Arguments in favor of magic item wishlists.

[Previn]

• Make items feel powerful and have high impact
  but
• Allow players to function without items.

I could totally give some 1st level dude a Frost Brand and while they're a lot better at killing goblins, it's in no way a requirement to have it to be able to kill goblins.

I think there is a definiate limit to the kinds of items you could hand out while doing that, and the kinds of challenges you expect to have in a setting or have the PCs face, but I don't see this as opposed goals.

[Omegonthesane]

• Make items feel powerful and have high impact
  but
• Allow players to function without items.

I could totally give some 1st level dude a Frost Brand and while they're a lot better at killing goblins, it's in no way a requirement to have it to be able to kill goblins.

I think there is a definiate limit to the kinds of items you could hand out while doing that, and the kinds of challenges you expect to have in a setting or have the PCs face, but I don't see this as opposed goals.

Clearly there is a restriction on the powers of goblins (or ogres etc.) if they are weak enough that you don't need frost weapons, yet strong enough that frost weapons make a noticeable difference at the level when you "should" be facing them *and* strong enough that frost weapons alone don't let you face them when you "shouldn't" be facing them yet.

[Bihlbo]

I hate this thread because in order to keep up I had to read Shadzar posts. sigh

But it's a topic I care about. Just to be different, here are some experiences and what they taught me.

1. I played in a low-magic 3e D&D game where the GM asked us what we wanted. He didn't need the added effort of paying super-close attention to everything 5 people said at the table and every event that happened to our characters in order to form assumptions about what we'd need or want. Understandable, but I didn't like the question because it assumed that I'd be able to know what I wanted, mechanically, and that the game was suddenly more artificial because I know the thing I get isn't what was there, but what my friend put there for me to find.

Eventually the really cool item he spent time making became a useless burdon to my character and I couldn't justify keeping it. He got butthurt that I regifted my special present, which is something a random table probably wouldn't do. Also, because I asked for it the other players used that to form an identity of what I wanted my character to be, so getting rid of it annoyed them as well.

Lesson: Asking for gear makes it less special to have, and makes it problematic to lose (for more than just the reasons presented here).

2. I played in a more standard late-3.5 game where I approached it with the knowledge that every class sucks unless it is decorated like a Christmas tree. I made a character with all the item creation feats so we could suit up for par, and I was set. I asked my fellow players to roleplay their characters giving mine a wishlist, because I was literally set to churn out the goods, and because doing it this way makes it part of the game and what the players are doing. That whole minigame of figuring out what gear is good, what your options are, and how to even begin to make the decisions about your wishlist of gear was just too much of an unfun headache for them. "Why do a bunch of reading about things that don't apply to me and then doing math until I fall asleep when we could just play the game?"

Lesson: For some people shopping sucks. Whether it's for pants, peanut butter, a car, or the appropriate item to bring your Wisdom up to the right number for your class's level, it's best for these people to avoid it. If you aren't a kid, you have to do this crap about 300% more than you want just to get through life, and adding it to a game doesn't make the game better. If it feels like shopping, you hate doing this stuff. If it feels like optimizing (which applies to myself) then it's as fun as building a character (which is not fun for my friends).

3. One night the most fun we had was when we used a random gear generator we found online for the loot. We got something like a "+1 vorpal flaming burst ghost touch tin pot with 19 charges of summon dire weasel." Not even part of the game, and it caused the most laughter, garnered the most attention, and established the most lasting memory among the other players. I saw it as more an example of why you should pay attention while GMing and not just rely on dice rolls, because stupid crap like this is unjustifiable. But I had fun watching them get excited.

Lesson: We humans love the unexpected. Sometimes the most ill-fitting, unexpected, random thing will make a mediocre game into something memorable and turn the night around. That doesn't have to be a random item of loot by any means, but the point is that getting exactly what you asked for simply cannot compete. Saying anything from, "I'd like a sword," to "I need a +3 sword with the same enchantments as my +2 sword because I'm level 9 now," basically means that the part of the night where you get the expected item becomes as forgettable as opening the door to a room full of zombies in a zombie fighting game. You might remember that this particular item has a gold hilt, but that it is a sword is not interesting.

That said, I am never excited by lottery looting. I want things to make sense more than some people.

