D&D Rambling. The "Christmas Tree Effect" is Realism(TM)

[johnbragg]

The dreaded Christmas Tree effect, where our bold heroes are benefiting from and encumbered by a ridiculous variety and amount of magic items, including a sizable number that aren't even currently equipped but stored away "just in case" in extradimensional storage.

But consider the amount of personal electronics most of us have, now many chargers must be/ should be plugged in. Phones, handheld game systems, cameras, portable DVD player for the car (completely unoptimized purchase, but the DM of the setting doesn't even give HALF book value for selling it). Desktop computers, 2 printers, industrial shredder, wireless router, window air conditioning unit, flashlights, alarm clock. (I'm on a trip with my children to visit grandparents, and all of the items in that paragraph either came on the trip or are within sight of me as I type this.)

So maybe we could cut the D&D rogue with a half-dozen different +1 shortswords with different bane and element-damage properties some slack.

[Blue Lantern]

Somewhat relevant (http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/b/be/God_kills_catgirl.gif/revision/latest?cb=20060605112731)

[Millstone85]

I don't know about this comparison with modern devices, but to me it seems just as right for the heroes to have:
* no magic items
* few magic items
* many magic items, collected in dangerous places or as rewards for great deeds
* many magic items, purchased from various stores or individuals
* a mix of the above, depending on the relative power of the items

The Christmas-tree rogue could be an average adventurer in a high-magic setting, or a truly epic adventurer in a setting where the general populace doesn't normally see this many magic items.

It is just a choice the DM has to make about their campaign.

Of course, 4e was written with Christmas trees as the base assumption, while 5e was written with optional magic items. The latter does seem wiser, I guess.

[Theoboldi]

I think this analogy falls flat, mostly because in many settings magic items just are not comparable to your average technology. Most of the personal technology we have are widely available, mass-produced items.

They're useful, and have abilities similar to many of the lower-level magic items in D&D, but really they're more comparable to the mundane adventuring equipment adventurers carry around. You know, stuff like ropes, waterskins, backpacks, silvered weapons, grappling hooks, etc.

Magic items are not like that in many settings. In many settings, the spellcasters who can produce them are supposed to be extremely rare, with the methods to producing these items sometimes being either lost to time or taking a lifetime of work for even a single piece of equipment, with some even being of direct divine origin. In those settings, owning a magical sword could be compared to owning an original Stradivarius instrument in real life.

Of course, in other settings like Eberron, magic items are more widespread and easily produced, so the analogy does make sense there. Though realistically I'd more compare it to military hardware or the equipment of special ops units even in those settings, and I have no idea why something as dangerous as a candle of demon summoning or a necklace of fireballs is available publicly. :smalltongue:

The christmas tree effect in general, I think, is not disliked because it is unrealistic, but rather because it causes something of a shift in the tone of a setting, and makes magic items feel less special. It makes sense for adventurers to be decked out in magical equipment if it is freely available and easily paid for, but many people, me included, want magical items to feel more rare and special than that.

[Anymage]

It's pretty widely known that in D&D, spells and magic items are the two primary sources of special rules that define interaction with the world. Ability/skill checks are rather paltry by comparison, while attack rolls obviously have a limited use. So it's not that stat booster items in 3.x or the implicit math of 4e's bonuses are intrinsically bad. It's when your spell list and gear list are the most defining parts of who you are and what you can do.

There's also an implied setting issue with christmas trees. 2e was infamous for claiming low magic settings ... where +1 swords dropped like candy and every town guard had mid-level casters to ensure that the PCs could be dealt with if they got out of hand. If you embrace having a lot of magic around, good on you. Just realize that such settings will have a hard time holding on to the popular pseudo medieval europe that's so popular.

[Cluedrew]

I think Eberron was actually an attempt to apply that logic. What happens when a setting that can produce magically items go through the industrial age? Eberron is one answer. Now I'm curious about what happens when it goes through the information age.

Anyways, I feel that the Christmas Tree Effect is an issue when that logic is backported to setting where it does not make sense. I've read a lot of D&D inspired fiction for instance, right now I can only remember 1 magic sword, and a half dozen other magic items. A lot of the time I feel that is what they were going for, but they missed it.

[Darth Ultron]

The problem really is not the X-mas Tree, the problem is the huge shift in power level.

I have always liked characters with lot of magic items....but that is like two dozen small, weak, simple items, and maybe like two medium power ones.

And that is the huge problem: Players will automatically want all powerful items.

Just look at any ''must have list'' for that type of player and it is filled with powerful items. It's worse as some items have crazy prices and baddy written text and crazy broken abilities.

A player is not happy with ''this magic sack weighs half of what you put in it'', they want like three portable warehouses.

That is the problem.

[woweedd]

I tend to use the Christmas Tree effect for balancing purposes, vis-a-vis making sure that materials can still stand on a somewhat even keel with their spellcasting counterparts by making sure that, around the same time the Wizard starts overtaking them in usefulness, I give a bunch of magic items that only they can use effectively in order to give them the same versatility. Magic Swords, Magic Armor, ETC. Right when the Wizard reaches level 10, the Fighter starts finding stuff like the Helm of Water Breathing or the Boots of Jumping, ETC. It helps that, in my setting, most Fighters worth their salt use magic items of some variety, meaning that magic items for Fighters are pretty common.

[Arbane]

I'd say the problem is how gear-centric D&D tend to be, and it's been like that since 1st edition. "+1 or better to hit", anyone? Since non-spellcaster abilities are pretty sharply limited, everyone who's not Dr. Strange has to become Iron Man to keep up.

[Lord Raziere]

The dreaded Christmas Tree effect, where our bold heroes are benefiting from and encumbered by a ridiculous variety and amount of magic items, including a sizable number that aren't even currently equipped but stored away "just in case" in extradimensional storage.

But consider the amount of personal electronics most of us have, now many chargers must be/ should be plugged in. Phones, handheld game systems, cameras, portable DVD player for the car (completely unoptimized purchase, but the DM of the setting doesn't even give HALF book value for selling it). Desktop computers, 2 printers, industrial shredder, wireless router, window air conditioning unit, flashlights, alarm clock. (I'm on a trip with my children to visit grandparents, and all of the items in that paragraph either came on the trip or are within sight of me as I type this.)

So maybe we could cut the D&D rogue with a half-dozen different +1 shortswords with different bane and element-damage properties some slack.

Oh my god is there is so many things wrong with this, where do I even start?

1. I only take my iphone with me when I go out a vast majority of the time, and its pretty much all I ever need. so your wrong there.

2. DnD is medieval fantasy. medieval ages didn't have our level of industrialization, as in, NONE. on top of that wizards are supposed to be RARE. that means they are not people that CAN mass-produce these things. the only people who should be even remotely capable of achieving the christmas tree effect are nobility who can pay for it and have a wizard on hand. and even then, that is not the wisest investment for a noble, considering they manage their lands and whatnot.

comparing the two is just pointing out how stupidly anachronistic and badly designed DnD is about this.

3. This is just another symptom of DnD 3.5 tactics that make people think that this is somehow desirable, intentionally designed for, or the norm for all settings. well aside from Eberron, but there is a reason why its Eberron and not other settings.

4. If I wanted to play super-gadget inventory user, here is a bunch of roleplaying games I can already do that with that make more sense than DnD:
-Shadowrun
-Eclipse Phase
-Mutants and Masterminds 3e
-Warhammer 40,000
-Nova Praxis
-Mage: The Ascension
-Mindjammer
-probably various other sci-fi rpgs I don't know about.

so no, I'm not cutting them slack. they get slack when DnD either just admits that its not a medieval fantasy and makes it modern warfare but with swords and wizards, or discards the ridiculous magic and the ridiculous amount of magic items to be actual medieval fantasy.

[woweedd]

Oh my god is there is so many things wrong with this, where do I even start?

1. I only take my iphone with me when I go out a vast majority of the time, and its pretty much all I ever need. so your wrong there.

2. DnD is medieval fantasy. medieval ages didn't have our level of industrialization, as in, NONE. on top of that wizards are supposed to be RARE. that means they are not people that CAN mass-produce these things. the only people who should be even remotely capable of achieving the christmas tree effect are nobility who can pay for it and have a wizard on hand. and even then, that is not the wisest investment for a noble, considering they manage their lands and whatnot.

comparing the two is just pointing out how stupidly anachronistic and badly designed DnD is about this.

3. This is just another symptom of DnD 3.5 tactics that make people think that this is somehow desirable, intentionally designed for, or the norm for all settings. well aside from Eberron, but there is a reason why its Eberron and not other settings.

4. If I wanted to play super-gadget inventory user, here is a bunch of roleplaying games I can already do that with that make more sense than DnD:
-Shadowrun
-Eclipse Phase
-Mutants and Masterminds 3e
-Warhammer 40,000
-Nova Praxis
-Mage: The Ascension
-Mindjammer
-probably various other sci-fi rpgs I don't know about.

so no, I'm not cutting them slack. they get slack when DnD either just admits that its not a medieval fantasy and makes it modern warfare but with swords and wizards, or discards the ridiculous magic and the ridiculous amount of magic items to be actual medieval fantasy.
It's called a high-magic setting, look it up.

[Lord Raziere]

It's called a high-magic setting, look it up.

I have not read a single high fantasy setting that does it.

I love me my high fantasies. what your talking about is magitech.

[woweedd]

I have not read a single high fantasy setting that does it.

I love me my high fantasies. what your talking about is magitech.
The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Lord Raziere]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

no, high fantasy has wizards and magic just as rare a low fantasy ones. the only difference is power.

magitech is when you make it common, different from high fantasy. because then its sci-fi with magic.

[woweedd]

no, high fantasy has wizards and magic just as rare a low fantasy ones. the only difference is power.

magitech is when you make it common, different from high fantasy. because then its sci-fi with magic.
You seem to be very interested in putting things into boxes. There can be low-fantasy Magitech and high-fantasy Magitech.

[TheYell]

LOTR is high fantasy but low magic, in fact Celeborn spurns the idea of magic. Their elf-cloaks are just well-made , if you believe that a kind of magic.

