them off in a big city so they had lots of opportunities.  But over the course of my career in DMing I've had players that were happy being captain of the guard for another player's castle and army.  They'd often pool their money to speed the game along in these cases.   Typically though the adventure invariably drew that reluctant player in and they became interested in what was happening.  

If magic mart is an option rule and the game does not include +X items as a requirement to be effective at level then I will be happy.  I'm  not the type of person that wants to rain on anybodies fun parade.  The problem with 3e and 4e (although 3e far more so because in 4e the magic items weren't really worth much anyway) was that they made playing any other way mandatory.  Instead I'd rather have an entry in the DMG that says... here is how much you have to increase the difficulty for groups that have magical adjustments over X etc...  If they do include magic mart as the default (and I'm pretty sure they had a poll and that they are not going to but hey if they do) then I want a very clean and clear way to excise it from the rules.





 

Apr 5, 2012 -- 5:28AM, Emerikol wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 12:23AM, Kalnaur wrote:

Why shouldn't my hard won cash be used to make me specifically stronger?  Why hand it to others?  I'm just not getting it?  What use does a wandering guy have for a castle?  What does a truly powerful rogue need with hirelings?  What's the point of anything other than more magical tomes for a wizard?

Please, please, explain in depth what you mean.  I'm just not getting it at all.

Kalnaur, for a lot of us D&D goes way beyond just going through one adventure after another.  We do immerse ourselves in the world.  As a player, the very first reason I would reject a DM is because his world is boring or unimaginative.  We play our characters like people living in a world.   Going on dangerous adventures is all well and good but the reward has got to be something more than just equipment for the next adventure.  

Also keep in mind.  I'm not anti magic items.  I'm anti players spending their gold to make magic items.  The reason is it essentially just turns gold into a magic item reserviore.  I prefer magic items and gold.  If you want magic mart why not just give the group x amount of residuum per level for choosing their own magic items.  I wouldn't do that because I'm also anti-players choosing magic items but that would work for you I'd think.

I would probably allow the Gygaxian answer to magic item making.  Oh it's allowed.  How say you?  Ask your DM.   DM, when allowing players to make magic items never make it worth it.  Bleed them white, many will try anyway.  Now I paraphrase but that is essentially the 1e position on magic item creation.  I'd be ok with that.  Of course, if the core game requires no bonuses built in then the DM can also use a module that has rules for crafting magic items and thats fine by me.

First, my magic store/creation method: Each town, including the one the players start in, has the possibility of selling magic items. But, vaguely planned out, I know around when they'll level up (within about a third of a level).  Each town that I place a magic store in carries a limited stock of magical items that exclude armor, necklwear and weapons, and that only carries things within 3 levels of the characters.  Any weapons, armor or necklaces desired must be found or made; common items made by normal means (residuum, which is limited, or alchemical reagents, which are sold at the same store magic items are found, or from wizard enclaves, etc), uncommon and rare items can be crafted, but only by means of quests to either obtain the legendary items, or to find the material needed to create said item.

Also, I don't just hand out gold or magic items.  I hand out treasures, gems, special coins and art objects, some of which had historical or game world significance.  Now, so far, the players like looking for a dealer who's willing to pay more for their other treasure.  They also are willing to do favors for people in exchange for good will, or reduced prices or pay.

But as far as a base of operations, well, I gave a single character a meagre shack, and that's worked out well for them so far.

I suppose I'm trying to say different strokes, man.  I'm more than happy you like yours.  I just want to have mine too.

Apr 5, 2012 -- 11:59AM, Emerikol wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 11:35AM, DavidArgall wrote:

 but it is the most common way.

If you have some proof beyond your opinion here I would like to see it.  I don't deny there are people who play the way you say.  Of course there are.  I'd say most in store encounters type games go that way for sure.
 

     Which means you are stipulating that some version of the magic mart is the most common way.

