Single-use Items

[Lago PARANOIA]

In abstract I don't have a problem with them. While in 3E/4E D&D potions suck monkey fuck because they're overly restrictive and are priced all stupid, that doesn't mean that such items are necessarily a bad idea. Non-upgradable magic items only (in theory) have a finite amount of use anyway due to obsolence and no one thinks that they're a bad idea.

However, I can totally feel people on the idea that it's an extra amount of bookkeeping in a system that already has a problem with it. I can also understand how single-use items require a greater amount of prediction than multi-use items and how that paralyzes people a bit. I can kinda-sorta understand the frustration some people have with certain characters having access to a book of scrolls that cover every contingency.

But I generally feel that they're all right.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

What besides potions were single use items unless you DM would let you buy a wand with 1 charge or something?

[Grek]

Various poisons, alchemist stuff, a bunch of the wonderous items and scrolls.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Several minor artifacts, as well. (Tomes of stat boosting, maybe Philosopher's Stone, that cold-damage thrown orb in the Epic Level Handbook, etc.)

[hogarth]

I don't mind single use items, but that's probably because most games I play in tend to only last a few levels; there's no advantage in being the richest PC when the campaign ends.

It should go without saying, but here's my philosophy: If you're going to use a non-combat magic item only once, then a single-use item is perfect for the job.

[RandomCasualty2]

I have no problem with them as 2nd edition style bonus treasure, where you get a scroll and you can use it whenever, but when you do, it's gone. That's kind of cool, and lets you give PCs a powerful one shot item.

One shot items have problems when they interact with wealth by level systems though. The problem is that your character wealth determines your power (at least partly). One shot items have the problem that they are like setting your wealth on fire. Every one shot item that you use is actually wealth that you're losing. Now there are either two options. You get that wealth back after you use the item, or you don't. If the first is true, then one shot items are awesome, and pretty much all you should ever use. If the second is true, then one shot items suck because they're causing a drop in power level later, and you should only considering keeping a few for real emergencies.

I've always been in favor just dumping the consumables entirely in a wealth by level system, and any consumables you do have should have a trivial cost (like bullets or arrows).

[hogarth]

I have no problem with them as 2nd edition style bonus treasure, where you get a scroll and you can use it whenever, but when you do, it's gone. That's kind of cool, and lets you give PCs a powerful one shot item.

One shot items have problems when they interact with wealth by level systems though. The problem is that your character wealth determines your power (at least partly). One shot items have the problem that they are like setting your wealth on fire. Every one shot item that you use is actually wealth that you're losing. Now there are either two options. You get that wealth back after you use the item, or you don't. If the first is true, then one shot items are awesome, and pretty much all you should ever use. If the second is true, then one shot items suck because they're causing a drop in power level later, and you should only considering keeping a few for real emergencies.

I thought you were completely missing the point, but you redeemed yourself with your last sentence. One shot items are perfect for emergencies and rare occurences. That's their niche, and they fill it just fine.

One thing that I find people sometimes overlook when they say "Expendables lower your wealth permanently!" is that permanent items lower your wealth permanently, too. I.e., you can only sell them for half price. So if you acquire a pair of Boots of Levitation (say, just for example), that's 7,500 gp worth of wealth, 3,750 gp of which is gone permanently. So it's no different (in terms of overall wealth) than buying 12 potions/oils of Levitate (although the boots are much more convenient to activate, of course).

[angelfromanotherpin]

So if you acquire a pair of Boots of Levitation (say, just for example), that's 7,500 gp worth of wealth, 3,750 gp of which is gone permanently.

Why on earth would this be true? You paid someone 7,500 gp for them, so it stands to reason that somebody else might very well pay you 7,500 gp for them. It's not like they acquired wear or lost potency while you were owning them. That magic merchants engage in ridiculous price-fixing while somehow preventing the PCs from ever meeting any of their other customers is one of the key points of 4e economic breakdown.

