[Magic Items] Why the shift to a system-hardwired item "economy"?

[Kiero]

In AD&D 2nd edition, magic items were granted through either random tables or GM fiat. There were no guides as to what was appropriate for any character of a given level, you couldn't buy magic items and it was pretty difficult to make them. You got what you were given, and you liked it. Magic items could largely be treated as optional extras that gave you all some bizarre results from time to time, as you found a way to use whatever odd object the tables threw at you.

In D&D 3.x, magic items are an integral part of how the system works, and factored into the Wealth By Level equations. Remove them from the game, and things start to break down and classes get nerfed; it's not merely expected that characters have magic items, it's required. To support this, it's assumed that as long as you have the money and are in a big enough settlement, you can buy whatever magical gear you need.

So why the change? And to bring it into relevant focus, what do we think the situation in 4e will be with regards to magic items? Will they remain integral, or will they be moved again towards the direction of optional?

[Zincorium]

One of WotC's reps has said somewhere that they really, really want to get away from magic items being necessary for game balance, and they want them to be occasional rewards rather than standard equipment. Finding magic items ceased to be exciting in 3.x unless they were way overpowered, and it makes sense they want to bring the excitement back and balance the game in their absence.

I support that idea, and hope it's done well. Mostly the magic item dependency of the game seemed like a crutch for 3.x, and while the item creation of 2nd ed was pretty much 'make it up' for wizards and 'do you like them?' for clerics, I don't know that the modular system was developed enough to really replace it.

[Journey]

In a word: MMORPGS.

The change is essentially a marketing decision. The third edition was designed during an era when computer RPGs were the Big Deal, and MMOGs such as UO and EverQuest were extremely popular. The WoTC people were hedging their bets on the next generation of table-top gamers.

Kids of the age range that usually first begin to play table-top role-playing games were used to this computerized style of "RP" gaming, and expected to see things in their table-top games that reflected their expectations in what a "RP" game should be. Hence the Attribute Bonus inflation, power inflation of all classes (some much more so than others), and magic item inflation.

The took essentially the worst elements from these games and codified them into a set of rules that were then branded with the D&D label because of its market credibility.

This trend seems like it will continue with the 4th edition. Magic-users getting "at will" spell abilities seems to be taken for granted. If that's the case, it will be one of the worst developments in the D&D brand for table-top gaming since TSR screwed things up so badly with the Players Option series and WoTC basically turned the game into a caricature of itself with 3.0.

I don't see how replacing the magic item inflation of 3.x with class/race abilities that essentially mimic magic item abilities makes things any better.

[Kiero]

I don't see how replacing the magic item inflation of 3.x with class/race abilities that essentially mimic magic item abilities makes things any better.

If nothing else, that a character's "cool" comes from who they are, not what stuff they have.

[ChrisMcDee]

Of course, a lot of it is down to the DM, but at the moment the system is heavily weighted towards players getting given a standard number/type of magic items at each level. I'd like to see support for both types of play so that there's a certain level of balance whether the DM gives each player one item over 20 levels or allows them to pick and choose at the magic shop every level.

I do feel that something's lost with magic items being bought at a shop, though. This strip is exactly how magic items should be given to the party.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0130.html

[Roderick_BR]

Two reasons:
First, to give players the chance to make their own itens.
Second, so high level players have something to do with those huge sums of money they earn.

In 2nd edition, magic itens were rare treasure. In 3.x, it turned into tools you can buy in most big cities.

[Kioran]

If there wasn´t so much emphasis on "cool", things would work a lot better - the MIC is (just like ToB for Melee actually) a stopgap used to fix an imbalance in the current Items without revising more basic rules and the underlying problematic:

They are necessesary for survival or even power, so without them, you´re screwed. That also means that highly situational items (a Cube of Force for example, or a cape of the mountebank) get the raw end of the deal, even though they might be flavorful or interesting. Giving such items to your players either means gimping them in many situations if they count against WBL, or giving them a big situational advantage if you don´t. Making character power and Magic items inseperable makes it difficult for the DM to give out items and keep power balanced at the same time.......
So most of the items need to ba what is called one of the "big six": a stat booster, an AC booster, a magic weapon, a Save booster, magic armor or a wand of CLW 8because it´s incredibly cheap). That makes magic both dull and predictable.

