Magic Items and DCC

[Hamel™]

The world DOES need +1 swords.

True, but if you don't need that +1 to be necessary to hit some kind of monsters (i.e. ghosts), you can always use the concept of renown and a morale bonus, IMHO.

IMHO in this way you can get rid of skeleton wielded abandoned dusty mass produced +1 swords to have a lesser number of weapons but with something unique (like a name and a story behind it).

[finarvyn]

The world DOES need +1 swords. Great and powerful swords are nice and wonderful, but you do need something in the low to middle tears for players to swoon over in happiness. Remember building world depth is not only the job of the DM, but the players can help also by fleshing out their +1 weapon and doing thing to try to improve it over the years or levels.

Although those +1 swords need not be magical. They could simply be fine quality craftsmanship. I could see swords in several categories:
1) Basic, run-of-the-mill sword, +0.
2) Well-crafted sword, non-magic, +1
3) Basic sword, non-magic but enhanced. (Basic sword, perhaps silver-based, +0 but +1 versus certain supernaturals. Or basic sword, perhaps cold-iron-based, +0 but +1 versus certain fae folk. Or basic sword, phosphorus-based, +0 but +1 against mummies. And so on.)
4) Really nifty magic sword. Cool plusses and maybe stuff it can do. Maybe sentient, maybe not. Has a name.

Category 3 might take some creativity, but since certain types of creatures have built-in weaknesses there could be non-magic blades with properties designed to exploit those weaknesses. Also there could be daggers, arrows, etc with those same properties.

[JediOre]

3) Basic sword, non-magic but enhanced. (Basic sword, perhaps silver-based, +0 but +1 versus certain supernaturals. Or basic sword, perhaps cold-iron-based, +0 but +1 versus certain fae folk. Or basic sword, phosphorus-based, +0 but +1 against mummies. And so on.)

Category 3 might take some creativity, but since certain types of creatures have built-in weaknesses there could be non-magic blades with properties designed to exploit those weaknesses. Also there could be daggers, arrows, etc with those same properties.

Category 3 is fun! In the game I've been posting reports about on these boards, Lord Tulwar's cold iron sword fits into this category. The main thing as a DM is to keep the enhanced properties secret from the players! They know something is special about the blade, but they don't really know what.

[DCCfan]

this topic got hot all of a sudden. I'll throw out my two coppers on magic and DCC. I want magic items. I have had them since 1E and remember having lots of them all the way to 4E. I also want healing potions. Even if they are hard to find I want them. They are just part of the game for me. In the spirit of Appendix N I would be fine with the three item limit mentioned before. I would even try the

Franchise Rule

mentioned earlier and only have one item that I could keep from one adventure to the next. I want to find magic items and use them. Even if they are one shot magic bullets that kill monster X I want to find them and use them. If I raid the tomb of Joe The Invincible Mummy I want to find some magic items. I don't want to go through three or four adventures and only find one magic weapon. I can already see the party of Appendix N style PC's killing each other for it. At the very least the group of players would be arguing at the table to be the one to get the one and only magic sword they have found in the campaign. Even in 3E we had a few arguments over an item that more than one player wanted.

[fireinthedust]

The difference is that they don't just hand out generic items, they hand out specific items. I think items should be specific.

That said, they can be any power level. Sting is maybe a +1 short sword that glows. The difference is it's not just "a" +1 short sword, it's a named short sword.

See you are now confusing DM presentation of items with core rules. Sting could very well be a +1 Short Sword that glows. It could be a +1 short sword that glows in the presence of goblins. It could be the same but it is a goblin bane. +2d6 damage.

Giving it the name of Sting makes it cool and memorable. Why would 'Sting' be in the core rules? If you are not running a Tolkien-esk campaign, then the item itself does not really apply.

I never said put Sting in the core rules, just like I never said all magical items should be extremely powerful or extremely rare.

What I'm saying is that, however rare they are, or common; however powerful they are, or humble; every magical item should be unique and different. Generic items

Sting-like would be cool, though, and the item creation rules are good rules (goblin-bane, etc.). Instead, though, what if we had item stat blocks the way we have monsters?

Name: Sting
Bonus: +1
Powers: Glowing (trigger: orcs); Spider-bane
Quirks: (this is where Elric's curse would be put)

We really do not know how the monsters are going to be developed in DCC RPG. Will you need magic weapons to hit a monster? If so, then yes you will need more common +1 weapons out there. As a DM, you can attach a name to the sword to make it special, but it is only a +1 sword.

*If* monsters are designed to require +1-+5 items to hurt them, which was an issue back in the day, so they turfed it and good riddance. Gone for preference of specific types of weapons: adamantine, silver, magic (regardless of plus), good, lawful, etc.
Keep in mind there are other ways than having a crafted magical sword do this stuff. Elysium Silver could count as silver and good. Charms could be placed on a blade to bless it with the power of Law (which I just got to in Sad Giant's Shield last night).

Let's step back and look at the 'elven cloaks' that were given the fellowship of the ring. Were they magical? I would say yes. Were they unique? No. Uniqueness should be the providence of the DM and their adventure. Not an aspect of the rules.

How one defines magical should be more broad than whether they were crafted as magical, according to the item creation rules.

As well, DCCrpg is *supposed* to be a game about Appendix N. In Appendix N there isn't the same disposable aspect of magic items that developed because of video games and D&D.

So no, it shouldn't be merely the providence of the DM. This is a game set in a particular style related to a large swath of books. If the DM wants to run something else, they can. They're asking, by playing this game, to be informed of Appendix N design considerations. In fact, I'd argue that having this be the style for magical items they'll not only enjoy the game more but they'll actually think "wow, this game is better than generic D&D".

I'm not saying there won't be magical treasures aplenty. I'm saying that certain items, crafted magical gear, should be named regardless of power level.