4. In another game our group uncovered not a magic item, but a treasure map. It lead us to a guy who told us a legend of a magic item. We didn't care about the item he told us about because none of us could use it, which is a totally legit reason to not want something. So we asked if he knew any other legends, and learned of a magic item one of us could use. The quest for this spellbook was fun, and getting it was fun, and we all had a reason to want it around after that.

However, some of us said they didn't want to go on a quest just for an item one character could use. It felt too much like a fetch quest from WoW. The GM took that to heart and made sure it wasn't the only thing we got, and that getting the item wasn't the only fun thing about the quest.

Lesson: If a thing you want is already in the world, it makes you feel more a part of the world to learn about it and acquire it through your character's actions alone. And as much fun as the unexpected random pasta you get out of charts can be for some, accomplishing a goal that involves getting something can be just as fun. The two methods are not mutually exclusive.

[Red_Rob]

I've been thinking that all Magic Items should be basically Artifacts as D&D defines them. Specific named items with histories and unique powers that show up rarely and are made a big deal of when they do.

I'm leaning towards having magic items be extremely limited - no more than around 3 per character. I'm also thinking they shouldn't provide straight up bonuses of any kind - that just screws with combat math. They should instead provide abilities that the player doesn't normally have access to, preferably with both in combat and out of combat problem solving applications. Finally these abilities shouldn't be expected by the game - so no Wings of Flying or Rings of Blinking being mandatory for some classes to play the game at high level. This should mean you can hand out items randomly without breaking anything. It also leads to the suggestion that items would allow players to win certain encounters super hard - but that's fine. Players like to feel awesome. I like the paradigm where having a Flame Sword means you roast the Trolls that are usually a level appropriate encounter without breaking a sweat better than constantly needing the latest weapon to stay competitive anyway.

Magic items would be much rarer than in D&D - as characters aren't expected to get many you would probably get like 1 per party per level. I'd hope this way magic items would act more like they do in fiction. The downside is that giving out less items means you are giving out less items - and players love to get magic items. If they aren't getting that fix after every combat they might feel like something is missing at first. But hopefully when then see how awesome items are it will build excitement for the next cool thing they get.

[Bihlbo]

• Make items feel powerful and have high impact
  but
• Allow players to function without items.

I could totally give some 1st level dude a Frost Brand and while they're a lot better at killing goblins, it's in no way a requirement to have it to be able to kill goblins.

Functioning without items is not the same as functioning without good items. At level 1 just about any character without armor or weapons is going to get owned by a housecat. If you were implying that it's either "Frost Brand or basic starting gear" then forgive me for not reading your mind.

[Bihlbo]

Ideal Loot: I'm not going to pretend this is the best way to handle loot and gear, since I don't truck with superlatives, but this is the philosophy I'm using currently in a D&D-like game.

You know how you treat non-magical gear? Most magical gear should be treated like that. In fact, most magical effects should be something like a masterwork alteration to the item. Why? Because if the game is built around the idea that you need a certain technology level in order to function, then that tech level is not "magic" at all. Similar to a large company needing an IT team dedicated to internal support - a fantastical resource to the mind of a small business owner, but a level 12 company cannot compete without it.

The players should expect most loot to be ignorable, and in fact I don't see a reason not to reduce the details of loot down to gp and weight values. Let's not waste table or prep time on this randomly-generated fluff. If you need it, you know what you need and can probably get it. If you want something beyond that, it's probably not mundane enough to be common.

Everything else is an artifact. You (by which I mean your character) can't make it, sell it, or buy it. You can learn about it and how to get it, then go on a quest to acquire it. There's a chance you might stumble onto one, but only if you happen to be in a place where the GM planned on that artifact being located. Artifacts are never random, and are treated as if they have a history and an impact on the world. Beings who have them are generally just strong enough to find them useful, which is not an artificial "level appropriate gear for L.A. monsters" concept, but instead it's because powerful items increase your power. If you're powerful enough to take it, you do so, and if you aren't powerful enough to keep it, it gets stolen by murdering bands of adventurers (who might barter artifacts away if they aren't making use of the things). Artifacts are tied to the world and the narrative, and are not affected by game mechanics.