Apr 5, 2012 -- 11:59AM, Emerikol wrote:

 In the campaigns I know enough to judge in my area though I don't see this attitude.
 

    And in the campaigns I see, I do.  [Now we can note that the magic mart can often have no in game existence.  The player simply deducts the needed amount of gold, and nobody pays any attention.  But since this puts it absolutely in the players control, we classify it as a magic mart.]

Apr 5, 2012 -- 11:59AM, Emerikol wrote:

If magic mart is an option rule and the game does not include +X items as a requirement to be effective at level then I will be happy.
 

   It is not shown that much of anybody else will be.  +X items have appeared, and been much sought after, in all editions.  And the magic mart keeps on reappearing despite official text saying it does not exist.

 

Apr 5, 2012 -- 5:28AM, Emerikol wrote:

[..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />@Archangel62
Roleplaying as always been a key element to the game for a lot of people.  Not for some.  But let me say that if I want all the goodness of D&D without the roleplaying, I would play DDO online in a heartbeat.  I have a perfect DM, I have tactical battles, I have preparation,  I have optimization.   If my style were yours I really don't know why I wouldn't choose that.  It is done a lot better if that is all you want.

In a game I DM'd one of my player's built a temple to his diety.  A small town nearby grew into a bigger town as this guy poured his wealth into establishing a religious power base.   He recruited Paladins to guard the temple and of course paid them well.   He dealt with his own religious heirarchy.  He dealt with local rulers and supported good ones. (He was good).    

In another game I had a rogue that wanted to be the big crime boss in the city.  He'd often persuade his "friends" to take out rival gangs of "evil" criminals.   I played that he was a brother to two of the other players and that his out of game activities where in the shadows a good bit.  It was cool because it showed a fun conflict between good and evil.  

From this came....
1.  Many adventures driven by the story conflict that comes of this.  (This is a really huge deal because it creates all sorts of extra motives for action in the game.)
2.  Many of my players enjoy detailing out their temples, castles, etc...  This brings a lot of new NPC allies and enemies into the game.
3.  Things like gather information take on a whole new meaning.  If you are plugged into the underworld you can find all kinds of things out.

It really is a different sort of game from what I believe they promote nowadays.  Now my PCs are constantly adventuring but often to a purpose.   If you look at Monte's Ptolus campaign notes you can see a lot of things they did.  (And Monte had magic mart but then again Monte probably had some really awesome roleplayers too).

1) I never said without the roleplay, I merely mean like this, not everyone has an interest in building grand empires or temples or getting enough cash to retire to a nice seaside manor. Some people do, cool. But my point is that the games internal economy seems to focus more on the idea that players are using the gold to advance their characters.

Let me try it a little differently, in what we thought would be our last 3.5 game I basically wanted us to go out with a bang so I threw caution to the wind and set up a fairly large campaign that was going to be a major story. It involved a set of lost relics, the group being created by an ancient spell set up to call for champions in dark times, a nation that had found ancient technologies (I was inspired by Barrier Peaks) and a nation that had been forged by my old college group that bowed to Hextor and had a dark army of fiends and undead ready to begin a war of blood and death. The guys used a lot of treasure to help defend this little town that they had found and even managed to get a commander from an army of the nation that had 'created' them that was trying to bully them to defect and essentially face torture and imprisonment. Their treasure and actions shaped the world and gave this town enough strength that they didn't have to depend on a greater nation and eventually they stood alone.

Fact is though, that game was one game, it wasn't how we always do it and my players were going into this planning to be big damn heroes. If a player has no interest in a grand empire then their share of the loot should still let them advance themselves somehow. Be it magic equipment, or maybe training from a skilled grandmaster teaching them new techniques. Or maybe a caster learning new spells. If the system is going to remove the ability to make magic items, maybe it's too time consuming or requires a controlled resource, fine. But if the gold is going to be there, separate from magic items, then said gold needs to have a use that is beyond RP spending or for plenty of groups the gold is essentially window dressing.

