Dungeon 184
Save My Game: Master the Treasury
by Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Players want magic items, DMs want them to have magic items ... but which ones?
Talk about this Article here.
Save My Game: Master the Treasury
by Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Players want magic items, DMs want them to have magic items ... but which ones?
Talk about this Article here.
As someone who sits on both sides of the screen, I do think that there is a balance to be had between catering to the players' aspirations for their characters, and wanting to give out items that are more in line with the storyline and the nature of the NPCs. Quite how that balance is to be best achieved is something I'm still not sure about.
The implication that players should only ask for vanillia +x magic items disturbs me. It implies that these items are a privledge, and not a right. However, it's simple mathmatical fact that to maintain playable hit rates and defenses, a character needs up-to-date magic items. While I can barely wrap my mind around, but not agree with, a DM that only lets his players ask for Common items... this is a completely different matter entirely. I got the sense from this article that Wizards believes that item-dependant characters are, to put it in the vernacular "doing it wrong", and in general that the DM should keep the players away from those dastardly charop types, who only lead to problems at the tabletop.
I don't believe that this was the intention of the article, but it sure came off that way. And in my opinion, regardless of whether you believe this whole Essentials thing is a good idea or not, 4E was designed with the expectation that players should have access to a certain level of magic item-ness, and I belive that Wizards should, more or less, uphold that expectation.
So i don't need my players to give me list of +s Neckslot and Arms & Armors.
And if i was using the Wishlist, i would do it all and not only half.
I am gonna tell you what all adventurers want. If you need a list to find out, Here they all want:
Magic Weapons & Implements
Magic Armors & Shields
Magic Boots & Gloves, Cloak Amulets etc....
Magic Potions and Scrolls.
Magic Rings, Helm & Belt
Boons Regents
Rituals
Gold, Platinum and Diamonds
Etc...
They want BLING BLING.
Now you'd like them to want only 3 of these per Level ? So we can explore and discover togheter what they do ? Who decide what a newly found Magic Rod does ? The Player the DM ? Don't drop stuff and let them know only later what they've find. I can see cool things with Magic Items evolving....but i wouldn't play games with my boys.
You either go along the Wishlist road or you don't. Don't stop halfway. My 2 coppies
However, it's simple mathmatical fact that to maintain playable hit rates and defenses, a character needs up-to-date magic items.
That's only true if players (via their characters) have no say in which encounters they face.
The implication that players should only ask for vanillia +x magic items disturbs me. It implies that these items are a privledge, and not a right.
I understand this concern, but I don't quite think this is what the article was saying. I don't think he's saying that Bob the Fighter should write down, "I want a magic weapon +1 and magic armor +1" on his wish-list; I think he's saying that Bob should write down, "I want a +1 Bastard Sword and +1 Scale armor, because those are the things I use." Basically, using the wishlist to make sure the items that crop up are items the PCs can use, and the types of gear they have designed thier characters for.
Of course, all these are different optional approaches. But I don't think any suggestion is being made that the answer should be stinginess with even the most basic of magical treasure.
The implication that players should only ask for vanillia +x magic items disturbs me. It implies that these items are a privledge, and not a right. However, it's simple mathmatical fact that to maintain playable hit rates and defenses, a character needs up-to-date magic items. While I can barely wrap my mind around, but not agree with, a DM that only lets his players ask for Common items... this is a completely different matter entirely. I got the sense from this article that Wizards believes that item-dependant characters are, to put it in the vernacular "doing it wrong", and in general that the DM should keep the players away from those dastardly charop types, who only lead to problems at the tabletop.
I don't believe that this was the intention of the article, but it sure came off that way.
I also got that impression... until I read the article closely. The idea is to allow both player choice and DM control. Players should not ream DMs if they can't have every desired item in every slot at every level. DMs should not frustrate players by dumping dross items. ("You should be thankful for that +2 platemail even though you have feats pegged toward every other armor type!")
The three methods discussed in the article attempt to present a balance of player and DM obligations. The article does a bad job of spelling this goal out explicitly and setting out the solutions explicitly.
Handing over wish list: Players get to say which important slots get filled with Common items & in what order. Then there's a sliding scale of when the items evolve into Uncommon items. Maybe the players have complete say into what they turn into. Maybe it's collaborative. Maybe it's triggered by use. Magic items retain coolness because the PLAYERS are what turn the items into Uncommons through play. DMs don't have to worry about Uncommons growing on trees.
Fun with Random Treasure: Players pick 3 items each and DM picks 3 items/player. Magic item found? Deal one item out randomly from pile. Every player level, a player and the DM makes new selections for that player. Players get to pick important stuff. DM gets to bulk out item inventory of stuff players tend to skimp on and avoid programmed item loot. [Side Note: This article had Combat Advantage on "How to plant MacGuffins on players" and blew it.]
Make it up: DMs can make items up that fit the characters/playstyle. Players get fun unique stuff. Perhaps easier said than done, but it's direct.
It implies that these items are a privledge, and not a right. However, it's simple mathmatical fact that to maintain playable hit rates and defenses, a character needs up-to-date magic items.
Frankly, I think that's how it should be. Fortunately they added the concept of inherant bonuses so that you're PCs don't suffer mathematically when you try to make magic seem rare, and I dunno, magical. A world where there a were a total of maybe eight magical weapons in all (known) existance would be awesome (unless they all ended up in the hands of the PCs, which would just be silly).
Of course, as a DM my primary flaw is forgetting to award my players with magic items in the first place....I'm so bad at that.
It implies that these items are a privledge, and not a right. However, it's simple mathmatical fact that to maintain playable hit rates and defenses, a character needs up-to-date magic items.
