ideas that need to go away

[Winnah]

Magic item creation in AD&D was hillariously simple if you met the level requirements. All it required was knowledge of a couple of key spells and the willingness to use some lateral thinking.

Special ingredients could be created with magic, or you could use a summoned creature to fetch it for you. CoP and other divinations for the win. True esoterica simply relied on your ability to bullshit the DM with a clever interpretation.

Only permentant (non charged) items required sacrificing Constitution. Magic Jar allowed you to sacrifice someone elses constitution. Don't forget that AD&D illusion rules were borked, so a Permenant Image of a Holy Avenger was almost as good as the real thing if you could convince the party paladin it was real.

[Prak]

I skim, especially when a pointless argument breaches two pages.

[shadzar]

ok prak.

Magic item creation in AD&D was hillariously simple if you met the level requirements. All it required was knowledge of a couple of key spells and the willingness to use some lateral thinking.

Special ingredients could be created with magic, or you could use a summoned creature to fetch it for you. CoP and other divinations for the win. True esoterica simply relied on your ability to bullshit the DM with a clever interpretation.

Only permentant (non charged) items required sacrificing Constitution. Magic Jar allowed you to sacrifice someone elses constitution. Don't forget that AD&D illusion rules were borked, so a Permenant Image of a Holy Avenger was almost as good as the real thing if you could convince the party paladin it was real.

i dont recall it being that hard in 3rd either...so i have no idea where this concept the DM must GIVE magic items comes form, since players could always make their own, and something simple as a weapon with a few more pluses on it....

im wondering where the problem is of players being unable to create their own stuff and NEED the DM to give it to them hand-picked for their special snowflake character?

[Prak]

Players may feel that item creation is complicated, costs too much (XP) wise, and don't want to give up their XP.

I consider this the players problem.

[Winnah]

That's an excellent point Shadzar. Beatsticks should not get special rewards tailored to their characters, as it would be unfair to the high level spellcaster, who worked hard to make their own rewards.

I'm sure Ayn Rand would agree with us here.

[Prak]

Winnah, shut up. The party caster can make weapons for the beatstick, or the party beatstick can play a tome fighter, or the group can use the "everyone helps craft" rules from (I think) UA.

Or, fuck forbid! The group starts asking around in character about (beatstick's desired weapon) and get directed towards a quest.

[shadzar]

Players may feel that item creation is complicated, costs too much (XP) wise, and don't want to give up their XP.

I consider this the players problem.

that is what i have been saying through this entire course of dialog...

[Winnah]

When the player has a problem, it is out of the DM's hands. In fact, all possible issues that can arise in a game must be a result of player entitlement.

It's all so clear to me now.

[Prak]

That's not what I said at all. If a player feels the GM isn't supporting their shtick by putting a weapon that matches in the treasure, then they can make one. If their class doesn't have that ability, someone in the party should. If not, find an npc that can help.

If all of that fails, then yes, the GM may be the problem.

If the player doesn't want to make their weapon because they don't want to give up the xp, that's their problem.

[OgreBattle]

So has anyone here had actual problems with this occuring in their sessions or is this all hypothetical

[shadzar]

So has anyone here had actual problems with this occuring in their sessions or is this all hypothetical

since quite a few people in this thread have said they "deserve" and the DM "owes" them a pet weapon in treasure, i can only imagine it has and IS happening.

i have had people, prior to 3rd, try to hint at an item they would like to see in treasure, and that was ended real quick as they kept finding a Deck of Many Things each time they asked for something and learned to go try to make it themselves...

[RadiantPhoenix]

So, something that occurred to me:

Classes/Powers/whatever that depend on a particular (type of) item do still need to be defined such that every character with that class/power/whatever will get what they need. This does not mean that any of them need to have a tag that says, "at level X, you get Y," where Y is the thing they need. The class/power/w.e. can also have the prerequisite, "in order to get this [class/power/w.e.], you must have [Y]."

[echoVanguard]

So has anyone here had actual problems with this occuring in their sessions or is this all hypothetical

I've seen it happen a few times, but only in 3.X/Pathfinder campaigns. 100% of the time, the players sold the weapon/item they didn't like and bought or crafted one they did.

echo

[Niles]

Salamanders have flaming spears. You go fight a salamander, you get a fucking flaming spear. It's right there. It exists. If you want to play a game where the flaming spears on salamanders don't drop and you keep using a sword your whole life, go play some fucking World of Warcraft.

No, Salamanders have a racial ability that adds fire damage to their spear attacks, been that way since 1e at least.

In 3.5 it's called heat, look it up: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/salamander.htm

[Seerow]

Salamanders have flaming spears. You go fight a salamander, you get a fucking flaming spear. It's right there. It exists. If you want to play a game where the flaming spears on salamanders don't drop and you keep using a sword your whole life, go play some fucking World of Warcraft.

No, Salamanders have a racial ability that adds fire damage to their spear attacks, been that way since 1e at least.

In 3.5 it's called heat, look it up: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/salamander.htm

So Salamanders drop... completely normal spears. If the Salamander has a magical weapon, it could be literally anything, as a trophy from some other hapless adventurer that it killed, since Heat works providing the bonus fire damage to any metallic weapon, and as an outsider, if it exists he has proficiency with it.