If WotC restore that seperation, magic items are freed from the necessity of always being useful (or, l,ike the current designers say, "sexy"......*shudder*) and can return being flavorful and interesting. But, if things are going like they are and have been, like with the ToB, this is just a means of making many interesting or situational items redundant, scaling up the power of class Features further (a big mistake! Further invalidating HD as a source of power actually narrows the possibilities.), instead of, maybe, removing situations and mechanics that make specific kinds of boni necessesary.
Now, the overpoweredness or dependency on magic gear would be replaced by a dependence on a specific set of class features, which is worse: The DM could, maybe, regulate or reduce your gear. You, as a player could change it. But you cannot, retroactively, change your build. Depending on how they pull this off, they could pigeonhole characters and party roles worse than ever......

[Journey]

If nothing else, that a character's "cool" comes from who they are, not what stuff they have.

Part of the problem is that the "cool" you're referring to: a) isn't "cool" if everybody has access to it anyway and b) still creates ridiculous, overpowered caricatures.

[Tormsskull]

Yeah, I think this is one of several reasons that D&D has been going down the tubes over the last decadeish. Though I must admit, I am interested to see how 4e turns out.

I'd be really interesting in seeing WotC put out a low-magic world by design. One where Damage Reduction is rare, opponents can be defeated by mundane ways, magic items are rare treasures, etc.

As for why the initial change occured, I tend to agree with Journey, a well-calculated marketing decision. Snag in the next generation of gamers with things that appeal to them (I fear that soon the "Leet Speaker" PrC will be added), and watch the cash flow roll in.

[Dausuul]

In AD&D 2nd edition, magic items were granted through either random tables or GM fiat. There were no guides as to what was appropriate for any character of a given level, you couldn't buy magic items and it was pretty difficult to make them. You got what you were given, and you liked it. Magic items could largely be treated as optional extras that gave you all some bizarre results from time to time, as you found a way to use whatever odd object the tables threw at you.

In D&D 3.x, magic items are an integral part of how the system works, and factored into the Wealth By Level equations. Remove them from the game, and things start to break down and classes get nerfed; it's not merely expected that characters have magic items, it's required. To support this, it's assumed that as long as you have the money and are in a big enough settlement, you can buy whatever magical gear you need.

So why the change? And to bring it into relevant focus, what do we think the situation in 4e will be with regards to magic items? Will they remain integral, or will they be moved again towards the direction of optional?

Well, here's how I read it.

One of the big changes in 3E was an attempt to get everything nailed down and make sure that the rulebooks would offer clear and explicit guidance on pretty much every point, instead of requiring the DM to make everything up on the fly. So Secondary Skills and Nonweapon Proficiencies, both of which were broad-based and vague, got taken out and replaced with a detailed and specific skill system; monsters were given Challenge Ratings to make it easy to figure out what your party could and could not handle; and so on.

One of the big areas of vagueness in the 2E rules was magic items. When you find a +5 sword, that has a major impact on the party fighter's combat prowess. But there weren't really any guidelines for when the party fighter ought to get a +5 sword in order to keep the classes balanced (cue laughter). And the rules for creating magic items were, well, nonexistent.

Therefore, 3E set out to make a set of explicit guidelines for how much gear you ought to have at any given point, and they allowed buying and selling of magic items--partly for realism (it does make sense that there would be a trade in such things, albeit an extremely low-volume and high-margin trade, as reflected by the extravagant prices), and partly so that characters would be guaranteed to be able to get equipment appropriate to their class and level. This also gave high-level characters a way to spend their plunder.

Unfortunately, due to the way they set prices, a handful of items quickly came to dominate--the Big Six, plus certain utility items like Heward's handy haversack and metamagic rods. And the wealth guidelines were such that items were, as you say, required for characters to be able to perform effectively at their level.

With 4E, it looks like items will be getting scaled back. My hope is that 4E items will be much more about giving you special abilities and less about giving you power boosts; from what the designers have said, and given that Mike Mearls (of Iron Heroes fame) was one of the main 4E designers, I think that's likely to be the case.

What I do wonder is how they'll address the "magic item shop" question. What I'd like to see in that area would be a system where, instead of having all items of a given price range available to buy, you roll a few times on a treasure table to see what items are for sale in a given town or city. That way, while there's still some trade in magic items, you can't just walk into the Magic Mart and find whatever you want sitting on the shelves. Finding a +5 flaming greatsword for sale would be almost as rare and exciting an event as finding one in a dungeon.