I thought high-magic described a setting where lots of magic items are available, it's magitech if they duplicate/replace electronics.

[Vitruviansquid]

The dreaded Christmas Tree effect, where our bold heroes are benefiting from and encumbered by a ridiculous variety and amount of magic items, including a sizable number that aren't even currently equipped but stored away "just in case" in extradimensional storage.

But consider the amount of personal electronics most of us have, now many chargers must be/ should be plugged in. Phones, handheld game systems, cameras, portable DVD player for the car (completely unoptimized purchase, but the DM of the setting doesn't even give HALF book value for selling it). Desktop computers, 2 printers, industrial shredder, wireless router, window air conditioning unit, flashlights, alarm clock. (I'm on a trip with my children to visit grandparents, and all of the items in that paragraph either came on the trip or are within sight of me as I type this.)

So maybe we could cut the D&D rogue with a half-dozen different +1 shortswords with different bane and element-damage properties some slack.

All of these electronic devices are meant to be put in pockets, cars, or a room. You can easily own all of those without feeling burdened.

Swords are meant to be worn on your hip, or at worst, on your back if you don't anticipate needing easy access to it. It would look pretty silly to go on an adventure wearing a skirt made completely of sword sheathes.

[Lord Raziere]

You seem to be very interested in putting things into boxes. There can be low-fantasy Magitech and high-fantasy Magitech.

No magitech is just magitech. sci-fi with magic. aka if High fantasy actually made sense rather than being high fantasy.

low fantasy and high fantasy are completely different genres from the magitech genre.

[woweedd]

No magitech is just magitech. sci-fi with magic. aka if High fantasy actually made sense rather than being high fantasy.

low fantasy and high fantasy are completely different genres from the magitech genre.
In my view, high magic-low magic should be considered separately from high fantasy-low fantasy, with the first measuring the availability of magic, and the second measuring how powerful that magic is.

[Lord Raziere]

In my view, high magic-low magic should be considered separately from high fantasy-low fantasy, with the first measuring the availability of magic, and the second measuring how powerful that magic is.

ok cool.

Magitech is neither of those axises because its a different genre where its already common because its treated like technology, and if thats true, it has be powerful enough to be industrialized so not weak, and fantasy is a genre thats all about rejecting the enlightenment and modern ideas for medieval romanticism, so its not magitech, because Magitech isn't medieval and is drawing upon Enlightenment ideals rather than romantic ones, so its not fantasy but Sci-Fi with magic.

[woweedd]

ok cool.

Magitech is neither of those axises because its a different genre where its already common because its treated like technology, and if thats true, it has be powerful enough to be industrialized so not weak, and fantasy is a genre thats all about rejecting the enlightenment and modern ideas for medieval romanticism, so its not magitech, because Magitech isn't medieval and is drawing upon Enlightenment ideals rather than romantic ones, so its not fantasy but Sci-Fi with magic.
Again, you seem very obsessed with drawing arbitrary lines between concepts.

[Morty]

Realism doesn't enter into it. Magic isn't real. It can be whatever we want it to be. The "Christmas tree effect" is widely denounced because of how it affects the game experience, not because it's "unrealistic". That it can make a fantasy world resemble the technology-saturated modern times is, incidentally, one of the ways where it does that.

Besides, PCs having a long list of magic knick-knacks has very little to do with the ubiquity, or lack thereof, of magic items in the setting at large. Adventures are filthy rich, and for most people in the world, only the most common magic items will be affordable. Which does raise some implications D&D is completely unprepared to deal with, but is a different issue than a level >6 character having a list of magic items they're expected to have.

[Lord Raziere]

Again, you seem very obsessed with drawing arbitrary lines between concepts.

No.

high fantasy high magic isn't magitech, because fantasy is about romantic ideals. one of those ideals is "technology is bad, the true power is within yourself." this is not arbitrary, this is how the genres have always worked. high magic high fantasy as you define it, wouldn't be magitech. there is no reason for them to be the same thing either. high magic high fantasy would be very polytheistic/animist kind of setting where the true power is within yourself your divine spark is your power and yadda yadda yadda, basically wuxia, or reality warpers living in an unstable constantly changing universe because everyone is reality warpers, why need tech when your magic is from within and all around you as animistic spirits?

low fantasy low magic is A Song of Ice and Fire, or Redwall if you want a lighter example.

Low magic High fantasy is your normal Heroic Fantasy setting where wizards and knights fight dragons to protect the common folk who don't have any power themselves.

High magic low fantasy doesn't exist, because no one has written it. magic would exist and be common place, but its too weak to be heroic fantasy. I guess have fun with your little charms and minor effects everywhere while fighters do all the real work?

but magitech is an Enlightenment kind of concept, a product of treating magic like science and technology, which magic isn't. its a viable genre, but not fantasy, which is a romantic thing. if your wand is no different from a gun, all your playing is magical sci-fi. I'd love to play sci-fi with magic, but I'm not going to pretend its fantasy.

[woweedd]

No.

high fantasy high magic isn't magitech, because fantasy is about romantic ideals. one of those ideals is "technology is bad, the true power is within yourself." this is not arbitrary, this is how the genres have always worked. high magic high fantasy as you define it, wouldn't be magitech. there is no reason for them to be the same thing either. high magic high fantasy would be very polytheistic/animist kind of setting where the true power is within yourself your divine spark is your power and yadda yadda yadda, basically wuxia, or reality warpers living in an unstable constantly changing universe because everyone is reality warpers, why need tech when your magic is from within and all around you as animistic spirits?

low fantasy low magic is A Song of Ice and Fire, or Redwall if you want a lighter example.

Low magic High fantasy is your normal Heroic Fantasy setting where wizards and knights fight dragons to protect the common folk who don't have any power themselves.

High magic low fantasy doesn't exist, because no one has written it. magic would exist and be common place, but its too weak to be heroic fantasy. I guess have fun with your little charms and minor effects everywhere while fighters do all the real work?

but magitech is an Enlightenment kind of concept, a product of treating magic like science and technology, which magic isn't. its a viable genre, but not fantasy, which is a romantic thing. if your wand is no different from a gun, all your playing is magical sci-fi. I'd love to play sci-fi with magic, but I'm not going to pretend its fantasy.
i mean...I can name stuff that is indisputably sci-fi, yet is also very Romantic. Cyberpunk is, generally, all about how technology and modernism consume your soul, yet it's still sci-fi.

[FreddyNoNose]

I'd say the problem is how gear-centric D&D tend to be, and it's been like that since 1st edition. "+1 or better to hit", anyone? Since non-spellcaster abilities are pretty sharply limited, everyone who's not Dr. Strange has to become Iron Man to keep up.

+1 to hit is perfectly valid.

[Lord Raziere]

i mean...I can name stuff that is indisputably sci-fi, yet is also very Romantic. Cyberpunk is, generally, all about how technology and modernism consume your soul, yet it's still sci-fi.

Ahem. A land in darkness and corruption. a lone hero rises up to be the last surviving person of morality and decency, in a land of soulless sin ruled by an overlord preying upon peoples worst impulses and basest instincts. the lone hero despite all the hardships around him goes to overthrow the tyrant to restore morality to the land.

am I talking about a wuxia hero skilled in martial arts trying to take down a corrupt emperor or a cyberpunk hero skilled in hacking trying to take down a megacorp?

Cyberpunks just another fantasy. one where your the one remaining person clinging to good ol' ways fighting against an evil overlord. an edgy rebellious fantasy, but a fantasy nonetheless.

[woweedd]

Ahem. A land in darkness and corruption. a lone hero rises up to be the last surviving person of morality and decency, in a land of soulless sin ruled by an overlord preying upon peoples worst impulses and basest instincts. the lone hero despite all the hardships around him goes to overthrow the tyrant to restore morality to the land.

am I talking about a wuxia hero skilled in martial arts trying to take down a corrupt emperor or a cyberpunk hero skilled in hacking trying to take down a megacorp?

Cyberpunks just another fantasy. one where your the one remaining person clinging to good ol' ways fighting against an evil overlord. an edgy rebellious fantasy, but a fantasy nonetheless.
Ok, I think I see the problem. You're focusing more on the base, underlying philosophy of the genre, whereas i'm focusing a bit more on the surface-level aesthetics.

[Lord Raziere]

Ok, I think I see the problem. You're focusing more on the base, underlying philosophy of the genre, whereas i'm focusing a bit more on the surface-level aesthetics.

Well to me, whats really important?

some aesthetic? I can make that aesthetic in any genre I want.

the underlying message and philosophy however- thats far more important, and therefore worthy of being the genre itself. comedy isn't an aesthetic. drama isn't an aesthetic. horror has many aesthetics, but isn't the aesthetic itself. action isn't an aesthetic- it can take many forms.

if fantasy and sci-fi are to be genres, they have to be more than aesthetics. fantasy is useful for stories about the inner problems of people. sci-fi is useful for stories about society.

[woweedd]

Well to me, whats really important?

some aesthetic? I can make that aesthetic in any genre I want.

the underlying message and philosophy however- thats far more important, and therefore worthy of being the genre itself. comedy isn't an aesthetic. drama isn't an aesthetic. horror has many aesthetics, but isn't the aesthetic itself. action isn't an aesthetic- it can take many forms.

if fantasy and sci-fi are to be genres, they have to be more than aesthetics. fantasy is useful for stories about the inner problems of people. sci-fi is useful for stories about society.

Well, remember, up until very recently, Fantasy and Sci-Fi weren't even considered separate genres. They, alongside Horror, were usually filed under the broad category of "Speculative Fiction."

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well to me, whats really important?

some aesthetic? I can make that aesthetic in any genre I want.

the underlying message and philosophy however- thats far more important, and therefore worthy of being the genre itself. comedy isn't an aesthetic. drama isn't an aesthetic. horror has many aesthetics, but isn't the aesthetic itself. action isn't an aesthetic- it can take many forms.

if fantasy and sci-fi are to be genres, they have to be more than aesthetics. fantasy is useful for stories about the inner problems of people. sci-fi is useful for stories about society.

And what do I play if I want to have fun? Or in other words, "Why so serious?"