[RandomCasualty2]

One thing that I find people sometimes overlook when they say "Expendables lower your wealth permanently!" is that permanent items lower your wealth permanently, too. I.e., you can only sell them for half price. So if you acquire a pair of Boots of Levitation (say, just for example), that's 7,500 gp worth of wealth, 3,750 gp of which is gone permanently. So it's no different (in terms of overall wealth) than buying 12 potions/oils of Levitate (although the boots are much more convenient to activate, of course).

Well no, because generally you plan around that sort of thing. Magic weapons and armor can be upgraded instead of just sold. So you keep bringing your +1 sword to a +2 sword and a +3 sword, and so on instead of selling/buying. The same with other plus items, like cloaks of resistance. You don't lose any money by upgrading.

Other items can be circumvented via planning. For the most part, you aren't going to buy an item that's going to become obsolete in 5 levels that you can't upgrade. So you figure, you really aren't going to sell much unless you didn't plan well enough.

[hogarth]

One thing that I find people sometimes overlook when they say "Expendables lower your wealth permanently!" is that permanent items lower your wealth permanently, too. I.e., you can only sell them for half price. So if you acquire a pair of Boots of Levitation (say, just for example), that's 7,500 gp worth of wealth, 3,750 gp of which is gone permanently. So it's no different (in terms of overall wealth) than buying 12 potions/oils of Levitate (although the boots are much more convenient to activate, of course).

Well no, because generally you plan around that sort of thing. Magic weapons and armor can be upgraded instead of just sold. So you keep bringing your +1 sword to a +2 sword and a +3 sword, and so on instead of selling/buying. The same with other plus items, like cloaks of resistance. You don't lose any money by upgrading.

What do you mean? You still can't get 100% of that money back, even if you wanted to. It's permanently invested.

Like I said in my example above, suppose Mr. X gets a pair of Boots of Levitation and he uses it 12 times over the course of his adventuring career. On the other hand, Mr. Y gets 7500 in cash and squanders 3600 gp on 12 potions of Levitation and uses them all over the course of his adventuring career. Who is richer when the campaign ends -- Mr. X or Mr. Y? Please show all of your work.

[Lich-Loved]

One shot items are perfect for emergencies and rare occurences. That's their niche, and they fill it just fine.

This is all well and good to say, but there is nothing that enforces this idea. For example, the fighter in the game I run (spiked chain tripper) buys potions of displacement rather than investing in armor (his AC is something like 21 or 22 at 8th level). I believe he is currently saving up some cash to get a wand of displacement so the rogue or wizard can place it on him for less per casting. He only uses this on tough fights, but it seems to work fine for him.

[hogarth]

One shot items are perfect for emergencies and rare occurences. That's their niche, and they fill it just fine.

This is all well and good to say, but there is nothing that enforces this idea. For example, the fighter in the game I run (spiked chain tripper) buys potions of displacement rather than investing in armor (his AC is something like 21 or 22 at 8th level). I believe he is currently saving up some cash to get a wand of displacement so the rogue or wizard can place it on him for less per casting. He only uses this on tough fights, but it seems to work fine for him.

A permanent, command word activation item that duplicates a spell costs CL x SL x 1800 gp, half of which is permanently consumed. A potion of the same spell costs CL x SL x 50 gp, and a scroll of the same thing costs CL x SL x 25 gp.

So clearly the break-even point is 1800/2/50 = 18 potions or 1800/2/25 = 36 scrolls. So if you activate your item more than 18 times, you're better off getting the item than the potions, and if you activate your item more than 36 times, you're better off getting the item than the scrolls.

Obviously this glosses over many issues (e.g. potions/scrolls suck to use in combat, pearls of power are better than scrolls in some cases, some DMs allow you to double your wealth by crafting items, some permanent items like Rings of Invisibility have a "tax" on the permanent item version, etc.).

[Manxome]

One thing that I find people sometimes overlook when they say "Expendables lower your wealth permanently!" is that permanent items lower your wealth permanently, too. I.e., you can only sell them for half price.

So?

Expendables lowering your wealth permanently isn't a problem because it is (or isn't) different from other items, it's a problem because if wealth affects your character power, then characters of ostensibly equal power need to have the same wealth. If some PCs are better than others because they were more frugal 5 levels ago, or if the party as a whole is overpowered or underpowered because they squandered too little or too much wealth, or if new PCs created at level X have more or less wealth than organic PCs created at level 1 and played up until level X, then you've got a balance problem in your system.

If permanent magic items actually behave in effectively the same way, that means that they need to be fixed too, not that it must not be a problem after all.

Now, if you can somehow ensure that everyone suffers the same permanent decrease in wealth no matter what they do, then that decrease doesn't have to be zero. But it does have to be the same for everyone, or else it stabs the entire wealth-by-level concept in the face.

[hogarth]

Expendables lowering your wealth permanently isn't a problem because it is (or isn't) different from other items, it's a problem because if wealth affects your character power, then characters of ostensibly equal power need to have the same wealth.
[...]
If permanent magic items actually behave in effectively the same way, that means that they need to be fixed too, not that it must not be a problem after all.

Of course. It's long been known that the wealth-by-level guidelines have serious problems; that's hardly a revelation. I'm just pointing out that expendables aren't unique in causing a problem; any item you buy (rather than craft) effectively causes a permanent loss of wealth.

[angelfromanotherpin]

A permanent, command word activation item that duplicates a spell costs CL x SL x 1800 gp, half of which is permanently consumed.

I still want to know where you are getting the bolded part from. At all.

[hogarth]

A permanent, command word activation item that duplicates a spell costs CL x SL x 1800 gp, half of which is permanently consumed.

I still want to know where you are getting the bolded part from. At all.

Consumed in the difference between crafting cost and market price. That's assuming you use the D&D rules that you can only sell an item for 50% of its market price. If you allow your players to sell items for 100% of what they purchased them for, then of course permanent items will be superior in every case.

[Roy]

But how often does anyone choose to buy an item they don't intend to hold onto? Maybe at low levels you might, but by definition that also makes the cost trivial.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Consumed in the difference between crafting cost and market price. That's assuming you use the D&D rules that you can only sell an item for 50% of its market price.

I don't get it. The crafting cost is also 50% of the market price. That sounds a lot like a wash to me, even assuming the incredibly hostile market conditions posited.

I'll admit that it's been a while since I wasn't using the Book of Gears setup, but where is that 50% sale rule from?

[RandomCasualty2]

But how often does anyone choose to buy an item they don't intend to hold onto? Maybe at low levels you might, but by definition that also makes the cost trivial.

Yeah seriously. Anything you care about you're either going to upgrade or keep at later levels if you have any character planning at all.

The majority of items that end up in the sell bin are the ones that the DM hands out as treasure, not items you buy and then decide to trade in for something else.

I mean most of the gear in 3.5 is plus gear anyway. So you're going to be upgrading (not trading in) your cloak of resisance, gauntlets of strength, ring of protection, amulet of natural armor, headband of intelligence and magic weapons anyway.

[hogarth]

But how often does anyone choose to buy an item they don't intend to hold onto? Maybe at low levels you might, but by definition that also makes the cost trivial.

Maybe if you get a so-so item in treasure and use it for a while before you sell it, or if the item becomes obsolete (e.g. winged boots replaced by a permanent flight ability).

But you're still not getting my simple point: If your campaign has an end point, it makes no difference (in terms of power level, and all other things being equal) if your character has all kinds of nifty magic items when the game ends or if he has to be buried naked in a pauper's grave. If you end the game with a pair of winged boots that you only used 3 times, you got ripped off; you could have bought 3 potions of Fly instead and used your wealth for something else.

[Roy]

But how often does anyone choose to buy an item they don't intend to hold onto? Maybe at low levels you might, but by definition that also makes the cost trivial.

Maybe if you get a so-so item in treasure and use it for a while before you sell it, or if the item becomes obsolete (e.g. winged boots replaced by a permanent flight ability).

But you're still not getting my simple point: If your campaign has an end point, it makes no difference (in terms of power level, and all other things being equal) if your character has all kinds of nifty magic items when the game ends or if he has to be buried naked in a pauper's grave. If you end the game with a pair of winged boots that you only used 3 times, you got ripped off; you could have bought 3 potions of Fly instead and used your wealth for something else.

That is one of those things that fall under poor planning.

As for the end point, either you don't know when it is (in which case, you ensure you have what you need when you need it), you do know when it is OOC but can't act on it without being smacked for metagaming, or you do know IC... because the final boss appeared, except by this time you've already decided one way or the other how you want to handle it.

If you die before the end because you didn't get flight boots, you Fail. If for whatever reason you buy them 15 seconds before endgame, it doesn't matter since you're done anyways.

Angel: It's because he's assuming it counts as 100% of its price WBL wise... meaning any time you get an item no one wants, half that value is getting wasted. But yes you can craft for 50%, and then sell for 50% and break even cash wise. You'll lose some XP in the process, but Experience is a River.

RC: It might come up on a few low level items such as Healing Belt into Belt of Battle and Strength. Or Steadfast Boots into Boots of Speed/Winged Boots/Short distance teleport item.

But yeah. A fuckload of random treasure ends up as gold fodder, especially if treasure is only being pulled from the DMG simply because DMG items that are not +x to y stat or extra storage space are almost always stupidly overpriced for what they do, just plain useless, or both. But even the staple items get sold a lot because the enemies have them to stay on the RNG... thus they're likely inferior to your own models, with the chance of finding upgrades being rather low. This is also why, even if you have a Genre Savvy world where enemies actually pick out their gear, same as the PCs you still encounter a lot of gold fodder.

Now let's discuss how Legacy Sacred Cows lead to the Epic Fail that is expecting anyone to invest high five digits into 'Will DC 16 negates' stuff.

[hogarth]

As for the end point, either you don't know when it is (in which case, you ensure you have what you need when you need it), you do know when it is OOC but can't act on it without being smacked for metagaming, or you do know IC... because the final boss appeared, except by this time you've already decided one way or the other how you want to handle it.

That may well be true in your experience, but in the past 25 years I have never played in a campaign that lasted more than 5 levels; while past performance is not indicative of futures results, I can still make an educated guess at this sort of thing. And I`ve never had a DM accuse me of metagaming for buying a potion or scroll!

[CatharzGodfoot]

So you're going to be upgrading (not trading in) your cloak of resisance, gauntlets of strength, ring of protection, amulet of natural armor, headband of intelligence and magic weapons anyway.

Where are the rules for upgrading magic items? I can never seem to find them.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

That may well be true in your experience, but in the past 25 years I have never played in a campaign that lasted more than 5 levels...

In the past 10 years I've only had one campaign that DIDN'T last greater than 5 levels, and it was a one-off 3.0 at level 20.

Of course, I've only had one campaign above level 13 (the above).

[Username17]

But how often does anyone choose to buy an item they don't intend to hold onto? Maybe at low levels you might, but by definition that also makes the cost trivial.

Like all the time. Sure there's an occasional item you'd keep for your whole life (like when the Hurler Rogue gets a Ring of Blink), but the vast majority of items are not like that. Taken over any extended time frame, boots are going to be replaced two or three times. Armor likewise.

And that's before we consider the extremely real chance that we'd get a bigger bonus item version of something we were using and have to sell the old one. You don't always get all your wealth in piles of gold that you pump into making your same Cloak of Resistance +1 into a +2, a +3, and ultimately a +5 version. Often you just find a +3 version and your +2 one gets sold.

In the D&D standard adventuring package, you have 13 encounters per level, four of them per day. If you have an item that is usable once per day and will be obsolete in 3 levels (like say, boots of haste or whatever), then it will be used a total of 9 to 12 times before you unload it for whatever you can get. That's a worse return on your cash than just purchasing potions of heroism and using them intermittently.

The Wealth System in D&D blows. But the fact is that potions are not the "traps" that people think they are. In reality, purchasing permanent items of almost any kind is the trap, and the relatively good deal is getting wands. Weird but true. And that's before we take into account the fact that DMs are literally encouraged to hand out more treasure to parties who use more potions.

-Username17