If you find a way to get rich, or choose to only kill things that have the most expensive stuff, then you get wealthy and that has nothing to do with your level. If you want more potions than you could ever use, then go for it! You're spending game time doing something you think is fun for an outcome you like, and it's stupid for a game to tell you that was bad fun.

It's equally stupid for the GM to tell you that more money does not lead to more problems and that no one will ever try to take what you have. I mean, why are you killing dragons that love gold and ignoring dragons that love them some sand? For the glory? Yeah, that's legit, but so is "For the loot" and making yourself a loot-worthy opponent is risky.

[Drolyt]

I contend that not picking up an item is a form of discarding said item, so I cannot agree that we agree.

So are we just abandoning the "vendor" in vendor trash? Yes, in any game there is going to be a ton of trash that is unimportant to the PCs, but vendor trash is specifically where the PCs have to bring a cart to pick up all that trash so they can sell it. That is bullshit. What is also bullshit is having to comb through that trash to find the items with piddly +1 bonuses. That isn't fun. But if your only claim is that magic items need not so magical items to compare to in order to be special I don't really disagree, I'm just not sure why you called that "vendor" trash.

Obviously, all of those are simply sliding scales, where the endpoints are wholly incompatible - but equally claimed as positive achievements by a majority of the fan base.

This is not necessarily the case. It is possible that those goals don't actually oppose each, we just haven't figured out how to make them work together yet. Less strongly, there may be a middle ground that gets us most of what we want while only giving up a little.

I've been thinking that all Magic Items should be basically Artifacts as D&D defines them. Specific named items with histories and unique powers that show up rarely and are made a big deal of when they do.

I'm leaning towards having magic items be extremely limited - no more than around 3 per character. I'm also thinking they shouldn't provide straight up bonuses of any kind - that just screws with combat math. They should instead provide abilities that the player doesn't normally have access to, preferably with both in combat and out of combat problem solving applications. Finally these abilities shouldn't be expected by the game - so no Wings of Flying or Rings of Blinking being mandatory for some classes to play the game at high level. This should mean you can hand out items randomly without breaking anything. It also leads to the suggestion that items would allow players to win certain encounters super hard - but that's fine. Players like to feel awesome. I like the paradigm where having a Flame Sword means you roast the Trolls that are usually a level appropriate encounter without breaking a sweat better than constantly needing the latest weapon to stay competitive anyway.

Magic items would be much rarer than in D&D - as characters aren't expected to get many you would probably get like 1 per party per level. I'd hope this way magic items would act more like they do in fiction. The downside is that giving out less items means you are giving out less items - and players love to get magic items. If they aren't getting that fix after every combat they might feel like something is missing at first. But hopefully when then see how awesome items are it will build excitement for the next cool thing they get.

I mostly like this idea, but I'm thinking that there could still be minor magic items (like bags of holding, flying carpets, everlasting torches and so on) that don't really affect the characters' power but are still fun to find and use. This could counter the downside you mention in the last paragraph.

[Bihlbo]

I've been thinking that all Magic Items should be basically Artifacts as D&D defines them. Specific named items with histories and unique powers that show up rarely and are made a big deal of when they do.

I was heading the same direction, but assuming you run D&D the way the books tell you to run it then you have to find a way to compensate for most PCs being terrible after a certain point. Either change the way you run it, or do what I did and treat most magic items as nothing special. Also, this is why Legend is made the way it is, I assume.

Incidentally this is pretty much exactly what 4e was supposed to deliver, if I understood the early design promises. I guess at some point they realized that either item write-ups had to be really long and interesting, or they had to change the game to make items more important, otherwise they'd never sell books filled with items. They made the wrong choice.

[shadzar]

I contend that not picking up an item is a form of discarding said item, so I cannot agree that we agree.

So are we just abandoning the "vendor" in vendor trash?

EVERY goblin sword, or orc club is treasure. it might not be from the "lair" tables or something else like a "drop", but it is vendor trash. you cant play without it. how often do people collect every goblin sword, orc club, or gnoll axe?

after leveling a few levels you expect those items to stop appearing and everyone to have +1 weapons? well after a while, that too becomes vendor trash, even if you don't collect it to sell.

at the point everyone has +5 weapons should everything you fight then have it too? when it does, those too are now vendor trash.

so even with a wishlist there will be vendor trash because you trade up items. the lesser items ALL then become vendor trash.