Really, I play games in part to escape the troubles of real life. To experience the fantastic. To experience things at least in imagination that I would never experience otherwise. Not to have some greater meaning. In my experience, adding "deeper meaning" to fiction is how we got the stultification that is modern literary fiction. All of this genre theorizing is a modern add on to an ancient art.

Add it to your own games, but please keep it out of mine.

[Lord Raziere]

And what do I play if I want to have fun? Or in other words, "Why so serious?"

Really, I play games in part to escape the troubles of real life. To experience the fantastic. To experience things at least in imagination that I would never experience otherwise. Not to have some greater meaning. In my experience, adding "deeper meaning" to fiction is how we got the stultification that is modern literary fiction. All of this genre theorizing is a modern add on to an ancient art.

Add it to your own games, but please keep it out of mine.

Aka fantasy, because fantasy is basically "I'm the special person, I solve everything because of a trait I have no one else does, the rest of the world is just there for me to be a hero in."

doesn't mean I don't find it fun, its just how I define it. by recognizing it, I can apply it in a more widespread self-aware fashion that expands beyond just knights and wizards.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Aka fantasy, because fantasy is basically "I'm the special person, I solve everything because of a trait I have no one else does, the rest of the world is just there for me to be a hero in."

doesn't mean I don't find it fun, its just how I define it. by recognizing it, I can apply it in a more widespread self-aware fashion that expands beyond just knights and wizards.

Woah there. That's a load of projection and bad assumptions. I never said anything like that and you're coming across as super "better than thou" here.

Fantasy to me is simply fiction that
A. Includes elements that are not present in the universe we know.
B. Focuses more on the situation and less on the consequences of the changed reality. That is, magic is a background fact, not the point of the story.

Science fiction mainly changes B to focus more on the mechanics, the why it works this way. You can tell the same basic story in either with no issues. The presentation will change, but not any underlying themes (if indeed any such are present). There's a great Mark Twain quote on the subject I'll have to dig out when I'm not on my phone.

Edit: Here it is:



“Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.
BY ORDER OF THE AUTHOR
per
G.G., CHIEF OF ORDNANCE”


I abhor the High-school English Class "must find a deeper meaning in everything" mode of analysis. Sometimes a story is just a story, a cigar is just a cigar, and that beautiful poem about the transitory nature of life is really just a man trying to get a woman to sleep with him. Going deeper than the text supports tells lots about the analyzer, but not much about the work.

[Arbane]

+1 to hit is perfectly valid.

It's perfectly VALID, sure, but it's the classic AD&D 'You Must Have This Much Magical Stuff To Play". (People complained 4th ed was "Tabletop WoW", but AD&D has gear-checks before they even existed in MMOs!) Often the only noticeable difference between two fighters is what magical gee-gaws they had.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's perfectly VALID, sure, but it's the classic AD&D 'You Must Have This Much Magical Stuff To Play". (People complained 4th ed was "Tabletop WoW", but AD&D has gear-checks before they even existed in MMOs!) Often the only noticeable difference between two fighters is what magical gee-gaws they had.

And this is the form of the Christmas Tree effect that I dislike. The mechanical balancing part. The "you must be this tall to ride this ride" part. Go to an inherent bonus system (like 4e had as a variant rule, and I believe that 3.5 did as well) and let magic items do cool things, not just "change the number on the stat sheet"

[Lord Raziere]

Woah there. That's a load of projection and bad assumptions. I never said anything like that and you're coming across as super "better than thou" here.

Fantasy to me is simply fiction that
A. Includes elements that are not present in the universe we know.
B. Focuses more on the situation and less on the consequences of the changed reality. That is, magic is a background fact, not the point of the story.

Science fiction mainly changes B to focus more on the mechanics, the why it works this way. You can tell the same basic story in either with no issues. The presentation will change, but not any underlying themes (if indeed any such are present). There's a great Mark Twain quote on the subject I'll have to dig out when I'm not on my phone.

Edit: Here it is:



I abhor the High-school English Class "must find a deeper meaning in everything" mode of analysis. Sometimes a story is just a story, a cigar is just a cigar, and that beautiful poem about the transitory nature of life is really just a man trying to get a woman to sleep with him. Going deeper than the text supports tells lots about the analyzer, but not much about the work.

Ok whatever, I never said I was better than you. I just like things to have meaning to me. you just revealed more about yourself by accusing and analyzing me of that, so whatever I guess you demonstrated how your yourself aren't above that flaw you pointed out. Not that any of us are. Oh well.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

I've never seen anyone talk about what you describe. The CTE I've seen discussed is the problem with the rules where everyone is expected by the game to have loaded themselves down with stat-boosting items so they light up like a Christmas tree under Detect Magic and can't properly function without them.

[goto124]

It would look pretty silly to go on an adventure wearing a skirt made completely of sword sheathes.

If I weren't on mobile, I could knock up a picture of this on Heromachine :smallbiggrin:

I bet the sheaths are magic and light up under Detect Magic too. If they didn't glow of magic already.

[Florian]

Hm... I think the dreaded X-Mas Tree is the culmination of three separate effects:

1) 3E needs some boring but functional items as the underlying math is based on meeting and exceeding expected numerical values. Instead of being rewarded for having that +1 sword, you´re expected to have it at one point to meet the even perform adequately.

2) Guy at the gym fallacy. You can´t fly, you don´t have the spells to let you fly, but you are expected to fly, therefore you get an item giving you flight.

3) The puzzle effect. Too many things need a direct counter to progress. So: moar items!

So the analogy is a bit wrong. It´s rather like:

Smartphone
- You´re expected to have one at the age of 16, but...
- You enter college, you´re expected to get a second on as teachers and other pupils will only use that number on that specific phone, and...
- You go to university, you´re again expected to get a third one, as again, teachers and co-student also only use that number on that particular phone, and...
- Your employer for any job, part-time along education time and later full-time all expect you to have a new phone with the sole function of they contacting you...

Cars
- You´re expected to have one at age 18, at the latest, but...
- You need a red one of a certain brand, else you can´t go to university, but may only use that one to compute between university and home, and...
- Each and every of your employers expects you to have a car of a certain color and brand that you use solely to compute from home to work, and...
- You may only drive into some cities when using certain car brands...

.... I think it´s clear where this leads.

[Darth Ultron]

But consider the amount of personal electronics most of us have

Well, maybe it should be ''consider the amount of personal electronics most of us have, when we go camping. And by ''camping'' I don't mean at a fancy ten star resort campground with free Wi-Fi, city water and all the comforts of home.

So from your list of ''magic tech'' the only ones you might bring are flashlight, camera, game system and phone (though you won't get a signal and can't call or get one line you can still use the camera and play things like Candy Crush). Though if you plan on camping for more then a day, say like a three day weekend, with nowhere to plug anything in the fancy electronics will be dead weight quickly.

You might bring a watch, a radio, a bug zapper or a GPS doohickey,,,but a fair amount of campers get away with a lot more low tech ways of doing things.

[johnbragg]

OP checking in after a day on the road. (My, that escalated quickly).

No question that the Christmas Tree effect cheapens the value of magic items. Gollum's/Bilbo's/Frodo's Ring is cheapened if anyone can have one for the price of a quality set of full plate. But OTOH, and maybe just to be contrary, the old-school intelligent magic item was often a way for DMs to lead the party around by the nose when they tried to wander off of the railroad. Not to mention that giving a PC a near-artifact item makes that player the star of the story and the other players the supporting cast.

And Realism!(TM) is not (or should not be) an argument-ender for what should and shouldn't be in our magic elfgames. What is reasonable (good god, look at all the stuff my IRL party of five took on a 10-day trip) and what is heroic are not always the same.

Someone argued that my list of items was more like high-end mundane adventurer's equipment than low-end magic items. I don't know that characters in a D&Dverse would see that as an important distinction. The Batman/UMD rogue has plenty of scrolls and potions along with his caltrops, flasks of greek fire, a rope for his unseen servant to carry across the chasm, etc.

On the frontier of mundane and special equipment, I once made a character for a superhero game--a battlesuit pilot who had been a Special Forces soldier and then a contract-soldier, so he had lots of money. When he was assigned to the JV Avengers, he assembled a vest of anything that could come in handy if he were zapped to another planet or whatever. I went through a Brookstone catalogue and a Skymall catalogue for all kinds of possibly useful doodads. Most of which are now available as apps for your phone.

The only mundane equipment he ended up using? After he was EMP'ed, he was plummeting out of the air and took his pain pills, because he expected landing to hurt, a lot.

Darth Ultron: I listed the electronics in the room considering my father's house as the keep the party was based in. When we went to see the Statue of Liberty, we didn't bring most of that stuff. Sure, I'd go with a different, much lighter equipment load if I were camping. If I were camping as part of a hunting trip, which is a little closer to a D&D analogy, that's a different, heavier equipment load.

[Florian]

@johnbragg:

Most of your examples (Power armor, Batman) tie the character to the equipment, with the side effect of rewarding the player for being good at equipment micro-managing.
You can do that an it certainly is rewarding.

It´s also important to take a critical look at what kind of game you want to model and how the character <> items relationship will effect this. Then you have Conan and his sword, Cap and his Shield, Tony and his Suit and Thor and his Hammer. This has to be enough without affecting player agency.

[johnbragg]

@johnbragg:

Most of your examples (Power armor, Batman) tie the character to the equipment, with the side effect of rewarding the player for being good at equipment micro-managing.
You can do that an it certainly is rewarding.

Sure. There's also an argument that a typical 3.5 mid- to high-level adventurer's equipment is an expression of the character's power in the form of GP, which is fairly freely convertible to power in the RAW DMG magic-mart.


It´s also important to take a critical look at what kind of game you want to model and how the character <> items relationship will effect this. Then you have Conan and his sword, Cap and his Shield, Tony and his Suit and Thor and his Hammer. This has to be enough without affecting player agency.

Sadly, almost every poster put more thought into this thread than I did when I started it. I was just killing some time browsing GITP before my family woke up, thinking of everything I needed to remember to pack, and had a stray thought.