[spotmarkedx]

Just as long as we don't go back down the route where after every battle the wizards pull out their knives, saws, and jars again. I so do not miss that aspect of 2nd Edition where if you had a GM that liked to have magic item creation include monster bits (want a potion of healing? Troll blood is a good ingredient. How about Enlarge? Better go hunt yourself a giant or two...), it wasn't long before PCs started being proactive.

GM: Having saved the family of travellers from the displacer beast, the father limps up to you, smiling in gratitude. "Thank you! Thank you! How can I ever repay you?"
PCs: "You're welcome. Nor epayment necessesary." Can I make a monster lore check to see what displacer beast parts are good for magic items? I imagine the hide would be good for a cloak, but can the blood, teeth or tentacles be used for anything? How about internal organs?

Or if they required a "bottled spring breeze and the breath of a bumblebee" for that sword+1 it ended up that magic items were never made.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't see how replacing the magic item inflation of 3.x with class/race abilities that essentially mimic magic item abilities makes things any better.

It means you can't mix-and-match everything you like, and reduces the scope for munchkinism - in addition to making the races more divergent. It's not a silver bullet but it is an improvement.

I believe the lack of "magic item markets" follows from the "points of light" campaign setting.

[Kioran]

It means you can't mix-and-match everything you like, and reduces the scope for munchkinism - in addition to making the races more divergent. It's not a silver bullet but it is an improvement.

I believe the lack of "magic item markets" follows from the "points of light" campaign setting.

The problem is that it puts an overemphasis on class features, which are too important already - it´s going to be less about the gear, but more about the build, which is no improvement......

[Journey]

One of the big changes in 3E was an attempt to get everything nailed down and make sure that the rulebooks would offer clear and explicit guidance on pretty much every point, instead of requiring the DM to make everything up on the fly. So Secondary Skills and Nonweapon Proficiencies, both of which were broad-based and vague, got taken out and replaced with a detailed and specific skill system; monsters were given Challenge Ratings to make it easy to figure out what your party could and could not handle; and so on.

One of the big areas of vagueness in the 2E rules was magic items. When you find a +5 sword, that has a major impact on the party fighter's combat prowess. But there weren't really any guidelines for when the party fighter ought to get a +5 sword in order to keep the classes balanced (cue laughter). And the rules for creating magic items were, well, nonexistent.

With 4E, it looks like items will be getting scaled back. My hope is that 4E items will be much more about giving you special abilities and less about giving you power boosts; from what the designers have said, and given that Mike Mearls (of Iron Heroes fame) was one of the main 4E designers, I think that's likely to be the case.

The cost of the heavy codification of rules in 3.x is, of course, DM and player creativity. Why be creative when the computational algorithms are already provided by the rules? DMs and players alike are relegated to the status of human computers in 3.x.

The guidelines for the creation of magic items were quite explicit--they required the caster give something meaningful of himself (a point of his Constitution score) by casting a Permanency spell with the spell he would also otherwise enchant an item with. Charges were imbued on an item by repeated casting of the spell over a course of time, and so forth. DMs were free to add to these requirements and mix things up a bit, of course. (Note: I don't have my 2nd ed. PHB and DMG in front of me right at the moment, so some minor details may be off.)

And again, how is it less bad to have a character do superhero things by "special ability" rather than by having an item? It's even worse than ubiquitous magic items, really, because then basically every character is a magic-user. It's just the "magic" part is disguised by other flavor text.

It means you can't mix-and-match everything you like, and reduces the scope for munchkinism - in addition to making the races more divergent. It's not a silver bullet but it is an improvement.

I don't see how further mimicking the MMOG "class" design scheme has anything to do with munchkinism. My concern isn't so much munchkinism as it is this ridiculous trend toward every player having some magic or magic-like ability. The resulting power inflation is just terrible.

[Dausuul]

It means you can't mix-and-match everything you like, and reduces the scope for munchkinism - in addition to making the races more divergent. It's not a silver bullet but it is an improvement.

It also means magic items can return to being cool specialty items rather than mandatory power-ups.