[Drolyt]

I contend that not picking up an item is a form of discarding said item, so I cannot agree that we agree.

So are we just abandoning the "vendor" in vendor trash?

EVERY goblin sword, or orc club is treasure. it might not be from the "lair" tables or something else like a "drop", but it is vendor trash. you cant play without it. how often do people collect every goblin sword, orc club, or gnoll axe?

after leveling a few levels you expect those items to stop appearing and everyone to have +1 weapons? well after a while, that too becomes vendor trash, even if you don't collect it to sell.

at the point everyone has +5 weapons should everything you fight then have it too? when it does, those too are now vendor trash.

so even with a wishlist there will be vendor trash because you trade up items. the lesser items ALL then become vendor trash.

You are assuming the magic item system works like in D&D even though my entire objective is to create a better system. Those items are only vendor trash because if you fail to loot the corpses of your fallen foes and sell their items then you will fall behind in wealth by level and you will suck. I am advocating a system where the number of gold pieces to your name is unrelated (maybe not completely unrelated, but not as tied as it is in D&D) to your power level because you don't go and buy the +5 sword of awesomeness at your local Walmart like in D&D, you get it as part of an epic quest or as an inheritance from your ancestors or something. In such a system there would be no incentive to loot corpses like in D&D, and that is a good thing.

[Grek]

Grek's Ideal System:

Everyone has a fungible pool of metagame currency called 'narrative control points' which can be spent to make authorial choices about the plot of the game, subject to player veto. You gain them by making/letting bad stuff happen to your character and spend them to make good things happen.

Most loot is just wealth. It has a weight and an abstract trade-in value. The GM describes it to the players, highlighting the most common objects found, but players can chime in and declare that some specific item (subject to the value and weight limits) is present. Doing so costs no narrative control points: you just say "As I search through the pile of dragon gold, I find a sword, six foot long and made of Damascus steel!". This allows people who's character concept demands that they have an axe get an axe when they want to have an axe. Items generated this way (along with most other items) have no mechanical benefits. They're just as good as whatever equipment you started with.

One of the things you can do with narrative control points is to declare that some item you have (or just now found) has a Special Power, chosen from a list in the book. Pick the power, pay the cost out of your narrative points and use the power as described in the text.

When narrative points reset at the end of the adventure, you can either buy the item with build points (at which point you gain whatever its item power was as a character power), or come up with a reason why you no longer have it. If a class item breaks/is stolen/is otherwise lost, the character has the option of either declaring the the power was in them the whole time and they didn't need the item at all (no mechanical change); that they will get it back (gain narrative control points equal to its value until the item is regained plus a requirement that the DM make the item show up again); or they can accept the loss (refund on build points for the item, gain narrative control points equal to its value until there is time to spend the build points on something else).

[shadzar]

sorry Drolyt, but WBL only existed since 2000, and D&D was around since 1974. you seem to be missing the reason vendor trash exist for those 26 years before the most recent 13.

why collect the goblin swords to sell to someone, including but not limited to a blacksmith? so the chance the next goblins you fight don't have them.

ANY treasure you find that you do not keep is vendor trash. Coinage, gems, jewelry, art, weapons, armor, animals, animal hides, clothing, etc. are all vendor trash. it is meant to be given to a vendor in exchange for something you WILL keep.

[Drolyt]

sorry Drolyt, but WBL only existed since 2000, and D&D was around since 1974. you seem to be missing the reason vendor trash exist for those 26 years before the most recent 13.

Don't be an idiot. AD&D required you to get more and more powerful magic items as you leveled up in order to succeed just like 3rd and 4th edition, and that is wealth by level in all but name. 3e just added a chart so the DM would know how many magic items a character of a certain level should have instead of guessing.

[Bihlbo]

Grek's Ideal System:

If you're doing it like that, wouldn't it be simpler to skip the looting process altogether?

Let's say you adopt a wealth point system like in Exalted and others. It's a value attributed to the group and it starts low. You get starting gear.