(On your spectrum, my superhero character for the one-shot most closely matches Falcon from the MCU. Without the suit, he's not a superhero, but he was chosen for the suit because of his military record and skill. Between the email that constituted Session Zero and the game, I figured he'd think of every possible way to convert money--which he had in abundance--into ways to survive unexpected situations--which JV Avengers encounter in abundance. So to the Brookstone/ Skymall catalogue he/I went, shopping for save-your-life portables like a solar blanket that would fold up and fit in a pocket of a $70 hunting vest chosen for maximum pocket storage)

[Kite474]

The problem really is not the X-mas Tree, the problem is the huge shift in power level.

I have always liked characters with lot of magic items....but that is like two dozen small, weak, simple items, and maybe like two medium power ones.

And that is the huge problem: Players will automatically want all powerful items.

Just look at any ''must have list'' for that type of player and it is filled with powerful items. It's worse as some items have crazy prices and baddy written text and crazy broken abilities.

A player is not happy with ''this magic sack weighs half of what you put in it'', they want like three portable warehouses.

That is the problem.

That's because in part those "magical nick nacks" are incredibly boring. I mean just use your own example, a sack that reduced weight is boring, it still requires you to track weight and in a game without encumbrance its useless.

Compare to the bag of holding which is iconic, powerful, and exciting to own.

I wouldn't call it a problem, i call it basic human instinct

[johnbragg]

That's because in part those "magical nick nacks" are incredibly boring. I mean just use your own example, a sack that reduced weight is boring, it still requires you to track weight and in a game without encumbrance its useless.

Compare to the bag of holding which is iconic, powerful, and exciting to own.

I wouldn't call it a problem, i call it basic human instinct

I don't think a bag of holding is especially exciting to own. It's become standard equipment, except for those who will settle for nothing less than Heward's handy haversack with automatic retrieval.

We're looking at an inversion of Arthur Clarke's dictum that any sufficiently advanced technology is magic. Any "magic" that becomes commonplace loses any wonder and aura of mystery it may have once had.

No matter what magic item you come up with, if it becomes commonplace it's no longer impressive.

[Grod_The_Giant]

To a minor extent, the problem with 3.5's item addiction is that it fundamentally ties a setting-element like wealth to personal/mechanical power. It largely walls off plots and characters for whom wealth (having a lot of it, having none of it, wanting to stockpile it, wanting to do things with it) is a major feature, because the game more-or-less demands that you get a lot of it and invest it in magical gizmos, so that you can keep adventuring as you level up.

To a larger extent, the problem is thematic. Characters in fiction sometimes have a few trademark items, but I honestly can think of anyone as tricked-out as a high level D&D character. Even gadgeteer superheroes usually show more restraint. The artificer is a fine archetype, to be sure... but it shouldn't be required. I should be able to go adventuring with Thog and his Trusty AxeTM, without having to bring along his Trusty Shirt of Minor Magic DewdadsFTS.

Luckily, using automatic bonus progressions of some sort goes a long way towards fixing the problem. At the very least, it puts more emphasis on the interesting ones, like Boots of Flying and such.

[Morty]

On the flipside, 3e-era D&D has a way of making the interesting items a requirement in their own right. The less inherent magic a character has, the more magical gadgets they need just to stay relevant. 5e seems to cut back on it, but I don't know how successful it is.

[Darth Ultron]

That's because in part those "magical nick nacks" are incredibly boring. I mean just use your own example, a sack that reduced weight is boring, it still requires you to track weight and in a game without encumbrance its useless.

Compare to the bag of holding which is iconic, powerful, and exciting to own.

I wouldn't call it a problem, i call it basic human instinct

This is the problem: everything the player wants their character to have must be amazing, powerful and not boring. See that problem?

And it's not human instinct, it's just the viewpoint of a small crowd of people. Millions of humans are happy playing Solitude with a deck of real playing cards and do not ''have" to have the super new super awesome video game system with the super new super awesome video game ''just'' to even think about having fun.

The big Christmas Tree problem comes from the idea that they only way for a character to not only solve problems in game play, but for a character to do anything in game play, is if they have the ability/power/exploit written down on their character sheet.

When a Christmas Tree player type encounters a locked door, they immediately look at their character sheet for a skill/power/ability or magic item to open/by pass/destroy the door. It is very, very, very much being locked into the boring ''you must have the red key to open the red door'' thing you see in video games. The games where that door is indestructible, no matter what you do: it is programed to only open with the red key.

I've seen tons of players just shut down as their character did not have, for example, a wand of knock, so they could ''never open any locked door ever again''.

[DigoDragon]

Bah! Why, back in my day, us adventuring heroes were required to carry at least eight magical treasures to compete our quests!
http://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6yyrqci5u1qzj5ggo1_1280.png


Anyone who wants to cut way back on magic items ought to join my local D&D group. We're a six-person team of level 6-7 adventurers and not a single +1 magic item between us. :smallbiggrin: If we find a potion of Cure Light Wounds or a scroll with a 1st level spell we can use at this point, we consider it a Christmas miracle. The best gear I got is a masterwork composite bow that I can adjust the strength rating for. That's it.

But then here's the problem we have: the GM that isn't giving us magic items hasn't cut back on the power level of any critters he throws our way. There are monsters and dungeon traps my team avoids because we simply do not have the ability to overcome them. A critter with a DR 5/Magic quality goes from being an average threat to a serious encounter because we can barely damage it. The team's Armor Class has not increased since level 1, but monster attack bonuses keep scaling up, so now we get hit consistently at this point. Even the two wizards in the group with their Mage Armor and Shield spells have been at death's door so often they bought a timeshare. XD

D&D to me is designed on the premise the adventuring party is gonna get a lot of fancy magic items so they can overcome tougher encounters further along. I know some players prefer magic to be super rare, and that's fine. I've played in one of those adventures and I had fun. But the GM who ran that took careful consideration with the monsters he used. If you cut back on magic gear, you have to carefully select your monsters because many of them have defenses and combat abilities designed with the idea that a party is going to have the magical gear to defend themselves against that. That's how integral equipment is in my experience.

[Grod_The_Giant]

This is the problem: everything the player wants their character to have must be amazing, powerful and not boring. See that problem?
Yes, how dare the players of a heroic power-fantasy game like D&D want their characters to be special?

[johnbragg]

Yes, how dare the players of a heroic power-fantasy game like D&D want their characters to be special?

When everyone is super.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8I9pYCl9AQ

[Cluedrew]

After all, that is the GM's unique privilege. I mean there are system where not having nice things is part of the game. D&D is not really one of them.

[goto124]

But then here's the problem we have: the GM that isn't giving us magic items hasn't cut back on the power level of any critters he throws our way.

Is this the team full of DnD veterans? That game sounds rather difficult to me!

[DigoDragon]

Is this the team full of DnD veterans? That game sounds rather difficult to me!

Yes, we're all veterans (well, the wizard and GM are questionable), so tactics is all that keeps us alive through some of the encounters. It's a very difficult campaign.

[Arbane]

Yes, we're all veterans (well, the wizard and GM are questionable), so tactics is all that keeps us alive through some of the encounters. It's a very difficult campaign.

Sounds pretty grueling. I hope everything else about it is fun.

Would pointing out to the GM that a single Specter could cause a TPK be a good idea, or a bad idea?
(Well, it might end the campaign sooner...)

Edit: Shadow's probably too weak at 7th level.

[DigoDragon]

Sounds pretty grueling. I hope everything else about it is fun.

Everything else is pretty good. The worldbuilding is actually interesting and has a "Wonderland" feel to it. Gods are very active, but have strict "no direct interference" clauses, so we have amusing incidents of trying to get around that for help. We're actually building up a name for ourselves that has a real mechanical effect when interacting with NPCs, and I have a plan to set up our own headquarters in the main free city of the area. So, other than the occasional mistake the GM makes (like saying the capital city has no carpenter's guild) we just need to get our hands on some magical equipment and we should be able to get through more encounters per day. Might even finally tackle the main quest. We've been totally Skyrim-ing it for a while.

(We know magic gear exists, we've seen things like Ring of the Ram and a Brilliant Energy sword before. Just couldn't get our hands on it)



Would pointing out to the GM that a single Specter could cause a TPK be a good idea, or a bad idea?
(Well, it might end the campaign sooner...)

No idea, but I'm tempted to mention it as the GM doesn't seem to want to stop being GM at the moment. Thus, a threat that could prematurely end his campaign may benefit our argument for equipment. ;)

[Tanarii]

Sure. There's also an argument that a typical 3.5 mid- to high-level adventurer's equipment is an expression of the character's power in the form of GP, which is fairly freely convertible to power in the RAW DMG magic-mart.
Was the Magic Mart RAW in 3.5? It's been a while since I read the books. But I don't remember there being an assumption that players could buy DMG magic items they wanted at the listed price somewhere. Just that they had an associated value.

[goto124]

Off the top of my head, there's nothing in the rules that says they can't buy magic items in a mart. And as others have noted, the 3.5 progression more or less requires magic items to keep up.

[Tanarii]

Off the top of my head, there's nothing in the rules that says they can't buy magic items in a mart. And as others have noted, the 3.5 progression more or less requires magic items to keep up.
Why would a lack of saying that imply that they can buy stuff out of the DMG somewhere? Note I'm not saying they can just thumb through stuff and pick it themselves. I'm saying why would saying nothing on the matter imply the DM was supposed to make it possible for players to find the stuff in the game world, somehow, to buy?

As opposed to meeting the 'required to keep up' by the DM making magic items found in, or rewards for, adventures.

I mean, I'm not saying a lack of specifics should prohibit it. I'm asking:
Was there anything that specified magic marts RAW?

And now I'm also asking: why a lack of something specifying magic marts imply their existence? :smallwink:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why would a lack of saying that imply that they can buy stuff out of the DMG somewhere? Note I'm not saying they can just thumb through stuff and pick it themselves. I'm saying why would saying nothing on the matter imply the DM was supposed to make it possible for players to find the stuff in the game world, somehow, to buy?

As opposed to meeting the 'required to keep up' by the DM making magic items found in, or rewards for, adventures.

I mean, I'm not saying a lack of specifics should prohibit it. I'm asking:
Was there anything that specified magic marts RAW?