The cost of the heavy codification of rules in 3.x is, of course, DM and player creativity. Why be creative when the computational algorithms are already provided by the rules? DMs and players alike are relegated to the status of human computers in 3.x.

I do think 3.X went too far in trying to lay down rules for absolutely everything, but it hardly reduced DMs and players to "human computers." There's still plenty of scope for role-playing and plot development. There's just less flexibility in the system.

The guidelines for the creation of magic items were quite explicit--they required the caster give something meaningful of himself (a point of his Constitution score) by casting a Permanency spell with the spell he would also otherwise enchant an item with. Charges were imbued on an item by repeated casting of the spell over a course of time, and so forth. DMs were free to add to these requirements and mix things up a bit, of course. (Note: I don't have my 2nd ed. PHB and DMG in front of me right at the moment, so some minor details may be off.)

That works if you're making a +1 sword or a scroll. What about the vast majority of items which didn't duplicate a spell effect?

And again, how is it less bad to have a character do superhero things by "special ability" rather than by having an item? It's even worse than ubiquitous magic items, really, because then basically every character is a magic-user. It's just the "magic" part is disguised by other flavor text.

If everybody is in fact doing magic-like superhero things in 4E, you may have a point. I don't see where you're getting this from, though.

I don't see how further mimicking the MMOG "class" design scheme has anything to do with munchkinism. My concern isn't so much munchkinism as it is this ridiculous trend toward every player having some magic or magic-like ability. The resulting power inflation is just terrible.

...Okay, what on earth does reducing magic item dependency have to do with MMOGs? Every computer RPG I've ever seen has been so item-dependent as to make a D&D character look like a Vow of Poverty monk. I realize that 3E 3.5E 4E is going to ruin D&D and turn it into a video game, but I fail to see what this particular change has to do with it.

[Zim]

I think the shift away from magic items driving character power is a good thing. In a campaign where the DM is a little tight-fisted with the loot bag, a fighter or other non-primary spellcaster can quickly fall behind. Nothing is more fun than watching the warlock/wizard/CoDzilla spanks the BBEG while you stand idly because your +1 longsword can't overcome it's DR 20/your stuff doesn't suck.

With the change of focus WotC is planning, a fighter 15 armed with naught but a rusty spoon could be a credible threat again. As it stands, I'm not even considering playing another martial type until 4E comes out.

[Chris_Chandler]

I never understood that part of the culture, actually, where magic items are just an automatic expense. I really like the creation rules as a guideline, but it explicitly states that the GP cost is reflected in materials, not gold itself. Actually earning the components for items makes the creation/aquisition of said items much more worthwhile. It's nothing punitive, and that simple mitigating factor makes the whole process a lot less contrived and meaninful.

The "Magic Shop" mentality is a direct result of computer gaming, though BGII had the right idea with the relic-building, but take that statement for what it is. Yes, that game was absolutely flooded with high-powered items, but the concept of looking for a pommel, blade, and hilt for a weapon, or for a particular shaft for a polearm makes actually finally obtaining that weapon a big event, not just an expected part of the character build.

[Kurald Galain]

The cost of the heavy codification of rules in 3.x is, of course, DM and player creativity. Why be creative when the computational algorithms are already provided by the rules?

QFT. In 2E you could use strategies like disarming, tripping or bullrushing when appropriate in the situations; in 3E there are "one trick pony" builds that focus solely on repeating one maneuver ad nauseam, as well as people that think that you can not use these maneuvers if you don't possess the proper feat (or, cannot use them effectively, which boils down to the same).

[Person_Man]

The change is essentially a marketing decision.

Does anyone else remember Darth Maul? He single handedly injected retarded double weapons into D&D, because he popularized the idea of a double blade. Who cares that there's no basis for it in history or literature, or that using one would probably get you killed the first time you tried to swing it at someone.

Grrrr.

Back on topic: I hope that they seriously nerf magic items and destroy the magic item store. When a player builds a PC, they already have a million different things to consider. Class, race, feats, skills, alignment, back story, appearance, etc. Having to pick out equipment creates another barrier to playing. At low levels its pretty easy - you basically need camping gear, a weapon, and maybe armor. But for higher level campaigns, you need to spend a considerable amount of time picking out items, and in some cases the items are more powerful then you are.