After a "milestone" of potential acquisition the GM says your group gains a wealth point and you now can upgrade to some new stuff. No matter what you lose, break, or spend you can get it back because your wealth is an abstract concept that builds more wealth on its own. Eventually you can own a keep, and if you think you have a reason to fill its dungeon from the back rooms to the access hatch with potions, you're an idiot with a useless dungeon and as much wealth in potions as you would have had if you said, "none for me, thanks."

This is close to WBL, but a smart GM is going to guess as to what kind of value the things you kill are and adjust the reaching of milestones accordingly. You could kill nothing but ghosts and stay poor, or make some effort to hunt things that have stuff instead. You could get wealthy through managing a business, for that matter. This cuts out stupid tricky exploits that lead to infinite wealth, since the only way your group gets more wealthy is by doing things in the game.

It's one thing to track. After you determine the spread of wealth points relative to gp it requires very little prep work (if any). Players get the stuff they need and the stuff they want. You still have the option for artifacts and mcguffins if you want to throw in stuff not in the book.

I'm suggesting this because if your goal with narrative points is to simplify loot and ensure the players have full control over what they have (if not when) then this is a simpler way to do it. I'm not sure I'd go this simple necessarily, but I considered it for mundane loot.

[shadzar]

sorry Drolyt, but WBL only existed since 2000, and D&D was around since 1974. you seem to be missing the reason vendor trash exist for those 26 years before the most recent 13.

Don't be an idiot. AD&D required you to get more and more powerful magic items as you leveled up in order to succeed just like 3rd and 4th edition, and that is wealth by level in all but name. 3e just added a chart so the DM would know how many magic items a character of a certain level should have instead of guessing.

3rd also added monster levels to claim that is what you should be fighting because that is ALL that one could fight at those levels. shall i burst your bubble and give you something that will work for ALL editions, yet was made for AD&D which requires NO magic items, and is still a very tough thing for level 20 to overcome?

Look up something called Tucker's Kobolds.

I assume you know what a kobold is right? the thing with 1/2 HD, in other words one half as strong as a goblin, and weaker than a house cat.

guess your entire idea of WBL and wishlists got fucked there huh?

[Winnah]

Why do people fap over Tuckers Kobolds as though they were a challenge for high level adventurers.

They weren't and never were.

Their actual function was as a resource tax on the adventuring party, as they made their way through the dungeon.

Tuckers players fought the kobolds at level 1. When they got to higher levels, they went deeper into the dungeon, but they would still have to fight the kobolds on the first tier of the dungeon every fucking time they passed through it, to and from their standard level appropriate adventures.

The kobolds were simply a respawning mob that devised some basic tactics and counters to stand up to higher level stuff. They were not a challenge to mid or high level characters, beyond the fact that they would occasionally deplete spells and hit points from the party on the way through to a dungeon level, or kill or injure a weakened and resource-exhausted party member on the way back to town.

[infected slut princess]

Consider this: In the RA Salvatore Drizzt books, if my memory serves, there is an adventuring party that gets treasure. I use this as an example because it is fairly popular and it is a story influenced by D&D.

Drizzt the ranger-fighter dude specializes in scimitars and finds some magic scimitars. Like Ice Scimitars and Defender Scimitars. Earlier he got a wondrous figurine panther as an animal companion. It sounds like Drizzt might have submitted in some kind of wish list.

Cattibrie the generic fighter slut finds a magic bow and a quiver of infinite matching arrows. She later gets a super sharp sword that cuts rocks and stuff. She is basically defined by her equipment when she gets it. She got her stuff because it was either written in the module, or fortuitous random treasure rolls.

Wulf-gar the barbarian dude receives a magic Warhammer of Returning as a gift before going on his first adventure. It makes him better than he would otherwise be. This determines how he fights for his adventuring career. The DM basically just decided Wulf-gar would start with this and be extra good.

Regis the thief dude acquires a red jewel that helps him diplomatize people or charms them or something, I don't remember. I dont remember how he got it. So whatever.

I think people want to have a system where all these possibilities are available, because that would be consistent with the stories people want to emulate.

[Drolyt]

guess your entire idea of WBL and wishlists got fucked there huh?

Not at all. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say, are you suggesting it was a good thing that AD&D didn't offer encounter guidelines?