And now I'm also asking: why a lack of something specifying magic marts imply their existence? :smallwink:

I am puzzled as well. Everything that exists in a game world exists because the DM put it there. Except when running published adventures strictly by-the-book (which I'm sure some do), I guess. Even then, it was the adventure writer (who is usually not the rules writer) that put it there. The rules mandate the existence of very few things, since everything is "use with the DM's/table's permission," even Core. Especially substantive things like items, classes, and races.

[Tinkerer]

IIRC the lack of mentioning them was a quite deliberate choice since in all of the games they included as little of the world information as possible to allow the GM to set the magic level of the world. In most of the editions they have a section about setting the magic level to anything from non-existent to super high. Of course if the level is set super low that means that things like that aforementioned spectre should be super rare and if they run into one they should be beating a hasty retreat and looking for a way to defeat it. Incidentally that campaign sounds pretty awesome by the way, most of the characters in campaigns that I'm in have pages upon pages of magic items that they never touch on.

[DigoDragon]

Someone asked me if anyone in the party has the spell Magic Weapon, because it'll give our mundane equipment the means to overcome DR X/Magic if it comes down to a fight with such a creature. Hilariously, it just occurred to me that neither of the two wizards have that spell, and of the three PCs that have the clerical capacity to pray for it, none of them do.

Did I say we were all veterans? I want to walk that back a bit for my companions. :smalltongue:


On Magic Marts: If such things exist in my campaigns, it's always limited to the biggest cities on the map, and not as a bazaar or store you walk in with a shopping cart. Usually it'll be in the form of a certain guild that can make/upgrade items to order, and often the PCs pay for it in other magic items they don't want, as rewards by the local ruler or guild for heroic deeds, or in raw special materials they might have found during an adventure (classic example--PCs find a large lump of Adamantine in a dragon's loot. They take it to a famous smith who will buy the lump for the payment of making the fighter a nice Adamantine sword with a +1 enchantment of their choice). Works as a way for PCs to see random artworks and raw materials as valuable commodity to be bartered rather than just pawned for booze and coins.

[Thrudd]

How many magic items an adventurer has is a function of how many such items they are able to get and use, which is a function of the setting.

It is, of course, completely reasonable, in character, that a smart adventurer will want to have as many magic items as possible to help them stay alive and succeed in as many scenarios as possible. So it's "realistic" in the sense that a person in that world would want to be adorned like a Christmas tree if at all possible. As the DM, it's your job to decide what is possible in the setting, the players will react to that.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I mean, I'm not saying a lack of specifics should prohibit it. I'm asking:
Was there anything that specified magic marts RAW?
I don't have access to the DMG to check right now, but I believe that there are some charts that say that in a settlement of X size, you can expect to find items of up to Y value. My memory is that it the language is pretty all-encompassing, but I don't remember off-hand.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't have access to the DMG to check right now, but I believe that there are some charts that say that in a settlement of X size, you can expect to find items of up to Y value. My memory is that it the language is pretty all-encompassing, but I don't remember off-hand.

But that's in the DMG, not the PHB. Thus, DMs have a guide, but players can't necessarily expect those things. That's how I've always understood it, personally. Stuff in the DMG is for DMs, not (necessarily) players.

[Thrudd]

But that's in the DMG, not the PHB. Thus, DMs have a guide, but players can't necessarily expect those things. That's how I've always understood it, personally. Stuff in the DMG is for DMs, not (necessarily) players.

Yep, that's guidelines for DM world building, not player reference. Players should not expect or assume to have access to anything in the DMG.

[Quertus]

I don't think a bag of holding is especially exciting to own. It's become standard equipment, except for those who will settle for nothing less than Heward's handy haversack with automatic retrieval.

We're looking at an inversion of Arthur Clarke's dictum that any sufficiently advanced technology is magic. Any "magic" that becomes commonplace loses any wonder and aura of mystery it may have once had.

No matter what magic item you come up with, if it becomes commonplace it's no longer impressive.

I have long held that, if my signature character, Quertus, had a motto, it would likely be, "any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology".


Yep, that's guidelines for DM world building, not player reference. Players should not expect or assume to have access to anything in the DMG.

Except that that particular line of thought tends to go out the window when creating a character above level 1. The players need to know what the rules are in order to create such a character.

Admittedly, even when allowed to purchase gear by the books, I once started a character without magical gear, with just the cash to purchase said gear. It should have been a great way to get to know the world, make contacts, etc, but unfortunately I flubbed the social part.

[Thrudd]

Except that that particular line of thought tends to go out the window when creating a character above level 1. The players need to know what the rules are in order to create such a character.

Admittedly, even when allowed to purchase gear by the books, I once started a character without magical gear, with just the cash to purchase said gear. It should have been a great way to get to know the world, make contacts, etc, but unfortunately I flubbed the social part.

The DM tells the players rules that are in order for character creation. If they say something is "as in the DMG", or "choose something from pages x-z in the DMG" well that's fine. But players should never assume everything or anything in the DMG is available to them. It's not a player/character creation book, it's a campaign design guide and rules clarifications/options for DMs.

[johnbragg]

The idea that the DMG should be off limits to the players is a very old-school way of thinking. It goes back to a time when books were rarer--we were objectively poorer--and so often the DM was the only one who owned a DMG. (But even back in the prehistoric days of 2nd Edition, my DM slept late one morning after an all-night session, and I read the forbidden text of the DMG.)

With the OGL, and with the aging of the player base (we grew up and got regular paychecks), and with the availability of information online (OGL content, drivethrurpg, stolen pdfs, dodgy wiki sites of D&D information) the default is that everyone can have access to what's in the DMG.

The part of the change in psychology is the reduction of magic item pricing to a regular formula, SL*CL*(item multiple). By that logic, any spell can be converted to a magic item, and with the right feat selection it can be done by the players. So if the players can create an item by RAW, it's just miserly for the DM to prevent them from buying such an item.

That doesn't say that a DM can't make it clear in Session 0 that this campaign doesn't work like that, and give the players some idea how available useful magic items are or aren't going to be (going to hunt a blue dragon, you're going to want items of electricity resistance, etc.)

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't have access to the DMG to check right now, but I believe that there are some charts that say that in a settlement of X size, you can expect to find items of up to Y value. My memory is that it the language is pretty all-encompassing, but I don't remember off-hand.
Ah, here we go.


Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical. While exceptions are certainly possible (a boomtown near a newly discovered mine, a farming community impoverished after a prolonged drought), these exceptions are temporary; all communities will conform to the norm over time.
That's where the magic item mart comes from, I'd say. It's presented in a section of world-building advice, but it's a pretty strong expectation-- the sort of thing you can point to and say "this is how the designers expected the game to work." The game's assumption, not the player's.

[Mr Beer]

How many magic items an adventurer has is a function of how many such items they are able to get and use, which is a function of the setting.

It is, of course, completely reasonable, in character, that a smart adventurer will want to have as many magic items as possible to help them stay alive and succeed in as many scenarios as possible. So it's "realistic" in the sense that a person in that world would want to be adorned like a Christmas tree if at all possible. As the DM, it's your job to decide what is possible in the setting, the players will react to that.

Thanks, stops me from saying exactly this.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ah, here we go.
That's where the magic item mart comes from, I'd say. It's presented in a section of world-building advice, but it's a pretty strong expectation-- the sort of thing you can point to and say "this is how the designers expected the game to work." The game's assumption, not the player's.

Funny. The game designer's expectations don't seem to mean much in other cases... But given that language, I would agree that the designers intended for a magic Mart style. The system also seems to require it (needing +X items to make the math work, etc). I think it's a mistake and bad design, but accept that it seems to be the design intent.

[Tanarii]

My question wasn't specifically in regards to players being able to thumb through the DMG at any point and by what they want. It was in regards to the default assumption for world design being that magic items could be readily available in some locations for purchase. As opposed to the default assumption being that its rare, like 5e.

Ah, here we go.


That's where the magic item mart comes from, I'd say. It's presented in a section of world-building advice, but it's a pretty strong expectation-- the sort of thing you can point to and say "this is how the designers expected the game to work." The game's assumption, not the player's.That's what I was asking about. And I agree, that does imply the expectation is world's created will by default have places where magic items are (in general) available for purchase. Thanks for digging out the reference!

[Quertus]

I think it's a mistake and bad design, but accept that it seems to be the design intent.

Why is it bad design to let the players choose their gear?

Don't get me wrong, I think the random gear of 2e is much more fun, just... even I can't find a way to argue the more fun situation in 2e as "better design".

[Mechalich]

Why is it bad design to let the players choose their gear?

Don't get me wrong, I think the random gear of 2e is much more fun, just... even I can't find a way to argue the more fun situation in 2e as "better design".

The 2e setup wasn't superior, but that doesn't mean that the Christmas Tree is good design. The design of 3.X/PF expects that characters will hit certain wealth markers and they will use that wealth to purchase certain stat-boosting items or they will fall behind in power progression. This locks gameplay onto a peculiar treadmill of acquisition that actually limits player and GM options with regard to gear and encourages the relentless commodification of magical items such that at mid to high levels anything that is not immediately useful and superior to current gear must be traded for gold to meet expectations.

Effectively this turns magic items from an element that may provide for fun storytelling opportunities by giving the party access to unusual abilities or plot-critical McGuffins into an inventory management minigame that is ultimately unnecessary. If you're going to tie advancement to set benchmarks it might as well be inherent, so that everything is on one scale (in games with levels, that scale is level). And there has been a gradual move towards that approach.

[Tanarii]

The 2e setup wasn't superior, but that doesn't mean that the Christmas Tree is good design. The design of 3.X/PF expects that characters will hit certain wealth markers and they will use that wealth to purchase certain stat-boosting items or they will fall behind in power progression. This locks gameplay onto a peculiar treadmill of acquisition that actually limits player and GM options with regard to gear and encourages the relentless commodification of magical items such that at mid to high levels anything that is not immediately useful and superior to current gear must be traded for gold to meet expectations.

