Magic Items...

[Scribble]

They haven't said too much about them eh?

Personally, while I still want to be able to build magic items, and such... I'd rather they not be the "template" version we've had in the past.

I'm beginning to think this is what really kills the "magic" in magic items for me. When instead of "Ohhh a flaming weapon! I wonder what it does?" becomes "Oh a flaming weapon hello +2d6 fire damage!!!"

Agree disagree?

 

[slobo777]

"Ohhh a flaming weapon! I wonder what it does?"

This was fun, way back when, and a big draw for magic items in the game when I started to play. DMs (myself included) withheld even the bonus to hit and damage of magic weapons, and a whole level could pass without the player knowing what effect, if any, the item had.

It becomes dull around the 10th time, and gets silly with e.g. rings when a character equips them and tries a bunch of things to try and figure out the effect, such as sticking their hand in a flame, jumping up to see whether they float down etc.

So for me it feels more in keeping with a non-comedy fiction to give out mechanics info to players via whichever PC has the most relevent lore or ability. Or, in 3E, rely heavily on use of Identify.

"Oh a flaming weapon hello +2d6 fire damage!!!"

. . . but I do agree this feels a bit lame, and not in keeping with the exploration part of the game.

There's a drift over time from magic items taking up in-game story time to being quickly-assessed commodities.

Once they are commodities, they may as well be PC abilities in the first place. Nothing wrong with them being items that the PCs own or buy, but they are definitely not worth much attention in a story.

It would be nice to roll this back a bit, and have treasure magic items in the game that are worth story time. In 4E, this role is mostly taken with artifacts. The regular magic items are pretty much extended PC abilities, and I'd happily stop having to deal with them as DM.

 

[Scribble]

This was fun, way back when, and a big draw for magic items in the game when I started to play. DMs (myself included) withheld even the bonus to hit and damage of magic weapons, and a whole level could pass without the player knowing what effect, if any, the item had.

It becomes dull around the 10th time, and gets silly with e.g. rings when a character equips them and tries a bunch of things to try and figure out the effect, such as sticking their hand in a flame, jumping up to see whether they float down etc.

So for me it feels more in keeping with a non-comedy fiction to give out mechanics info to players via whichever PC has the most relevent lore or ability. Or, in 3E, rely heavily on use of Identify.

Oh I'm right there with you on that. I don't mean what does it do in the sense of not telling the PCs... That DOES get boring. (Plus I'm terrible at record keeping so half the time I completely forgot just WHAT that blue potion was supposed to do...)

I meant in the sense that just because it's flaming doesn't automatically = X set of traits.

. . . but I do agree this feels a bit lame, and not in keeping with the exploration part of the game.

There's a drift over time from magic items taking up in-game story time to being quickly-assessed commodities.

Once they are commodities, they may as well be PC abilities in the first place. Nothing wrong with them being items that the PCs own or buy, but they are definitely not worth much attention in a story.

It would be nice to roll this back a bit, and have treasure magic items in the game that are worth story time. In 4E, this role is mostly taken with artifacts. The regular magic items are pretty much extended PC abilities, and I'd happily stop having to deal with them as DM.

I was a big fan of inherent bonuses with Artifacts being the "magic items' of the game world. They were just way more mysterious.

 

[Minigiant]

There is is a thin line between the wonder of mystery and the comfort of familiarity.

There is only so much information a DM can withhold and only so many times he withhold information before it get stupid.

This is why i prefer multiple "craft" tiers of magic items. You have your minor +X items. Then you have more powerful but still templates intermediate items like +1 icy burst daggers. Then you have rule breaking major magic items and artifacts.

Then the group can decide which items they are using.

 

[Scribble]

There is is a thin line between the wonder of mystery and the comfort of familiarity.

There is only so much information a DM can withhold and only so many times he withhold information before it get stupid.

Who's withholding information though?

This is why i prefer multiple "craft" tiers of magic items. You have your minor +X items. Then you have more powerful but still templates intermediate items like +1 icy burst daggers. Then you have rule breaking major magic items and artifacts.

Then the group can decide which items they are using.

The template items are the ones I find boring. I don't mind the idea of "icy burst dagger" I just hate the idea of an icy burst template.

 

[Minigiant]

The template items are the ones I find boring. I don't mind the idea of "icy burst dagger" I just hate the idea of an icy burst template.

I see it as an aid rule.

It is easier to use, remember, and understand the ramifications of a template than and open ended item.

 

[triqui]

They haven't said too much about them eh?

Personally, while I still want to be able to build magic items, and such... I'd rather they not be the "template" version we've had in the past.

I'm beginning to think this is what really kills the "magic" in magic items for me. When instead of "Ohhh a flaming weapon! I wonder what it does?" becomes "Oh a flaming weapon hello +2d6 fire damage!!!"

Agree disagree?

builiding your own magic items without a template, it's like buying a ticket to Munchkinland.

 

[Scribble]

I see it as an aid rule.

It is easier to use, remember, and understand the ramifications of a template than and open ended item.

Yeah I understand the idea... Just don't like the end result.

builiding your own magic items without a template, it's like buying a ticket to Munchkinland.

Why? If the DM is building the items why would it be munchkinland? (Unless everyone in the group wants it to be that way in which case more power to em...)

 

[The Shadow]

I think +X weapons should die in a fire.

There, I said it.

There's nothing wrong with an 'accuracy' enchantment, that makes a weapon more likely to hit. And there's nothing wrong with a 'sharp' enchantment that makes a weapon do more damage. And there's certainly nothing wrong with expressing that extra accuracy and/or damage with a bonus number.

It's three assumptions about these enchantments that wreak much harm in D&D Land:

1) The accuracy bonus is always the same as the damage bonus, and:

2) These "+X" enchantments are the vanilla in the magic item flavor world, and (related):

3) Every magic weapon - no matter what it does - is expected to have an underlying "+X" on it.

Why on earth can't you have a sword that gives +3 accuracy, but only +1 extra damage, or none at all? Why can't you have a sword that bursts into flame, but doesn't make it any easier to hit anything?

"+X" weapons do a lot all by their lonesome to suck the mystery out of magic weapons. Once you know a weapon's "plus" value, the rest is just finding out "what else it does".

Heck, 5e's (dis)advantage system opens doors to entirely new weapons... How about a weapon that grants advantage on attacks? (Highly prized by rogues!) How about armor that gives you resistance to fire? And so on?

EDIT: Or (just thought of this), how about weapons that affect Combat Superiority dice in some way? Weapons that might give some small bonus to non-fighters, but really come alive in a fighter's hands?

 

[triqui]

Why? If the DM is building the items why would it be munchkinland? (Unless everyone in the group wants it to be that way in which case more power to em...)

I thought you were talking about player itemcrafting.