[DSMatticus]

If I were doing a D&D-esque heartbreaker, my 'ideal' system would involve forcing players to interact with their magic items through existing economies (and balancing around those economies. Also, should probably be more clear: economy in this case means things like action economy, not wealth economy - combat-scale limitations). If you know what a level appropriate action/buff is supposed to look like, then whether players are slotting in level appropriate actions/buffs from their class or their magic items doesn't really matter. A variety of abilities increases a character's power over many encounters, but a level appropriate action is definitionally level appropriate and so no matter how much magic bling you slap on you never go off any charts.

Artifacts are important because they have a fixed level, and that fixed level is very high. Trinkets are eventually inconsequential because they have a fixed level, and that fixed level is very low. Most of the iconic things players care about are variable level, and level up with them. There are still item limits a la Tomes, because having "all the powers" is a little ridiculous.

It fails pretty badly at making people care about magic items that overlap with their shtick, but I'm not sure I'd call that a bug. If Punchy McFist cares about the Belt of Fistpunch, then it is probably the case that he either needs it to be level appropriate (bad), or he is already level appropriate and it will push him over the top (bad). I suppose you could argue somewhat credibly that level appropriate is a range and not a point, and it's possible that the Belt of Fistpunch will bring Punchy McFist from the bottom of level appropriate to the top, but then you've resigned yourself to walking a tightrope while you carry every magic item related to fists and punching your game has, and I think that's an unnecessarily difficult task to accomplish (especially as splats accumulate) for what it adds to the game (... which is?).

[Grek]

Grek's Ideal System:

If you're doing it like that, wouldn't it be simpler to skip the looting process altogether?

I don't want to get rid of looting. I like looting. Getting piles of random crazy treasure is fun. Having the GM walk you through the dragon's hoard, describing how the beast's blood stains coins minted by empires centuries dead and how the torchlight glitters of the fist-sized rubies in the idol's eyes makes me happy in a way that "You get +1 wealth point." does not. And I want to keep that wealth and be able to say that my new throne that I stole from the King of the Low Kingdoms is now adorned with a ruby I looted from an ancient temple, and that my sword has a hilt of opal-studded gold. And I also want to be able to smugly say that I refused the worldly goods in the temple, unwilling to sully my spirit with avarice and that I adventure only for the greater good. And I want to laugh when we find erotic tapestries of bugbears in the Hobgoblin Palace that the party refuses to loot because they're gross. I want different levels of wealth to be different motifs, not different power levels.

Having money turn directly into mechanical power means selling off things that are opulent and fancy for things that are inexpensive but equally effective. It means prying the opals off your cutlass to save up toward a new +1 on your codpiece. It means not having swimming pools full of cash. The materialistic consumerism of it kills the fantasy of wealth for me, and that fantasy (along with fantasies of power and freedom) is one of the reasons why I enjoy tabletop games in the first place.

In order to prevent this, mechanical power has to be completely and entirely separate from in character monetary value. Introducing a separate meta-game currency to spend on mechanical power that's independent of in character wealth does this, and having wealth points that you trade in for power does not.

[tussock]

In general the idea is since items DO in fact do mechanically interesting, distinct and measurable things... dependency and synergy with character builds cannot be avoided. The alternative? Items that are boring, interchangeable and don't have a measurable impact is considered unacceptable.

That's what's known as a false dilemma. You can totally build a game where characters do not need magic items to win, and that game can have magic items that characters will want to use, and those items do not have to have synergy with character build options either way. Those things are all completely orthogonal.

Classic example: you can give a D&D party a bunch of "wands of death" that are better than them, don't care what their class features are, and go away after a little use so you can go back to playing your character again. And all the scrolls, wands, potions, hats, boots, talking swords, and magical talking ponies (Ki-Rin, whatever) can be exactly the same way.

You can combine that with needing some items, having a subset of the items that you need and do not need stacking with or relying on some of your class features, and including a bunch of vendor junk they don't care about right along side it all to make the stuff they do want even better.

And it can totally be randomised if you're careful about the cumulative odds and how many dupes and lowballs and accidental artifacts you are willing to have tales told of on the internet.

[Fuchs]

The entire premise of this thread is that a "wish list" is distinct from "purchasing things" or "crafting things" or in any other way using in-character abilities to acquire or attempt to acquire specific items. And that it is also distinct from using player (rather than character) abilities to affect the narrative and place items you want your character to acquire.