Effectively this turns magic items from an element that may provide for fun storytelling opportunities by giving the party access to unusual abilities or plot-critical McGuffins into an inventory management minigame that is ultimately unnecessary. If you're going to tie advancement to set benchmarks it might as well be inherent, so that everything is on one scale (in games with levels, that scale is level). And there has been a gradual move towards that approach.
Which is fine if you loved D&D-derived CRPGs pre-3e, and wanted the TRPG to match that. And wanted CRPGs derived from 3e to actually resemble the TRPG, which want common before that point. I mean, NwN really *felt* like a 3e game played on a computer in a way that the FR/DL line (azure, eye, champions), and later baldur's gate/planscape, never did really feel like the D&D experience. Although that was helped by persistent world's with interactive DMs, of course.

But if you didn't want your TRPG to feel like a CRPG and vice versa, it kinda sucked. At the time, I was heavily into both NWN then WoW and battlemat use carrying over from 2e C&T, so I thought it was the bees knees. Now I'm in a retro/grognard phase, and prefer my D&D to feel like 1e/BECMI, so 5e's way of handling magic items works much better for me. (As do many other aspects.)

Edit: despite what I'm saying here, I think 3e was far more heavily influenced by 2e's Combat and Tactics, and a general desire to make a system that was actually streamlined for battlemat play. Since prior 2e C&T, D&D was a huge mess if you tried to use a battlemat in a seriously tactical way, as opposed to a 'this guy is sorta over here' way.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The 2e setup wasn't superior, but that doesn't mean that the Christmas Tree is good design. The design of 3.X/PF expects that characters will hit certain wealth markers and they will use that wealth to purchase certain stat-boosting items or they will fall behind in power progression. This locks gameplay onto a peculiar treadmill of acquisition that actually limits player and GM options with regard to gear and encourages the relentless commodification of magical items such that at mid to high levels anything that is not immediately useful and superior to current gear must be traded for gold to meet expectations.

Effectively this turns magic items from an element that may provide for fun storytelling opportunities by giving the party access to unusual abilities or plot-critical McGuffins into an inventory management minigame that is ultimately unnecessary. If you're going to tie advancement to set benchmarks it might as well be inherent, so that everything is on one scale (in games with levels, that scale is level). And there has been a gradual move towards that approach.

Agreed. Another effect is the driver toward specialization around items: builds that are scenario breakers if and only if they have certain items. This creates a feedback loop--players build specialized characters, DMs tune scenarios for these characters, players compensate, etc. The end result is that most of the build space is off limits once the optimisation level gets very high at all. Lots of unplayable archetypes and pigeonholed builds (for martial characters at least). Casters get their needs met through spells, so they stay more flexible.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Agreed. Another effect is the driver toward specialization around items: builds that are scenario breakers if and only if they have certain items. This creates a feedback loop--players build specialized characters, DMs tune scenarios for these characters, players compensate, etc. The end result is that most of the build space is off limits once the optimisation level gets very high at all. Lots of unplayable archetypes and pigeonholed builds (for martial characters at least). Casters get their needs met through spells, so they stay more flexible.
I hang out on the 3.5 forums a lot, and I don't think I've ever seen a build centered around specific items.

[kyoryu]

Why is it bad design to let the players choose their gear?

Don't get me wrong, I think the random gear of 2e is much more fun, just... even I can't find a way to argue the more fun situation in 2e as "better design".

"Better design" is not an objective statement. We can only define "better design" in terms of a particular design goal.

The fun of "build an optimized thing" is not the same fun as "make the most of what you get." Pre-3e was designed quite well around "make the most of what you get", while 3e and later has de-emphasized that in favor of "build an optimized thing."

[Grod_The_Giant]

"Better design" is not an objective statement. We can only define "better design" in terms of a particular design goal.

The fun of "build an optimized thing" is not the same fun as "make the most of what you get." Pre-3e was designed quite well around "make the most of what you get", while 3e and later has de-emphasized that in favor of "build an optimized thing."
Either the edition or the prevelance of the internet and gaming forums. I'm no grognard, but my suspicion is that (at least from when the rules started getting more nailed down and standardized) there were and remain a minority of people who are into the theorycrafting and character optimization side of things, and a majority who don't really care about mechanics. It's mostly the former who hang out on forums, so we just seem louder.

[Quertus]

"Better design" is not an objective statement. We can only define "better design" in terms of a particular design goal.

The fun of "build an optimized thing" is not the same fun as "make the most of what you get." Pre-3e was designed quite well around "make the most of what you get", while 3e and later has de-emphasized that in favor of "build an optimized thing."

Hmmm... I consider the "best" design goal to be "allow and facilitate as many play styles as possible." So, what play styles do we have, and how did each edition stack up?

Well, there's my preference, make due with what you've got, no expectation of balance between characters, no expectation of balanced encounters, Combat as War. 2e handled that flawlessly. :smallcool: 3e struggles.

There's build balanced characters for balanced encounters, Combat as Sport. 3e may claim to support this play style, but fails. 2e looks askance at most of these concepts, and struggles to accommodate, but arguably not as hard as 3e does.

And there's lots of other play styles, too, but that seems a bit too far off topic to attempt to discuss them all.

But, honestly, to circle back to the topic at hand, most of my 2e characters lit up like a Christmas tree much more than my 3e characters do. When you have an economy, you tend to sell off all the "worthless" gear, rather than keeping all the "cool" items "just in case".


The 2e setup wasn't superior, but that doesn't mean that the Christmas Tree is good design. The design of 3.X/PF expects that characters will hit certain wealth markers and they will use that wealth to purchase certain stat-boosting items or they will fall behind in power progression. This locks gameplay onto a peculiar treadmill of acquisition that actually limits player and GM options with regard to gear and encourages the relentless commodification of magical items such that at mid to high levels anything that is not immediately useful and superior to current gear must be traded for gold to meet expectations.

Effectively this turns magic items from an element that may provide for fun storytelling opportunities by giving the party access to unusual abilities or plot-critical McGuffins into an inventory management minigame that is ultimately unnecessary. If you're going to tie advancement to set benchmarks it might as well be inherent, so that everything is on one scale (in games with levels, that scale is level). And there has been a gradual move towards that approach.

And how do you propose to implement game balance, without setting benchmarks for what is balanced, and designing the game with that expectation in mind?


Edit: despite what I'm saying here, I think 3e was far more heavily influenced by 2e's Combat and Tactics, and a general desire to make a system that was actually streamlined for battlemat play. Since prior 2e C&T, D&D was a huge mess if you tried to use a battlemat in a seriously tactical way, as opposed to a 'this guy is sorta over here' way.

In all fairness, in 2e dungeon crawls, being a tank was bloody easy: just stand there, blocking the hallway.


This creates a feedback loop--players build specialized characters, DMs tune scenarios for these characters, players compensate, etc.

That's only one play style of many. Personally, I prefer when the GM does not tune scenarios based on the PCs' abilities.


I hang out on the 3.5 forums a lot, and I don't think I've ever seen a build centered around specific items.

How about the 3.0 keen vorpal improved crit great cleave build?

[Tanarii]

But, honestly, to circle back to the topic at hand, most of my 2e characters lit up like a Christmas tree much more than my 3e characters do. When you have an economy, you tend to sell off all the "worthless" gear, rather than keeping all the "cool" items "just in case".In theory, in AD&D 1e and BECMI, you hand them down to Henchmen / Retainers. Of course, in practice, most groups ignored those rules. But having played with them in place more recently, I can see that it's depriving yourself of a large part of the way the game was intended to be played if you do so. Not necessarily better one way or the other, but not using them (as intended) does require adjusting many things to compensate. Same with many other common house rules, like max first level hps, or ignoring level limits, or not tracking time properly.


In all fairness, in 2e dungeon crawls, being a tank was bloody easy: just stand there, blocking the hallway.TBH I don't recall 2e tactical play prior to Combat & Tactics very well. But that sounds like a solid tactic for most editions, if the dungeon/terrain permits. I've also played BECMI with a combat line, with shields up front, polearm users in the second rank, and missile/magic user behind that. Doesn't work so well when you've only got four PCs and no retainers (ie many modern editions & tables), or wide open terrain, or course.

[Quertus]

In theory, in AD&D 1e and BECMI, you hand them down to Henchmen / Retainers. Of course, in practice, most groups ignored those rules. But having played with them in place more recently, I can see that it's depriving yourself of a large part of the way the game was intended to be played if you do so. Not necessarily better one way or the other, but not using them (as intended) does require adjusting many things to compensate. Same with many other common house rules, like max first level hps, or ignoring level limits, or not tracking time properly.

My signature character, Quertus, for whom this account is named, never really had much in the way of "henchmen". He had a publisher, and he's had several apprentices... and that's it, afaik.

Hasn't stopped him from hoarding unwanted items, and handing them down to under-equipped NPCs that he's adventured with - or, more often, under-equipped PCs! If he travels with anyone else without a magic weapon, he's down to giving away vorpal blades, cursed backbiters, and cursed backbiting vorpal blades. :smallamused:

[dps]

How many magic items an adventurer has is a function of how many such items they are able to get and use, which is a function of the setting.

It is, of course, completely reasonable, in character, that a smart adventurer will want to have as many magic items as possible to help them stay alive and succeed in as many scenarios as possible. So it's "realistic" in the sense that a person in that world would want to be adorned like a Christmas tree if at all possible. As the DM, it's your job to decide what is possible in the setting, the players will react to that.

Yeah, and I think that there are 2 difference questions/problems that arise.

First, bags of holding and the like. I think these were originally mostly just supposed to be a way to avoid having to micromanage character inventory, back when we didn't have modern electronics available to do it for us, and to provide an easy way for characters to get loot back to their base. They're only really a problem in conjunction with the second question.

And the second question is, how readily available are magic items? If they're common, well of course the PCs are going to be carrying around a large number of them, and sticking them in extra-dimensional space as necessary/convenient. If they're rare, though, each PC might only have 1 or 2, and won't need to carry them in a bag of holding.

Basically, if you're a DM and you want to avoid the Christmas tree effect, make magic items rare in your setting; otherwise, expect the players to hoard a bunch of them, and keep them where they can easily get to them, because it's just smart play to carry around as many as you can, and IMO it's better to limit their availability than to make them readily available and then try to mechanically limit how many the PCs can carry.