[OgreBattle]

So Salamanders drop... completely normal spears. If the Salamander has a magical weapon, it could be literally anything, as a trophy from some other hapless adventurer that it killed, since Heat works providing the bonus fire damage to any metallic weapon, and as an outsider, if it exists he has proficiency with it.

Nah, Salamanders wouldn't pick up and use magic weapons that aren't spears, it doesn't fit their monster concept.

So if an adventurer kills the salamander, he'll have to make due with the spear it drops and not complain.

[Seerow]

So Salamanders drop... completely normal spears. If the Salamander has a magical weapon, it could be literally anything, as a trophy from some other hapless adventurer that it killed, since Heat works providing the bonus fire damage to any metallic weapon, and as an outsider, if it exists he has proficiency with it.

Nah, Salamanders wouldn't pick up and use magic weapons that aren't spears, it doesn't fit their monster concept.

So if an adventurer kills the salamander, he'll have to make due with the spear it drops and not complain.

And you best use that mundane spear it dropped, because that is character development. Using anything else (until you kill something else and steal its weapon) is just being a munchkin.

[Chamomile]

So Salamanders drop... completely normal spears. If the Salamander has a magical weapon, it could be literally anything, as a trophy from some other hapless adventurer that it killed, since Heat works providing the bonus fire damage to any metallic weapon, and as an outsider, if it exists he has proficiency with it.

Nah, Salamanders wouldn't pick up and use magic weapons that aren't spears, it doesn't fit their monster concept.

So if an adventurer kills the salamander, he'll have to make due with the spear it drops and not complain.

And you best use that mundane spear it dropped, because that is character development. Using anything else (until you kill something else and steal its weapon) is just being a munchkin.

No, no, no, munchkin is the buzzword you use when people call you on your idiocy on other forums, here it's basketweaver.

[Seerow]

Nah, Salamanders wouldn't pick up and use magic weapons that aren't spears, it doesn't fit their monster concept.

So if an adventurer kills the salamander, he'll have to make due with the spear it drops and not complain.

And you best use that mundane spear it dropped, because that is character development. Using anything else (until you kill something else and steal its weapon) is just being a munchkin.

No, no, no, munchkin is the buzzword you use when people call you on your idiocy on other forums, here it's basketweaver.

I believe munchkin was the exact term shadzar used more than once. But basketweaver works too I guess.

[Prak]

I know I never suggested that bullshit. If you don't want the salamander's (all metal, and thus exotic in the regular sense, and thus able to fetch a higher price back home), I'm pretty sure no one's saying you have to take them.

I usually do though.

[Username17]

Noble Salamanders have magic spears. The salamander grunts have normal spears, but the leaders have magic spears. When you fights salamanders, you get a magic spear.

-Username17

[Seerow]

Noble Salamanders have magic spears. The salamander grunts have normal spears, but the leaders have magic spears. When you fights salamanders, you get a magic spear.

-Username17

Huh, that's weird.

On one hand, yes that SRD entry DOES say +3 longspear next to the noble salamander.

On the other hand, it's damage is listed as 1d8+9, with a 22 strength. A longspear is a 2 handed weapon... so its damage is calculated as though the spear is 100% non magical.

Hrm...and the attack bonus is +23, which is 1 less than it should have with a +3 weapon.

Fuck yeah retarded statblocks.

[Username17]

He's large and uses a longspear one-handed. It's based on the 3e writeup and not converted to Andy Collins' shitty weapon size rules. Which means among other things, that it is a weapon you can use.

-Username17

[shadzar]

So, idea that has to go away: That the fucking DM has to tell me how to play and equip my character. If the DM wants to decide what weapon I wield for me (by roll or choice), then he can play my character and I'll play something else.

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20111004

A Tool for the DM

There's another aspect to magic items that doesn't get talked about much. Magic items also provide an interesting way for the DM to have a role in customizing characters. A good DM can subtly influence the way characters act and deal with challenges by what items he or she puts in the treasure hoards they uncover. For example, if the DM thinks it might be fun if the PC wizard summoned more monsters, he could place a brazier of fire elementals in the dungeon for her to find. If the DM would like to see more planar adventures in the campaign, the drow priestess the PCs defeat might possess a cubic gate. And so on. This means that the DM could place treasure (where appropriate) that he wants the characters to have rather than what the game system tells him they're supposed to have. And certainly not what the players are saying they're supposed to have.

Players can play a role in what items they acquire, but it's a story-based role, not a mechanical one. If a wizard player wants to have a robe of the archmagi, she can research where one might be, learn what challenges must be overcome to obtain it, and undertake that quest, hopefully with the help of her friends. Thus, whether it’s a decision to go to the deeper level of the dungeon to get the better loot in general or a quest for a specific item, magic items could return to their original role, which is to be a driving force behind adventures.

there goes everyone's shallow weapon-based character designs.

[rasmuswagner]

That Monte Cook quote sounds awfully familiar. Is it from the 2nd ed DMG?