If all that a wishlist needs for you to stop freaking out is some feeble pretext of having codified rules.... here are some rules:

Each player gets to wish/place items worth X per level. X can be a set amount of gold if you're using WBL, or a set amount of "+" / bonuses. There may be an upper limit of "Y" that can be spent on any single item.

[PhoneLobster]

You can totally build a game where characters do not need magic items to win, and that game can have magic items that characters will want to use, and those items do not have to have synergy with character build options either way. Those things are all completely orthogonal.

But a fucking fighter WANTS his magic sword thats better than a non-magic sword to be better than a fucking normal sword, he want's magic swords to synergise with his fighter abilities in ways a crystal wizard orb DOESN'T just as the wizard wants the crystal wizard orb to do things he cares about in the primary field he fucking specializes in.

"Single use fucking wands of death" is a contrived, and ultimately lame "classic example". No one wants those. WTF? Not to mention the whole fucking paragraph of "classic example" reading like a confused non sequitor. Oh, then they go back to using all the OTHER class related synergistic dependancy items they always used like nothing... wait WHAT? I though that was a classic example of how to STOP FUCKING DOING THAT. Your example of "how to make role themed items mattering a thing of the past!" flat out just doesn't do that. In the example. It just straight up says so. Your contrived and unlikely scenario kinda needs some work there.

You can combine that with needing some items, having a subset of the items

The size of the set of items you may need in systems where items matter WILL differ from system to system. We care why now?

In the mean time lets go to a "classic example" that someone other than you came up with since it more concisely says what you were PROBABLY trying to say. The "Bag Of Holding".

The problem is not ALL items can be a bag of holding. And even the bag of holding has potential synergies and stacking combat strategies bullshit. I think the prime example of this is when the same poster who brought up the bag of holding followed through starting the next paragraph with "A sword that always lets you strike first in combat!"... as if that WERE NOT a direct and significant contribution to improving a swordsman's raw combat power just because it wasn't a +1.

Basically you MIGHT be able to do utility items that do stuff which doesn't contribute directly to character build synergy and combat effectiveness. MAYBE and its a big maybe that you won't get utility build synergy instead or STILL end up with combat synergy through more elaborate Rube Goldberg contrivances.

But even IF that worked it can only work at the expense of dropping magic fucking swords out the bottom of your item mechanics and never touching them with a ten foot pole. Because when you do if you are LUCKY you get the "sword that always strikes first in combat".

And I'm sorry, but magic swords are in. You can argue about the specifics, and you can argue about the terribleness of the +1 sword and the more terribleness of the +1 thru +5 sword, but ultimately SOME form of magic sword that matters to guys who hit things with swords IS in and you cannot and should not avoid it.

And it can totally be randomized if you're careful about the cumulative odds

Totally could. Again. Take Diablo 3. Bad odds, no items, no rewards, no fun, characters could not function. Torch Light 2, good odds, rich drops, lots of rewards, plenty of options, lots of notable class targeted quest reward items peppered in for good measure and other means of influencing item qualities, that worked, that's a game worth playing with some friends.

...But, this isn't a computer game. We don't really have the resources to waste on needlessly excessive random generation if we have other options. And anyway, we don't actually want swarms of flies dropping plate mail and fish net stockings. And we don't NEED a randomised loot table mechanic to do anything other than make up for lack of GM creativity in a hard pressed moment of inattention.

It is generally better for the Bikini Gun Elves to drop lots of appropriate arbitrary Guns and Swimsuits, and not drop random battle axes and dinner suits, and if they ARE carrying an unusual item it is better if it is an item that has been deliberately selected to be either a potentially useful option for one or more PCs, or else a fun exciting "other bullshit" item. Randomly you might just find that the unusual one off item is, very regularly neither of those things. A loot system that regularly generating item drops that aren't being used by their owners and are not useful to PCs and aren't fun for PCs is a loot system that is wasting game time resources generating chaff.

And as a rule both time and calculation resources in TTRPGs are significantly more precious than in CRPGs.

...PS and don't go giving me "oh but what if you roll loot FIRST! Then that one Bikini Gun Elf was wearing a tuxedo and using a battle axe ALL ALONG!" that is STILL generally bad.

