Identifying Items in 4E

[JBento]

So... I handle one for 5minuties and I know what it can do? Hmmm... It's still not to my liking, though it's certainly better than 3.5's "I eat up a 1st level spell and a 100gp pearl (unless I'm a divine caster) and whoop-dee-doo".

I was wondering if erasing that part and making items identifiable only through use (and I mean REAL use, not just "I make a few practice shots at the target dummy") would unbalance things. Any thoughts from the 4E experienced folk out there?

[Oracle_Hunter]

So... I handle one for 5minuties and I know what it can do? Hmmm... It's still not to my liking, though it's certainly better than 3.5's "I eat up a 1st level spell and a 100gp pearl (unless I'm a divine caster) and whoop-dee-doo".

I was wondering if erasing that part and making items identifiable only through use (and I mean REAL use, not just "I make a few practice shots at the target dummy") would unbalance things. Any thoughts from the 4E experienced folk out there?

No, it won't unbalance things, but it'll annoy the heck out of the party. Point a wand at your enemies and instead of a wand of fireball, it's a wand of magic missile or something. Honestly, that's how things were done in 2e, and that's why we have cursed magical items you can't remove.

If you think that's too easy, then make it so only people trained in Arcana can figure it out with some manner of skill check. It'll make Arcana an even more important skill, but I think that's probably the easiest fix.

[kamikasei]

I like the new way.

Think of it as being like finding the swords in the trolls' hoard in The Hobbit, or the barrow-wights' swords in Fellowship. Gandalf and Bombadil didn't need to cast identify or use them in combat, they just had a good look at them during a quiet minute.

From an out-of-game point of view the advantage is obvious: no need to waste time, money and spells figuring out what you've got, no need to use a +x, where x is known only to the DM weapon and have to furtively add bonuses behind the screen.

From an in-game perspective it makes perfect sense. To anyone who can handle a weapon, the difference between a +1 and +2 should be obvious. If it has magical properties, they are intended for the user to wield, and it's no great leap to say they make themselves known somehow. After all, if you can will your blade to burst into flame, doesn't it make sense to say that whatever mental trigger you use to activate the ability is something that you can perceive even before you using it, once your mind is clear and you're tryingg to get a feel for what you hold? Same for a wand or staff or anything like that; you need to cast a spell to work out the magic word, but once you know the magic word, the mental effort of designating targets or variables is totally instinctive? Huh?

The furthest I'd go toward your suggestion is making certain skills required as trained, as Oracle_Hunter suggests. Gandalf didn't identify Glamdring just by looking at it, he rolled History. The fighter might not know what the big glowing button in his mind will do once pressed, but the wizard can recognize it as the feeling of a teleport spell and tell him that his boots can take him back to Kansas if he clicks his heels.

[erikun]

Well, I think it's assumed that your party gets together and tries to identify they items while they're taking that 5 minute rest. It's like the wizard takes 20 on his Arcana, the warlord takes 20 on his History, and the fighter takes 20 on practice swings until they have a good idea what the weapon does. It's like the recommendation in the DMG to automatically allow the party to find any secret doors in an empty room, as "they are just going to take 20 anyways."

On the plus side, this speeds things up. The mystery of new weapons is nice, until you find out that it's just a +1 sword. On the other hand, not giving away all the secrets of a really nifty magical weapon will make the players look further into it. Saying something like "it's a +1 sword, but it has some other feature you cannot identify" with just one weapon will make your players a lot more interested in finding out just what the sword does - saying it with everything will just make players say "huh, another magical sword."

Although that sword had better be something more significant than just a +1 flaming sword, then...

[Azerian Kelimon]

Not to mention, Identify wasn't so "Whoop-de-doo" as you think. It was very rituallike in execution, with a casting time of ONE HOUR.

[Goober4473]

I like the idea of having to figure stuff out. You don't just get your new loot and equip it. You can figure out its basic properties, perhaps, but it takes some trial an error to really know exactly what it is.