Apr 5, 2012 -- 7:30PM, DavidArgall wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 11:59AM, Emerikol wrote:

If magic mart is an option rule and the game does not include +X items as a requirement to be effective at level then I will be happy.
 

   It is not shown that much of anybody else will be.  +X items have appeared, and been much sought after, in all editions.  And the magic mart keeps on reappearing despite official text saying it does not exist.

First of all.  The poll says 86% do not want players choosing their magic items period.  That means no item creation and no magic mart.   Sorry but you can keep chanting that you are in the majority when every single piece of evidence we have points to otherwise.  Including just posts on various threads.  Magic mart is not this thing that everyone is clamoring for unanimously.  

1e and 2e did not have magic item creation.  The DM could provide his own method to the players but there was no default rule.   And in those days if you were creating very many magic items, you were in a very rare campaign.

Now I want everyone to be happy.  Since magic item creation does not have a lot of dependencies it is very easily made into a module.   As long as +X items are not built into the math, they can also be part of that module or in their own module.   Items don't bother me because every single item is modular if the DM is the one handing them out.   I could so easily modularize 3e item creation.   Move all the feats to the module.  That handles creation.   The math built into the game now might be another story but more exposure of the math will solve that problem.






 

Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:29PM, Archangel62 wrote:

1) I never said without the roleplay, I merely mean like this, not everyone has an interest in building grand empires or temples or getting enough cash to retire to a nice seaside manor. Some people do, cool. But my point is that the games internal economy seems to focus more on the idea that players are using the gold to advance their characters.

Well those are the traditional tropes.  I had one paladin who decided to be a Mother Teresa type character and try to abolish hunger.  Now on the surface that seems easy until all the other elements of the world try and get involved and you have corruption etc...

The examples I gave and they are fun examples, were mere examples.  I encourage players to use their money how they want.  If an individual PC is at a loss then his friends often coopt him into one of their schemes.  Of course this turns out fun so next time that PC might choose his own thing.   They also as a group help the others achieve their goals.

If though you make gold an essential part of the power structure then you've made it really hard if not impossible sometimes to use it for anything else.  

People played D&D without Magic Mart for over 25 years.  They found uses for their gold.  The fact we have had it for 12 years does not make it a sacred cow.

Now I am for a module that lets people have magic mart.  In fact I'm for several modules since not everyone wants magic mart to the same degree.  (I'm throwing magic item creation in with magic mart here since it's practically the same for purposes of our discussion especially in 4e but mostly in 3e too).  Since the poll indicates that the vast majority of players want the DM alone to give out magic items, I would prefer the default be no magic mart.  That and it is easier to add a subsystem and any math you need than to remove it.   The module way will force them to expose the math whereas if magic mart is the default then they won't expose the math.



 

Apr 6, 2012 -- 5:11AM, Emerikol wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:29PM, Archangel62 wrote:

1) I never said without the roleplay, I merely mean like this, not everyone has an interest in building grand empires or temples or getting enough cash to retire to a nice seaside manor. Some people do, cool. But my point is that the games internal economy seems to focus more on the idea that players are using the gold to advance their characters.

Well those are the traditional tropes.  I had one paladin who decided to be a Mother Teresa type character and try to abolish hunger.  Now on the surface that seems easy until all the other elements of the world try and get involved and you have corruption etc...

The examples I gave and they are fun examples, were mere examples.  I encourage players to use their money how they want.  If an individual PC is at a loss then his friends often coopt him into one of their schemes.  Of course this turns out fun so next time that PC might choose his own thing.   They also as a group help the others achieve their goals.

If though you make gold an essential part of the power structure then you've made it really hard if not impossible sometimes to use it for anything else.  

People played D&D without Magic Mart for over 25 years.  They found uses for their gold.  The fact we have had it for 12 years does not make it a sacred cow.