...PPS aaaand don't go giving me "well then the tables will have elaborate series of contextual limitations that ensure that the black sheep Bikini Gun Elf gets a crossbow and a one piece instead!" because at that point you've effectively designed a monstrous contraption both more complex and less effective than arbitrary GM selection.

[deaddmwalking]

If you need a magic sword to stay on the RNG, that's bad.

If you need 'magic sword' at some point, that's not so bad. While a magic sword needs to do something special to make it more attractive than a mundane sword, those things don't need to necessarily impact your area of specialty.

Let me see if I can come up with 10 magic swords in 10 minutes that would be nice to have but wouldn't break the RNG:

1) Sword that lets you go first in combat. (already did that one, but I like it).

2) Sword that grants you fast-healing (you recover hit points more quickly between fights)

3) Sword that when you score a critical hit allows the target a save or imparts a status condition (like stunned). (Again, nice to have and it makes you more effective but not in a break the RNG way - unless you can guarantee crits, it isn't coming up enough to matter).

4) Sword that applies a protection against a type of energy attack (ie, acid resistance). (Again, being protected is nice and while it might more often tie to armor but this falls into utility, not required defenses)

5) Sword that can transform into any other weapon. (Magic sword versus magic staff - either way its a magic weapon and it works particularly well if weapons offer some type of situational bonus - having a pike at the start of the fight and then switching to a sword later, for instance)

6) Magic sword that gives you some healing every time you hit an opponent (blood-drinking. It tends to reward a more offensive approach since it shores up your hit point resource expenditure, but still more interesting than straight up +3 damage)

7) Magic sword that can slice through rock as easily as a hot knife through butter. (That's a sword that lets you increase mobility but it isn't going to give you a major combat advantage unless your opponents are using stone weapons)

8) Magic sword that allows you to make an extra attack each time you score a critical hit (again, that is a net increase in combat effectiveness, but it isn't reliable enough to calculate on the same way as a +3 bonus to every attack/damage).

9) Magical sword that if it kills enough opponents (say, equal to your HD) can restore you to full health if you die [extra HD are lost] - flavor it as destroying these souls [evil] and it's an interesting dilemma - especially if it contains the souls of some good people when you find it].

10) Magical sword that if you are hit while surprised, it automatically allows a retributive strike (again, I wouldn't want to be surprised if I could help it, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to have in that situation).


Yes - a sword needs to help you win fights if it's going to be 'useful', but the way it does it doesn't always have to be 'more numbers'. In all honesty, while this took about 10 minutes and I'm sure I could do more with more time, each of those seems to offer some utility to the point that I don't know which one I'd prefer MOST.

[Username17]

The entire premise of this thread is that a "wish list" is distinct from "purchasing things" or "crafting things" or in any other way using in-character abilities to acquire or attempt to acquire specific items. And that it is also distinct from using player (rather than character) abilities to affect the narrative and place items you want your character to acquire.

If all that a wishlist needs for you to stop freaking out is some feeble pretext of having codified rules.... here are some rules:

Each player gets to wish/place items worth X per level. X can be a set amount of gold if you're using WBL, or a set amount of "+" / bonuses. There may be an upper limit of "Y" that can be spent on any single item.

That would be strictly superior to a "wishlist" because the players would never be put in the position of making an item request to the MC that would be denied. Each item order would have force behind it because it would be made during the cooperative worldbuilding stage with metagame currency. It is obviously not the one true way of handling items however, because it has the following features that could be seen as disadvantages (depending on your goals):

• Cooperative world building steps take time, and that is time you aren't spending telling stories of adventure. Cooperative world building steps with accounting to do can potentially take a lot of time.
• Items placed during a cooperative world building exercise will by definition not surprise and delight anyone old enough to have object permanence when they are "discovered".
• Items purchased with currency, metagame or otherwise, will almost invariably be differently good "deals" for the cost. As people get more skilled at the game, their ability to discriminate will improve, and items with a worse bang for buck will not get purchased, causing the playspace to shrink.

But yes, you have come across a trivially easy rewrite to the 4e item rules that would make them better in every way. This more than anything else serves to illustrate how terrible the 4e item rules are. They are almost the nadir; it is difficult to imagine how one could even design a set of item rules that would be worse.

-Username17