[marjan]

I like the idea of having to figure stuff out. You don't just get your new loot and equip it. You can figure out its basic properties, perhaps, but it takes some trial an error to really know exactly what it is.

Well, if it helps, you can still do that. It's not like 3e had any rules for this kind of identifying. Sure it had some guidelines, but those guidelines are exactly what you just said.

[Istari]

I think personally that the item should be generally identified such as the wand casting a flame based spell or something like that. Having the general idea of a weapon without know specifically what it will do until maybe using it once or twice in actual combat.

[JaxGaret]

On the other hand, not giving away all the secrets of a really nifty magical weapon will make the players look further into it. Saying something like "it's a +1 sword, but it has some other feature you cannot identify" with just one weapon will make your players a lot more interested in finding out just what the sword does - saying it with everything will just make players say "huh, another magical sword."

Although that sword had better be something more significant than just a +1 flaming sword, then...

That really is truly amazing. That is so amazingly amazing I think I'd like to steal it.

I like the idea of having to figure stuff out. You don't just get your new loot and equip it. You can figure out its basic properties, perhaps, but it takes some trial an error to really know exactly what it is.

That's what your character spent the five minutes doing, off-screen. If you want to roleplay it out, go right ahead. Just make sure that the other players and DM approve.

[hamlet]

No, it won't unbalance things, but it'll annoy the heck out of the party. Point a wand at your enemies and instead of a wand of fireball, it's a wand of magic missile or something. Honestly, that's how things were done in 2e, and that's why we have cursed magical items you can't remove.

No, that's not how it was done in 2e, or 1e, or even Rules Cyclopedia.

In both AD&D versions, the Identify spell existed as a first level spell. It required the expenditure of a 100gp pearl (which, unless you live next to an ocean was not exactly something you could pick up at the corner market) and the expenditure of 8 full hours of casting and examination. Even then, you had only a 10% chance per level to successfully identify the item, and even then there was a chance that you could botch the roll and mis-identify it.

The only edition where experimentation was the only way to discover the powers of items was Basic and Expert D&D. By the time of the companion books, I believe the Identify spell had been added.

[Indon]

And really, there's no reason not to just test a magic item anymore until you know what it does, unless I missed something 4'th edition didn't drop cursed items.

[Fronko]

I am for slowly revealing an item's properties steb-by-step.

You could initially say something like: "The sword you just picked up, is very finely crafted and further examination clearly indicates it has a magical aura to it. OOC: You found a +1 short sword, but its aura clearly indicates, that it has some more potential."

Your players may now use it instead of their standard weapon, to try it out. If they are not sure, whether this new item is more powerful than their prvieous weapon, you can always point out that the new swords aura is at least as powerful as the other items aura, so they have an incentive to actually use it to find out about its powers.

Then, in the very next encounter, where the sword is in use, tell them something like: "As you swing the sword, your movements seem to align more with the sword, as you become used to its balance. The sword seems to move moire lightly, yet hit harder. OOC: Well, looks, like your sword actually is a +2 short sword".

Then, depending on how long this encounter lasts, you can add more and more of its properties, until the player is actually wielding a +3 flaming keen short sword of uber-imbaness. Do not stretch this for too long, just long enough that there still is a little suspense as to what exactly this item is about. As soon as all its powers have been revealed, you should add that now the sword has reached a level of performance, whicxh suits its magical aura quite well, so the player will not expect even more of it.

[Swooper]

I'd like to point out that 3.5 has a very simple and cheap method of identifying magical items.

Detect Magic + a high Spellcraft modifier.

Roll 10 higher than you need to determine the aura type and strength, and you identify every property of the item. It's under the Spellcraft skill in the Rules Compendium. Any wizard or sorcerer worth his bat guano will max out Spellcraft anyway, and while low level ones will only succeed occasionally, by mid levels, I think most can pretty reliably identify most things they come across.

[Jack Mann]

Keep in mind the automatic identification is for standard items. These are enchantments that most adventurers might be aware of. It's easy because they've probably seen something like it before, or heard about it. The book suggests arcana checks for more unusual items.