Now I am for a module that lets people have magic mart.  In fact I'm for several modules since not everyone wants magic mart to the same degree.  (I'm throwing magic item creation in with magic mart here since it's practically the same for purposes of our discussion especially in 4e but mostly in 3e too).  Since the poll indicates that the vast majority of players want the DM alone to give out magic items, I would prefer the default be no magic mart.  That and it is easier to add a subsystem and any math you need than to remove it.   The module way will force them to expose the math whereas if magic mart is the default then they won't expose the math.



 

Except there were magic items shops in 2nd edition too, it depended on your game but there were GMs who would let you buy magic items in shops, especially given that there was a set GP cost for a lot of it. There were probably item shops in other games too. But then again, the role that the items played in the game was different as well. The problem here is that you have to look at how the items are treated in the system. For example in a game like Deadlands magic items are rare, to the point that the guy running might have a hard time deducing whether or not said items are appropriate for entry. In a game like D&D, well the magic items do seem to be assumed, the real question being when they show up. Remember also that the RNG could lead to some cases of feast or famine in long chains.

Apr 6, 2012 -- 3:52PM, Archangel62 wrote:

Except there were magic items shops in 2nd edition too, it depended on your game but there were GMs who would let you buy magic items in shops, especially given that there was a set GP cost for a lot of it. There were probably item shops in other games too. But then again, the role that the items played in the game was different as well. The problem here is that you have to look at how the items are treated in the system. For example in a game like Deadlands magic items are rare, to the point that the guy running might have a hard time deducing whether or not said items are appropriate for entry. In a game like D&D, well the magic items do seem to be assumed, the real question being when they show up. Remember also that the RNG could lead to some cases of feast or famine in long chains.

Well I'm sure there was everything in some game somewhere.  My experience was that magic item shops didn't exist in most games.  But I'm sure they existed.  If you followed Gygax at all then you'd definitely be thinking - no magic shops.  In 1e there was a subgroup of players that got classified by the rest of us as Monte Haul.  I wouldn't have been surprised if the Monte Haul groups had magic shops but I didn't hear of it even from them.  Monte Haul groups were basically excessively rewarded for minimal effort.  Thats the gist of it anyway.

 

Apr 7, 2012 -- 1:41PM, Emerikol wrote:

Apr 6, 2012 -- 3:52PM, Archangel62 wrote:

Except there were magic items shops in 2nd edition too, it depended on your game but there were GMs who would let you buy magic items in shops, especially given that there was a set GP cost for a lot of it. There were probably item shops in other games too. But then again, the role that the items played in the game was different as well. The problem here is that you have to look at how the items are treated in the system. For example in a game like Deadlands magic items are rare, to the point that the guy running might have a hard time deducing whether or not said items are appropriate for entry. In a game like D&D, well the magic items do seem to be assumed, the real question being when they show up. Remember also that the RNG could lead to some cases of feast or famine in long chains.

Well I'm sure there was everything in some game somewhere.  My experience was that magic item shops didn't exist in most games.  But I'm sure they existed.  If you followed Gygax at all then you'd definitely be thinking - no magic shops.  In 1e there was a subgroup of players that got classified by the rest of us as Monte Haul.  I wouldn't have been surprised if the Monte Haul groups had magic shops but I didn't hear of it even from them.  Monte Haul groups were basically excessively rewarded for minimal effort.  Thats the gist of it anyway.

 

It all depended, magic item shops might have been trade houses that sold items. They might have been wizards you could comission to get something made. Or maybe a guildhouse, hell it might have even been some guy that said "I have X item that you want, get me X amount of gold and I'll let you have it." Magic item shops aren't always mage-marts.

And who's to say that the shops were all monte haul games, it might just be that they got a helluva lot of gold and nearly no magic items. I'm also not sure if each edition had the rules where you had to hire trainers each level too, since that one could also be said to alter the whole wealth thing. It seems more like you have some kind of grudge against 3rd edition and stuff beyond.