And the entire idea of a magic item store is absolutely ludicrous to me. How does he keep tens of thousands of gold pieces on hand just in case someone stops by to offload a dragon's treasure? And why would anyone go adventuring - Just rob the magic item store, and you're set for life!

Obviously they're going to keep magic items in some form, because magic items are cool, can be hugely fun, and have always been a part of fantasy roleplaying. But in my opinion they should be rare and interesting, like Excalibur, Aladdin's lamp and ring, the Golden Fleece, etc. Not something you can buy at the Wal-Mart on sale for 20% off sticker price.

Then if they then want to build optional magic items on top of the core rules, so be it. But it should be a nice extra perk that some DMs allow, not an integral part of the game.

[ColdBrew]

Does anyone else remember Darth Maul? He single handedly injected retarded double weapons into D&D, because he popularized the idea of a double blade. Who cares that there's no basis for it in history or literature, or that using one would probably get you killed the first time you tried to swing it at someone.

Because everything else in D&D is so historically accurate, right?

[factotum]

Part of the problem is that the "cool" you're referring to: a) isn't "cool" if everybody has access to it anyway and b) still creates ridiculous, overpowered caricatures.

They're only overpowered if the opposition that they face is weak in comparison. Sure, 3rd edition characters could steamroll 2nd edition monsters without much effort, which is why 3rd edition monsters are generally tougher.

[Kiero]

Does anyone else remember Darth Maul? He single handedly injected retarded double weapons into D&D, because he popularized the idea of a double blade. Who cares that there's no basis for it in history or literature, or that using one would probably get you killed the first time you tried to swing it at someone.

Like the traditional Thai weapon used in krabi krabong, which is a double-bladed spear to be used from the back of an elephant? It's also a style which features a lot of twin-weapon usage (twin swords being favoured), and was used in actual warfare, not simply for display.

[Counterspin]

Monsters have always been ranked in power, and that ranking has always been based on a presumption about how many magic items a party has. I fail to see why making the presumptions public so players can understand how the monsters are designed is a bad thing.

[Journey]

They're only overpowered if the opposition that they face is weak in comparison. Sure, 3rd edition characters could steamroll 2nd edition monsters without much effort, which is why 3rd edition monsters are generally tougher.

Yes. Hence, "ridiculous, overpowered caricatures." Monsters aren't immune from this absurdity.

[Telonius]

I suppose it does depend a little bit on the style of game you're doing. If you're in a storyline-based, time-sensitive quest ("You must save the world before the third moon ..."), for example. Time spent hunting around for the Ogre Mage's left toenail that you need to get anything better than a Masterwork item, is time not spent saving the world. In a case like that, Ye Olde Magic Shoppe has its place.

But if you're in more of a sandbox-style campaign, where the characters are free to go off hunting for a Dire Walrus tusk without putting the future of the gaming world in jeopardy, hunting for items could be an enjoyable plot element.

In either case, it's really up to the DM, even in 3.5. The DM only becomes a human computer if he chooses to be one. He can throw the WBL guidelines out the window and still not end up with a TPK, if he's willing to re-jigger the monsters' DR and challenge ratings. It's certainly true that 3.5 doesn't make this easy; but it can be done if the DM wants to badly enough.

[Jerthanis]

In D&D 2nd ed, there was an entire section in the DMG about dealing with players gaining access to a magic item way beyond their power capacity, and having to take it away, or mitigate its power, and how much that annoys players, so you have to keep a laser-sharp eye on the treasure you give out. (I'm pretty sure that section is still in 3rd somewhere actually) In 3rd, DMs have a good idea of the relative power of the items, and a built in guideline for a person's total GP value worth of items. This is a useful tool, and not a straitjacket.

Here's a question... what exactly did you do with money in 2nd edition? If an adventurer can't buy magic junk, and they get enough money to drown a donkey, what do they DO with it? Innrooms and booze only cost so much. Bribing government officials for one purpose or another, paying henchmen to carry your stuff, and buying/upkeeping a stronghold is all I can think of. Doesn't seem like reason enough for the single minded devotion to the almighty gold piece that I remember from my 2nd ed games.

In 2nd Edition, I always ended up ad hoc-ing a GP value for all the items the PCs grew out of, and for them to actually have something to spend money on.

[Morty]

Yes. Hence, "ridiculous, overpowered caricatures." Monsters aren't immune from this absurdity.

If monsters are overpowered just as players are, then what do you compare them to?
Anyway, reducing magic item dependency is a good things for both mechanical and flavor reasons. It'll remove wholesale trade of discount +1 longswords and cloaks of resistance +1 and will make character matter more than character's gear. Look at 3.x edition: take high level fighter's gear and he's screwed. Magic items are fun as long as they are rare and they aren't bought in shops. Wielding magic weapons is part of being a warrior in high fantasy, but this weapon should be found or won in combat, not bought in shop or on market. Hopefully, in 4ed warrior without his gear but instead with some mundane weapon and armor won't be so screwed against monsters with appropriate CR.

The "Magic Shop" mentality is a direct result of computer gaming, though BGII had the right idea with the relic-building, but take that statement for what it is. Yes, that game was absolutely flooded with high-powered items, but the concept of looking for a pommel, blade, and hilt for a weapon, or for a particular shaft for a polearm makes actually finally obtaining that weapon a big event, not just an expected part of the character build.

Exactly. Not to mention that all weapons above +2 has had an unique story and unique name, and wasn't just +1 sword of something.
And BTW, it's funny how people can connect every thing from 4ed with D&D turning into videogame.

[stainboy]

Magic items were integral to the system in 2e as well as 3e.

My favorite example of this is that attack bonus (or THAC0, since we're talking 2e) increases with level, and AC doesn't. Take two human fighters and equip them each with a longsword, full plate, and a shield, all nonmagical. If they're both level 1, they'll hit each other 5% of the time. If they're level 20, they'll hit each other 95% of the time.

The counter to that kind of silliness is magic items. A typical character only has one item that boosts his attack bonus (his weapon), but there are 7 different "item slots" that commonly include items with AC bonuses (ringx2, amulet, bracers, boots, armor, shield). Most high-level melee types are going to have 2-3 items that provide stacking AC increases.

3e inherited this idiosyncracy from 2e. The problem was arguably worse in 2e because of the lack of restrictions on stacking AC buffs and 2e's system for multiple attacks (basically, fighters got fewer attacks, but they were all at full bonus). The only difference is that 3e expressly tells you to load the PCs down with magic items, and 2e let you figure it out for yourself.

[Overlard]

Magic items have always seemed like a reward to me. With an adventurer going out and putting his life on the line, most of them are going to want something for it. And adventure itself is rarely seen as reward enough.

So there's money. But what can you spend money on? Luxuries, I guess. Land. Maybe some servants. But considering how much money you should be pulling in from raiding the dragon's hoard, most people would do go on one big adventure and then retire.

Magic items provide another layer to the economy, which gives the adventurers something to work for. Something to earn gold for.

There is an overdependance on them though, and an overabundance too. We need somewhere in between, where they're not so rare that they may as well not be there, but you can't just buy them off the rack either.

I'd prefer the more interesting items to be more inviting too. In a campaign I decided to introduce items that people rarely buy, rather than the dull stat-increasing items. I was disappointed when the players generally just wrote them down on the loot list, with the expected sell-price when they get back to town. And as that went on, they started struggling against the challenges, as the quirky items were only useful if I introduced encounters tailored for them.

[AKA_Bait]

I'm all for the magic item toning down expected in 4e. If you have your players going up against NPC's with class levels, as I frequently do since they rarely want to trapse off into the woods, then situations like this happen:

Player 2: I cast identify on the gold hilted sword that hums when swung.
DM: It's a +1 longsword.
Player 1: Ug. Another one. Well, throw it on the pile along with the cloaks of resistance +1 and the boots of elvenkind.
Player 2: Are we ever going to sell all that junk?
Player 1: I dunno man but we are going to need another Bag of Holding soon...

I don't have any problem at all with players having the sorts of abilities granted by magical items but when the items themselves are common then the value of them, even if in GP terms is a fair amount of money, is extremeley limited. I look at it this way, if x character gets the bonuses and abilities a +2 wounding dagger grants as class features then when you actually give them a +2 dagger (making the total something like +4 wounding) they will be way more psyched because they now have something not everyone in their class would have. As it stands now, if they had a +2 wounding and then they found a +4 wounding dagger the reaction would be more like 'oh, that's a little better. I guess I'll sell the old one then.'