Frankly, I think that's how it should be. Fortunately they added the concept of inherant bonuses so that you're PCs don't suffer mathematically when you try to make magic seem rare, and I dunno, magical. A world where there a were a total of maybe eight magical weapons in all (known) existance would be awesome (unless they all ended up in the hands of the PCs, which would just be silly).
Well, yes, I agree with the fact that Inherent Bonuses can be used to unilaterally lower the magic item level of a campaign while maintaining balance. However, I don't think this article was taking them into consideration - basic magic items do essentially nothing when you're playing with Inherent Bonuses, after all.
Also, perhaps the author just wasn't taking this into account, but the Transfer Enchantment ritual is an already existing solution for finding items that you can't use with enchantments that you can. Unless your DM is a major jerk and only gives you, say, axes with axe-only enchantments when you want a light blade.
On another note, I just don't see the overall purpose of some parts of this article. If Yaldaboath's interpretation is correct... does WotC really think it needs to tell DMs that don't use wishlists that they need to give players items they can actually use?
Ah well. I suppose, in the end, it all comes down to your opinion on the new magic items rules and the amount of magic items you want in your game. Personally, I not only like magic items, but believe that the new rules go against magic item assumptions that 4e was founded on... but that's probably an argument for a different place.
Savish the Axe is not going to carry around a bastard sword because a PC happens to want one.
Which is why you should have called him Savish The Blade and given him a bastard sword.
Savish the Axe is not going to carry around a bastard sword because a PC happens to want one.
Which is why you should have called him Savish The Blade and given him a bastard sword.
"Should" is where these sorts of discussions get ugly. No one's DMing style needs to be adjusted here - there are quite a few legitimate approaches, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.
For myself, it can break one's suspension of disbelief if every major villain you run into simply happens to carry Xendrik Boomerangs, because that's someone's preferred style of weaponry. Rituals like Transfer Enchantment can be one solution to the problem, and there are several other as well.
I think the issue has been somewhat exacerbated by the continuing blight on the game known as the Expertise feats. When switching weapons carries such significant numerical loss, it simply isn't a viable option. With less feats to hinder versatility, and you can afford to give out a fancy magic axe even if no one is specialized in it - it still proves useful for someone to wield it for a few levels until they find the magic sword they want.
No need to worry about a player wishlist.
Savish the Axe is not going to carry around a bastard sword because a PC happens to want one.
Which is why you should have called him Savish The Blade and given him a bastard sword.
"Should" is where these sorts of discussions get ugly. No one's DMing style needs to be adjusted here - there are quite a few legitimate approaches, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.
For myself, it can break one's suspension of disbelief if every major villain you run into simply happens to carry Xendrik Boomerangs, because that's someone's preferred style of weaponry. Rituals like Transfer Enchantment can be one solution to the problem, and there are several other as well.
I have found a few answers to these...
1) have NPCs gift items to PCs... much like christmas morning when you aks 'how did you know that was what I wanted" the answer is "I know you"
2) the transfer enchantment trick... gee bob the fighter wants an AXE of XXXXXXXXX and my bad guy uses a Longsword, I just make it a long sword of XXXXXXXXX and he can pay the 25gp to transfer it
3) give out a really high level item to be sold... in my game (5th level) with no primal character I put a +4 totem in the game... when they disenchanted it and got 20% it was enought ot craft what they wanted (worked really well since they had a mark of making artaficer in the group that could craft 11th level items)
it can break one's suspension of disbelief if every major villain you run into simply happens to carry Xendrik Boomerangs, because that's someone's preferred style of weaponry.
IN the game you need 6 upgrades of items... so even if you HAD to put the boomarang in every time, that is 6 villians over 30 levels, not that much of a suspension of disbellief...
BUT if you give a gift once, let 1 good enchantment be on a diffrent weapon to transfer, and once make the PC pay to upgrade it himself that cuts it in half....
although to go with the article I have had players complain that I didn't give them the right item... like I put a short bow of X in game and expected the player to transfer it to his great bow, he complained that would set him back 25 gp needlessly...
I also had the same player as a diffrent PC once complain my game was too "Low magic" becuse at level 7 he didn't have a +3 weapon or armor yet, only a +3 neck slot...
Handling them a good chunk of optimized items won't nearly affect your game as the inability of creating intriguing plots and strategies for your monsters/npc.
So, i can safely say that i don't agree with the article. The ideology of the DM as an unforgiving cerberus should be considered definitely outdated in 2010.
It implies that these items are a privledge, and not a right. However, it's simple mathmatical fact that to maintain playable hit rates and defenses, a character needs up-to-date magic items.
Frankly, I think that's how it should be. Fortunately they added the concept of inherant bonuses so that you're PCs don't suffer mathematically when you try to make magic seem rare, and I dunno, magical. A world where there a were a total of maybe eight magical weapons in all (known) existance would be awesome (unless they all ended up in the hands of the PCs, which would just be silly).
Silly? If a magic item doesn't end up in the hands of the PCs or the people opposing the PCs*, it for all intents and purposes does not exist. BEHOLD THE EIGHT TEETH OF LEVIATHAN, NONE OF WHICH WILL BE APPEARING IN THIS PLOTLINE! is not compelling authorship.
*which of course means, in the long run, the hands of the PCs.
what if it was 8 magic items in the world, 3 don't appear in the game at all, 2 appear in NPC hands that are allies of the PC, 1 appears in the hands of an NPC that is indiffrent to the PC, and 2 start in enemy hands but when pcs beat them they get to take them... the trick, all 8 are ______'s (longswords, or rings, just pick one look for all 8) but with vastly diffrent powers, so everytime you come across one you must figure out witch it is...
so in that example do all 8 exist? maybe only 5 do in your mind becuse they physicly come into game, but with the research into them, the stries of the other 3 do kinda come in... or as you said before do only the 2 that oppose/ used by PC count?