[Kane0]

As I always say, no character should be caught on an adventure without their golfbag of holding and accompanying caddie, if at all possible. Like a bootknife on a survivalist, having the right gear on hand is just good practice. I mean, imagine a pest control guy rocking up to a job with just one kind of chemical. I'd bet you wouldn't be entirely trusting of his ability, even if he is the best of the best and that one chemical did the job just fine.

Now if all you have is one or two tools then you make the best of what you have, but if you have access to all sorts of handy equipment why would you not make use of them?

[Thrudd]

Yeah, and I think that there are 2 difference questions/problems that arise.

First, bags of holding and the like. I think these were originally mostly just supposed to be a way to avoid having to micromanage character inventory, back when we didn't have modern electronics available to do it for us, and to provide an easy way for characters to get loot back to their base. They're only really a problem in conjunction with the second question.

And the second question is, how readily available are magic items? If they're common, well of course the PCs are going to be carrying around a large number of them, and sticking them in extra-dimensional space as necessary/convenient. If they're rare, though, each PC might only have 1 or 2, and won't need to carry them in a bag of holding.

Basically, if you're a DM and you want to avoid the Christmas tree effect, make magic items rare in your setting; otherwise, expect the players to hoard a bunch of them, and keep them where they can easily get to them, because it's just smart play to carry around as many as you can, and IMO it's better to limit their availability than to make them readily available and then try to mechanically limit how many the PCs can carry.

I think the bag of holding originally wasn't exactly that, so much. It isn't an unlimited space which lets you stop tracking equipment, it has a very specific volume that it can carry, but it was extremely useful for taking away much bigger treasure hauls (and therefore more XP in a single trip) than would have otherwise been possible and holding onto many more items than before. You still had to manage it, but now your equipment list was just a lot longer with a new thing to keep track of - how much volume all your treasures occupy in the bag.
It also wasn't guaranteed that one would ever be found in any given campaign. Before 3e, it was not common to be able to purchase magic items of any sort. A bag of holding wasn't something everyone expected to have by some level. If you did find one it was an amazingly useful thing that you hoped never got exploded or lost. As a player, you don't get to choose when, if ever, you get a bag of holding. You're praying to the dice gods for the party to find one. That's how it should be, anyway. IMO, the concept of magic marts are one of the things which ruin 3.x editions (or any edition).

[BeerMug Paladin]

On the topic, I've never had a problem with the "christmas tree effect" before. Either "unrealistic" or feeling like it devalues the specialness of items. I don't think anyone inclined to run games (that I've played with) to higher levels has been of the "magic items are everywhere" type of DM. We just find a list of what's there in the random town of the week and now and then something is discovered in the wild. I don't think we routinely encounter "level-appropriate" threats because of this.

The last time I ran a game (3.5/Pathfinder), magic items were very rare, the party only found a few now and then, and they always did things that were intended to be unique. So they basically never wanted to get rid of them. There also really weren't any for sell, so considering their opponents were mostly bog-standard humanoid threats with no magical gear and the most threatening opponents capping out at around 5th level... The intention was that the party was supposed to be gods of war and destruction by the time they were 7th level.


I don't think a bag of holding is especially exciting to own. It's become standard equipment, except for those who will settle for nothing less than Heward's handy haversack with automatic retrieval.

We're looking at an inversion of Arthur Clarke's dictum that any sufficiently advanced technology is magic. Any "magic" that becomes commonplace loses any wonder and aura of mystery it may have once had.

No matter what magic item you come up with, if it becomes commonplace it's no longer impressive.

This just makes me wonder... What if you had a commonplace magic item or class of common magic items which have a strange/sinister, but not widely known deeper explanation for their existence? There could be a sense of mystery and wonder surrounding that. But then I'm talking about making elements of the game setting into elements of the plot and that seems like it's probably a bit much to expect from a typical DM or setting.


Well to me, whats really important?

some aesthetic? I can make that aesthetic in any genre I want.

the underlying message and philosophy however- thats far more important, and therefore worthy of being the genre itself. comedy isn't an aesthetic. drama isn't an aesthetic. horror has many aesthetics, but isn't the aesthetic itself. action isn't an aesthetic- it can take many forms.

if fantasy and sci-fi are to be genres, they have to be more than aesthetics. fantasy is useful for stories about the inner problems of people. sci-fi is useful for stories about society.

You know, people can do things like place an expy of Star Trek's Federation into a fantasy setting or write about personal growth and development in a science-fiction universe. Once a theorist tries to place art into a box, many artists are eager to reply "oh yeah?" and spit out something that defies categorization by the proposed definitions. Some might argue that's the job of an artist.

Also, there are plenty of fantasy and sci-fi stories that deal with neither inner demons nor society's ills. In fact, cartoonishly simplified good vs. evil seems much more common across the board than either of those more nuanced conflicts.

It seems to me that maybe if you're more concerned with the underlying "message" of the art, you might want to eliminate science-fiction and fantasy as valid genres altogether. People just get ideas that one contains wizards and swords while the other contains rayguns and spaceships. With dinosaurs being in either one because they're awesome and transcend everything.

In other words, like it or not, people are only talking about the aesthetics when they talk about various genres and you can't really change that.

[Darth Ultron]

I hang out on the 3.5 forums a lot, and I don't think I've ever seen a build centered around specific items.

Odd?

Well, a lot of builds have the idea that you have to be able to carry around a lot of stuff, so that puts the average crafting bulked where you must have that silly broken, poorly written Kobold Relic that the player demands is just a super common cheep magic item to do it. You know the ones where you have constructs making stuff in your portable warehouse in your pocket 24/7. That sure counts as having a specific item.

And I guess you don't count, for some reason, all the builds where you must have items, like a belt of battle.

Plenty of shapeshift builds must have the magic items that let you have magic items in other forms and cast spells.

There is not a intelligence based spellcaster build that does not have a ''Headband of intellect +10'' (or whatever plus you can interpret your DM to allow).

I guess you might say the build is not centered ''around'' the items....but I can tell you that if you say to a player ''no magic items'' they will say ''no way, I must have them my build is centered around them!"

[Jormengand]

I hang out on the 3.5 forums a lot, and I don't think I've ever seen a build centered around specific items.

Have you just never seen a martial class build? :smallconfused:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Have you just never seen a martial class build? :smallconfused:

That was my thought. Most of the builds I read depend on having a wide variety of specific items with specific enchantments to overcome the threats posed (that full casters overcome with spells). This is "magic items as pseudo-class-feature" design. It's not one that I favor, personally. It diminishes magic items and the classes that depend on them by making them plot tokens--you can't participate unless you have X.

[Grod_The_Giant]

And I guess you don't count, for some reason, all the builds where you must have items, like a belt of battle.
"Useful for everyone" isn't the same as "must have item you build around."


Plenty of shapeshift builds must have the magic items that let you have magic items in other forms and cast spells.

There is not a intelligence based spellcaster build that does not have a ''Headband of intellect +10'' (or whatever plus you can interpret your DM to allow).
Those raw number boosts are an inherent part of the game's math; without them, things fall apart as to-hit increases but AC does not (for example).


Have you just never seen a martial class build? :smallconfused:
Oh, I know magic items are used to patch holes in capabilities, but those are more general "you want items that give you these sorts of defenses and movement modes; items X, Y, and Z are good options." The post I was responding to made it sound like, I dunno, "once you get the Boots of Blahblahblah, you can use them to turn all your smite attempts into long-term powerups and make up for the lost capability from dipping around to get said smites."

[johnbragg]

Those raw number boosts are an inherent part of the game's math; without them, things fall apart as to-hit increases but AC does not (for example).

This may be part of the phenomenon we're talking about--Grod was thinking "I haven't seen a lot of builds designed around having a DRagonlance (or whatever other setting-specific splatbook-item)" and building around having "ordinary" +X weapons-and-armor didn't even register.

(Confession: My first 3X character was a fighter built around the ZOMG orc double-axe d8/d8 exotic double-weapon in the PHB. Made him a human, because making him a half-orc would have been too easy/obvious. At CL 3 I took a level of Wizard to cast first-level utility spells--and shield, and by level 4 I was usually power-attacking rather than double-weapon attacking. My character wanted to be the best brick fighter he could, so he used the tools available to him--multiclassing and power-attacking.)

[Quertus]

Basically, if you're a DM and you want to avoid the Christmas tree effect, make magic items rare in your setting;

And rebalance the encounters, at least in 3e, if you have an expectation of balance in the first place.


There is not a intelligence based spellcaster build that does not have a ''Headband of intellect +10'' (or whatever plus you can interpret your DM to allow).

Well, he may not be a build per se, but Quertus, my signature character for whom my account is named, didn't get his +6 int booster until around level 25 or so.

But, yeah, most players really expect and assume the level of magical items that the game balance expects and assumes. Personally, in order to help the fighters keep up, I prefer at least double that.

[Darth Ultron]

"Useful for everyone" isn't the same as "must have item you build around."


Is the Super Deep Portable hole for a crafter build an example of one that won't work without the item?



And we are not talking about each persons interpretation of what they ''must have'' to ''have fun'' or whatever in the game. Sure everyone wants cool, powerful stuff.

It's more ''my super duper build is useless without it. '' If the super duper build archer looses his bow...the character is useless. Same if they loose their Quiver of Infinite arrows.

Just take any x-mas tree optimized wonder of a character, and pick any good item to get rid of...and the player will shriek and complain and say they ''just can't play the character without that item!''

[Lemmy]

My main problems with the CTE are, in no particular order:

1- The punishing of creativity and character variety. Instead of a cool bonus or advantage, they become requirements. The game's math assumes characters will have the boring stat-boosters, so players are effectively forced to acquire the usual, boring gear or underperform.

2- When my character's effectiveness falls apart when I lose my gear, it doesn't feel like my character is awesome... It feels like he's a fraud. A Green Lantern whose willpower is provided by the ring, rather than by the ring-bearer... Or an Iron Man who knows nothing about creating or fixing his armor and isn't particularly good at using it either.

[Anymage]

As I always say, no character should be caught on an adventure without their golfbag of holding and accompanying caddie, if at all possible. Like a bootknife on a survivalist, having the right gear on hand is just good practice. I mean, imagine a pest control guy rocking up to a job with just one kind of chemical. I'd bet you wouldn't be entirely trusting of his ability, even if he is the best of the best and that one chemical did the job just fine.

Now if all you have is one or two tools then you make the best of what you have, but if you have access to all sorts of handy equipment why would you not make use of them?

On a realism note, that makes sense. I'd much rather go camping in a fully tricked out RV than be expected to spend a week in the woods with nothing but a pocketknife, empty bottle, and a bit of string.

On a story note, though, "Joe spent a week camping in his RV" is boring. Even if you describe all the things he does in his RV. (You could spice it up by having relationship drama or a crazed killer or some other situation that having an RV doesn't trivialize, but then the story is about that thing instead and the RV is just a setting.) "Joe has to survive based on just what he has in his pockets in that moment" is more interesting and requires more out of Joe.

Which brings up a related point. If Joe has an easy time in the wilderness because of his RV, the real focus of the story is on the RV. You could swap Joe out for any other minimally competent person and the result would be very much the same. If Joe survives hardship because he's an expert survivalist, that's all about Joe and his capabilities. And this may just be me, but I'd rather my character's intrinsic capabilities be a big part of defining who they are.* Not gear that could be slapped on anyone else to the same effect.

*(To pull this away from D&D, this is true even if there are general builds that most players going for an archetype will share. My Shadowrun hacker may have all his important numbers look like most other players shadowrun hackers. He'll even be dependent on a few choice pieces of gear, too. I still get to feel all cool and hackery knowing that my character's skill is still an important contribution to his success, though, and that he couldn't be so easily replaced if you gave all his stuff to some schlub off the street.)

[Jormengand]

Oh, I know magic items are used to patch holes in capabilities, but those are more general "you want items that give you these sorts of defenses and movement modes; items X, Y, and Z are good options." The post I was responding to made it sound like, I dunno, "once you get the Boots of Blahblahblah, you can use them to turn all your smite attempts into long-term powerups and make up for the lost capability from dipping around to get said smites."

Once you get the Bracers of the Blast Barrier, you can polymorph into a Garbler and wreck everything for infinite damage!

Okay, so maybe that one's a niche TO build, but still.

(Truenamers in general are more a case of "You must have this specific item to pass", but that's more because there are as many different types of +5 weapon as there are types of weapon and only one type of +5 truespeak item than anything else.)

[goto124]

I feel obligated to post this every time Truenamers come up:


Truenamers talk about doing it.


Truenames talk about doing it, but the DC is too high!

[GungHo]

Aka fantasy, because fantasy is basically "I'm the special person, I solve everything because of a trait I have no one else does, the rest of the world is just there for me to be a hero in."
No, it's not. The fantasy genre is not about wish fulfillment. It's about it's basis in reality and plausibility (specifically low to none) and a suspension of disbelief to provide narrative cohesion. Fantasy may include wish fulfillment, but that's just one of many things that may be fantastic.


That's where the magic item mart comes from, I'd say. It's presented in a section of world-building advice, but it's a pretty strong expectation-- the sort of thing you can point to and say "this is how the designers expected the game to work." The game's assumption, not the player's.
It is a strong expectation. Regardless of the "E", you're dealing with, the game is set up for you to have a certain level of enhancement to hit/abilities/saves in order to surmount level-equivalent content (whether you're couching that as CL or whatever). If you don't want folks to achieve that through equipment, something else needs to be fiddled with, whether you bring down monsters or provide some other kind of bonus that does something similar. I like magic items that grow with the character through time and investment, but that gets you to the same place you would have been if you let them change it out and be a Christmas tree.

[Broken Twin]

I have no problem with the idea of the CTE in and of itself, I just really dislike when it's necessary for the math of your game to work. I built an enhanced stat-progression guide to replace stat-boosting items in 3.5 a long time ago (and was pleasantly surprised when Pathfinder released a near identical version in their Unchained book) specifically so that I could give players cool magic items with interesting effects, without them immediately cashing them in for the +primary stat item(s) they felt their class required.

[daniel_ream]

2- When my character's effectiveness falls apart when I lose my gear, it doesn't feel like my character is awesome... It feels like he's a fraud. A Green Lantern whose willpower is provided by the ring, rather than by the ring-bearer... Or an Iron Man who knows nothing about creating or fixing his armor and isn't particularly good at using it either.

Counter-argument: a large number of mythic heroes (Thor, Sigurd, Perseus, Herakles, etc.) are significantly less powerful without their gear.

Earthdawn introduced the idea of legacy weapons, and I know there was a D&D supplement for them, but it seems not to have caught on.

[Mordaedil]

Interesting discussion on the magic mart subject. Maybe I can bring to the table a way we recently handled it at our table and you can tell me if we did this in a poor or good manner? This is for 3.5 edition, mind.

I was thumbing through the back section of the Magic Item Compendium, looking for what sort of "optimal" equipment I'd be wanting for theory-crafting and I thought I was going to have to use my neck slot to get a Natural Armor AC boost, my bracers for a +2 strength boost to later be replaced with belt boosts for +4 and +6. But while looking at the belt section, I saw Belt of Priestly Might. It gave both +1 to Natural Armor AC and +2 to Strength in the short description. I decided to look it up for details and I read that they were designed by churches of specific deities and people who worshipped said deity got no penalty wearing the belt, while "others" got a negative level upon wearing it.

So, I just asked my DM what this meant in his campaign. My character has a deity (one of Nobility and nobles) she worships, but she is ultimately not a devout follower beyond it sort of being what she was brought up believing in. And she's not a cleric and not even the right alignment of the deity she follows. We then agreed she could petition her church to craft one for her, but she'd have to offer a prayer every morning to said deity to get the benefit with no penalty and possibly pay a tithe to the church.

We do have the benefit of talking together a lot, so we could work that out in advance like this, but it's not something everyone seems as hyped to do, even in our group. Is there a better way to go about things like this?

[Lemmy]

Counter-argument: a large number of mythic heroes (Thor, Sigurd, Perseus, Herakles, etc.) are significantly less powerful without their gear.

Earthdawn introduced the idea of legacy weapons, and I know there was a D&D supplement for them, but it seems not to have caught on.And...? The fact that it was done in the past doesn't make it any more enjoyable...

Besides:

1- Things that make a good story, don't necessarily make a good game.
2- Those character had a few items... Not a huge collection of magical trinkets, each worth more than a castle.
3- The items they had were unique (or at leasr very rare) and often had cool powers... They weren't just another +1 from a huge pile of +1s that everyone carries around.

[daniel_ream]

And...? The fact that it was done in the past doesn't make it any more enjoyable...

Perhaps not for you; my point was simply that a great many people throughout history did not consider having extra gear that enhanced one's abilities to be fraudulent. Indeed, they elevated many such heroes to demigod status in their culture.

And as I pointed out, legacy weapons were a thing at one point.

[Mechalich]

Perhaps not for you; my point was simply that a great many people throughout history did not consider having extra gear that enhanced one's abilities to be fraudulent. Indeed, they elevated many such heroes to demigod status in their culture.

And as I pointed out, legacy weapons were a thing at one point.

Having some level of magical gear is very different from having a Christmas Tree worth of trinkets and items that are all constantly being traded out. Even an item-heavy mystical hero - like Perseus - would only have a 3-4 items. For most heroes the replacement of a single lost item, such as a signature sword, is an entire epic quest.

Legacy weapons is a perfectly good idea, but that's very much the opposite of the Christmas Tree.

There are very few characters, even in D&D fiction, who carry around the number and variety of mystical trinkets that 3.X expects a party to carry via game design assumptions.

[daniel_ream]

Having some level of magical gear is very different from having a Christmas Tree

Lemmy wasn't talking about a Christmas Tree, and neither was I.

[Dragonexx]

My main problems with the CTE are, in no particular order:

1- The punishing of creativity and character variety. Instead of a cool bonus or advantage, they become requirements. The game's math assumes characters will have the boring stat-boosters, so players are effectively forced to acquire the usual, boring gear or underperform.

2- When my character's effectiveness falls apart when I lose my gear, it doesn't feel like my character is awesome... It feels like he's a fraud. A Green Lantern whose willpower is provided by the ring, rather than by the ring-bearer... Or an Iron Man who knows nothing about creating or fixing his armor and isn't particularly good at using it either.

As a solution, there are several bonus progression systems published where you get the necessary numbers as you level up, eliminating the need for uninteresting +# items thus allowing for more flavorful abilities.

[Lemmy]

Perhaps not for you; my point was simply that a great many people throughout history did not consider having extra gear that enhanced one's abilities to be fraudulent. Indeed, they elevated many such heroes to demigod status in their culture.

And as I pointed out, legacy weapons were a thing at one point.Yes... I'm not saying that powerful magical isn't or can't be cool... Just that the fact that it was done in the past, by itself, doesn't mean it's enjoyable.

In any case, in addition to the points I made before, I'd like to remind you that "Legacy Weapons" and "Christmas Tree effect" are very different beasts: One thing that works for those stories is that the character using said magical gear is often the only one capable (or worthy) of using said gear. Only Thor can lift Mjolnir, only Arthur can wield Excalibur, etc, etc... They aren't just another +1 sword like every other sword wielded by every other character around...

[Lemmy]

As a solution, there are several bonus progression systems published where you get the necessary numbers as you level up, eliminating the need for uninteresting +# items thus allowing for more flavorful abilities.
Indeed. I use one such system myself.

[daniel_ream]

Yes... I'm not saying that powerful magical isn't or can't be cool... Just that the fact that it was done in the past, by itself, doesn't mean it's enjoyable.

Just because you don't find something enjoyable doesn't mean it is universally unenjoyable.


In any case, in addition to the points I made before, I'd like to remind you that "Legacy Weapons" and "Christmas Tree effect" are very different beasts:

Yes, obviously. Legacy Weapons are an attempt to remove the Christmas Tree effect while still fulfilling the swag-by-level requirement.

[Lemmy]

Just because you don't find something enjoyable doesn't mean it is universally unenjoyable.
Did you even read what I wrote? :smallconfused: