Goodman Games

I am stealing a comment from another thread (Warrior Mechanics) so it will not derail that thread.

fireinthedust wrote: As for magic items: my take on them is that magic items are artifacts with names, every one unique. I'd like a list of unique magic items. Generic stuff can be adamantine, that sort of thing, that's not enchanted per se. Random generation tables are great, sure, but a list of swords like "the doubling sword of chaos" would be sweet. A sort of unofficial checklist of actual rather than generic swords. In my setting there right now there is an actual flametongue sword, and an actual frostbrand, a specific Lifedrinker, and The Vorpal Sword.

I am not a total big fan of this concept as a core part of the DCC. There are low, middle and high magic games. So the magic item tables should be fairly generic to start with... umm... similar to what was in 1e. I want to avoid a shopping list type environment if at all possible, but that is really a DM's decision when running the game and not a rule decision.

As to what makes up a magic item? I would love that magic items become less about a Wizard sitting around and enchanting and more about rare things that can be found/purchased in the world.

If we use the already common ascending AC system (not a DR system), then this would be possible.

Adamantine --- provides a +3 to +5 bonus to metal armors. (i.e. Chain would be +8 to +10 armor bonus)
Dragonhide --- provide +1 to +5 bonus to leather armors. (leather would be +3 to +7 --- maybe some elemental resistance of 25% or 50% of the dragon type?)
Mithral --- provides a +1 to +3 bonus to metal armors (i.e. chain would be +6 to +9 armor bonus)

The range of bonus could vary by purity of the metal. Skill of the blacksmith (i.e. not every can work the metals).

If you enchant the armor, you would 'imbue' the armor with additional properties... not additional AC bonuses. Resistance to slashing weapons, elements, weight, speed, etc

If you look at weapons, you can do the same sort of thing...

The crafting of the weapon and the materials in the weapon are what grant it most of the combat bonus to hit and damage. Balance of the blade, the sharpness, and weight provide most of the bonus. Where the enchantment comes into play would be making certain effects permanent.

Example: After dipping a sword in the blood of a freshly killed Red Dragon, the sword gains the flaming quality. That effect would slowly fade over a period of time unless a Wizard 'enchants' the blade and makes the effects permanent.

A wizard imbues the spirit of a departed warrior into a blade to grant additional combat skills to a weapon. This weapon does not gain any bonus to hit, but instead bumps up someone combat dice (not sure of the term here) to a minimum of d8. If they already have d8 or above, the blade either no longer helps the person fight in combat OR provides only a +1 shift in the combat dice.

But the core + to hit on a weapon would not change in these examples.

Heck, it could be that to even forge these mythical metals... a spell caster must work with the Blacksmith to 'weaken' the metals for crafting.

What am I getting at? I am looking to bring old school magic item creation back to the game. You used to have to 'find a tree hit by lightning' to make a wand of lightning. Are potions just something that can be mass produced in a factory? Or do they require special ingredients:

Example: Potion of Firebreath: Drinking a vial of fresh red dragon blood grants the character the ability to breath fire for the next turn or after expelling three breaths. Barring the ability to have fresh dragon blood on hand, a Wizard can collect blood from any number of fire breathing creatures and mix them together to synthesize the same effects of the red dragon blood.

I know that going into detail like this would dramatically increase the size of the magic item portion of the manual, but I think that bringing something like this as a core mechanic of the game would be very interesting. Giving a list of 'standard' type items and materials to use as a base for the adventurer.

I agree with this concept to a certain extent: it's a good idea you need to meet some requirements (material, moon phases, etc.) in order to craft a particular item.. but IMHO it's better giving some generic hints more than a list of specific recipes.

Something worth maximum a single column, but not more: it's up to the DM to create his own recipe, to make the item more unique than it would be if already known.

More importantly, the chapter should warn the DM to make a Quest for the recipe itself, if linked to a particularly powerful item.

I like this idea conceptually also. It has a definite OSR feel to it.

I think that, like the monster section, there should be a magic item section which covers the basics like basic healing potions mainly as examples for DMs to use when creating their own magic items in their adventures.

I think this is a situation where Joseph's moratorium on common monsters might also be applied. If an adventure is going to have a powerful and rare magic item in it, that item should be unique to that adventure.

Sweet@! I'm so happy I can prove someone *read* my posts at all! (I worry I'm writing into outer space sometimes) Disagreeing with me is totally allowed, though I'm not sure you do.

Hamakto wrote: I am not a total big fan of this concept as a core part of the DCC. There are low, middle and high magic games. So the magic item tables should be fairly generic to start with... umm... similar to what was in 1e. I want to avoid a shopping list type environment if at all possible, but that is really a DM's decision when running the game and not a rule decision.

See, here's what I think you think I said: that all magical items should be uber powerful artifacts, rather than just artifacts.

What I meant to communicate/convey is that, regardless of power level of the item (low, middle, high) anything that is specifically a magical item should be a unique item with a name and more interesting qualities than simply being an MMORPG shopping cart buy or monster drop.

Now, generic items are things the PCs just plain need, or that are incredibly common. Bags of holding, things to get through the DR of common monsters (if any have DR) like silver for werewolves, cloaks of elvenkind, etc. These could all be replaced by special item materials. Bags of holding could be made of the "fabric of the universe" that needs to be found, but then any bag made with it functions as a Bag of Holding; higher Craft DCs +gold give a bigger bag, maybe. Rings of Protection could be from a magical plant that grants a luck-related bonus to saves or AC or something. Feather Fall tokens, and other minor spells, could be a class of one-use items called Tokens, charms that wear off eventually. Potions are that already, and could be much more common; or there could be magical things like eye of newt that give you similar bonuses *if you can find a newt and eat its eye*. Or whatever.

Generic magic swords with only +1 or even +5 as their entire shtick, no name, dime a dozen: those should not exist. Replace them with Adamantine swords, for example, of whatever quality (like you said, there can be a scaling scheme based on, say, Craft check DC or what have you) up to +5, and you not only have the mechanical need covered, you also have a compelling in-setting reason to want to liberate that orc-infested mine: the magical metal that anyone can craft into superior gear.

As to what makes up a magic item? I would love that magic items become less about a Wizard sitting around and enchanting and more about rare things that can be found/purchased in the world.

If we use the already common ascending AC system (not a DR system), then this would be possible.

Adamantine --- provides a +3 to +5 bonus to metal armors. (i.e. Chain would be +8 to +10 armor bonus)
Dragonhide --- provide +1 to +5 bonus to leather armors. (leather would be +3 to +7 --- maybe some elemental resistance of 25% or 50% of the dragon type?)
Mithral --- provides a +1 to +3 bonus to metal armors (i.e. chain would be +6 to +9 armor bonus)

The range of bonus could vary by purity of the metal. Skill of the blacksmith (i.e. not every can work the metals).

If you enchant the armor, you would 'imbue' the armor with additional properties... not additional AC bonuses. Resistance to slashing weapons, elements, weight, speed, etc

If you look at weapons, you can do the same sort of thing...
((snip quote))

See, that is exactly what I'm talking about (though not as well put, in that case):

fireinthedust wrote: As for magic items: my take on them is that magic items are artifacts with names, every one unique. I'd like a list of unique magic items. Generic stuff can be adamantine, that sort of thing, that's not enchanted per se. Random generation tables are great, sure, but a list of swords like "the doubling sword of chaos" would be sweet. A sort of unofficial checklist of actual rather than generic swords. In my setting there right now there is an actual flametongue sword, and an actual frostbrand, a specific Lifedrinker, and The Vorpal Sword.

Just to clarify, what I mean by "magic item" is that it's an important item infused with magic. Appendix N has loads of heroes with good items, but specifically there are very few magical blades and *none* of them are generic (that I've seen). Off the top of my head:

Tolkien: Orcrist the goblin cleaver. Glamdrig the foe hammer. Narsil the flame of the west, aka: Anduril aka: the blade that was broken. Sting. (Technically the Barrow Wight swords don't have names THAT WE KNOW but they're still special, and were I believe forged for the purpose of fighting the witchking of Angmar.)

Moorcock: Stormbringer and Mournblade: two creatures of chaos forged into the form of swords to slay creatures of chaos.

Conan: NONE! He has no magical swords, so far as I've read. He's got really good swords, but not Unique, enchanted blades that have a name and an identity important to Conan.

King Arthur: Excalibur. Not "an" Excalibur, but *the* Excalibur.


What I'm arguing for is what you're saying: magical materials that can be used to make generic items AND a list of special magical weapons that function like the generic ones, but have more going for them. Plot-involved blades, or things that are more powerful that only exist at the bottom of Dungeon A so the hero in Dungeon B using it can show off that his hero survived Dungeon A. (or it's a cursed blade and he can't get rid of it; or it's a plot item)

So I'd like a list of actual magical swords, sure. I'd also like a list of magical materials like Adamantine, just like what you pitched or similar to it. It's about time, really. Common, disposable magic items bother me. Magical Materials, on the other hand, fascinate me.

Talking about weapons, I remember that CODA System's Lord of the Rings suggested that also a "simple" masterwork weapon could be granted with a particular bonus (not necessarily of magic nature) if the wielder stroke down a major foe with it.

For example, if a battleaxe (crafted by dwarves) was used to kill an Orc Lord in an important battle (gaining a name and a big renown), that battleaxe could grant a morale bonus to hit (or a morale malus to hit, for Orcs) if announced (calling loud its name) when drawn.

A morale bonus/malus could fit for natural foes (giants, goblins, orcs) while you could have a bonus of different nature if that weapon killed a magical creature (such as undead or dragons).


Sometimes renown could be more powerful than magic itself (just think about 90% of Dragonlances - during the core timeline - were fake, but still working as real Dragonlances in DL's novels).

dkeester wrote:I think that, like the monster section, there should be a magic item section which covers the basics like basic healing potions...

Dammit, I knew I forgot something! Healing potions! That explains why the characters keep dying...

This may be just a style of play, but I'm not big on including many magic items. Even "basics" like healing potions. The more "normal" magic is, the less magical it becomes. In my home game the players have a grand total of zero magic items in their possession. Oh, and one mithril sword, which might as well be magic for all the attention it gets. When they finally get a "real" magic item, it will be a momentous occasion...

goodmangames wrote:

dkeester wrote:I think that, like the monster section, there should be a magic item section which covers the basics like basic healing potions...

Dammit, I knew I forgot something! Healing potions! That explains why the characters keep dying...

This may be just a style of play, but I'm not big on including many magic items. Even "basics" like healing potions. The more "normal" magic is, the less magical it becomes. In my home game the players have a grand total of zero magic items in their possession. Oh, and one mithril sword, which might as well be magic for all the attention it gets. When they finally get a "real" magic item, it will be a momentous occasion...

Insted of healing potions, why not use strong bewerages and disgusting salves made of herbs? I suppose Hit Points in DCC will mean not only vitality, but morale, luck, etc. too, and you're usually braver after a few drinks.
In Swords & Wizardry, I use the following rule for drinks: the first dose gives you back 1d6 hit points. After that, the following ones give only 1, but you still roll 1d6 for every drink, which adds together with the previous ones, and once it reaches your max Hit Points, you're drunk. You could use some value based on Constitution, but HP usually includes it.
Ie.: Corak has 12 hit points on second level. He walks into a bar after a huge battle, with 4 HP, orders some spirits. After drinking that, he rolls a 4 on 1d6, now he feels his wounds less, he has 8 HP. Next drink, he gets only 1 HP, but rolls 1d6, it's 4 again - he has 9 HP, and 8 "Intoxicaton Factor". After the next round, he has 10 HP, but rolls a 6, so the IF is 14 - that's bigger than 12, which means he had too much. He will have a hard time walking back to his room (possibly falling and vomiting once or twice), and a nasty headache in the morning.

Fun part: one of my friends, who made up this rule, runs his own house ruled version of S&W, which had only three character levels, and there you could only drink one dose to heal every day. He ran a game at cons, and brought some spirits with him. Every time your character drank the alcohol he took with himself for adventure, you had to drink a very small amount of pálinka too. Of course he was careful enough, so no one got drunk and everyone from his party was above eighteen.

goodmangames wrote:

dkeester wrote:I think that, like the monster section, there should be a magic item section which covers the basics like basic healing potions...

Dammit, I knew I forgot something! Healing potions! That explains why the characters keep dying...

This may be just a style of play, but I'm not big on including many magic items. Even "basics" like healing potions. The more "normal" magic is, the less magical it becomes. In my home game the players have a grand total of zero magic items in their possession. Oh, and one mithril sword, which might as well be magic for all the attention it gets. When they finally get a "real" magic item, it will be a momentous occasion...

I totally agree with making magic items scarce. I like the idea of keeping magic items magical in the game just like I like the idea of keeping monsters monstrous in the game. This is why I advocate putting a few examples in the rulebook, just as there are going to be example monsters in the rulebook. Then, as a balance to that I advocate adopting the policy of not using any of the standard magic items in any published modules, just like there will be no standard monsters in any published modules. Any magic items in published modules have to be unique.

I don't want the situation where the PCs all stop at the magic shop and stock up on 15 healing potions each before entering the Dungeon of Ultimate Character Death. I want the game to be deadly.

I understand that if you put something into the book someone is going to use it. Even if you exclude certain magic items many of those same people are going to put them into their games. However, I think that your mentality with monsters applies well to magic items. (Magic items should probably also have unpredictable side-effects.) Give people the tools to create them, but lead by example by making them rare.

dkeester wrote: I totally agree with making magic items scarce. I like the idea of keeping magic items magical in the game just like I like the idea of keeping monsters monstrous in the game. This is why I advocate putting a few examples in the rulebook, just as there are going to be example monsters in the rulebook. Then, as a balance to that I advocate adopting the policy of not using any of the standard magic items in any published modules, just like there will be no standard monsters in any published modules. Any magic items in published modules have to be unique.

I don't want the situation where the PCs all stop at the magic shop and stock up on 15 healing potions each before entering the Dungeon of Ultimate Character Death. I want the game to be deadly.

I understand that if you put something into the book someone is going to use it. Even if you exclude certain magic items many of those same people are going to put them into their games. However, I think that your mentality with monsters applies well to magic items. (Magic items should probably also have unpredictable side-effects.) Give people the tools to create them, but lead by example by making them rare.

There is a difference between making items scarce and making them invisible. I know my group always tells me I am WAY too stingy on Magic Items... well... I am! In its attempt to commercialize the game more, WOTC made magic much more commonplace in the core rules. Magic item creation became something that was almost factory like. Moving it back to super rare ingredients eliminates the concept of magic shops where healing potions can be mass produced and a healing potion is actually worth good money!

But the issue for DCC is that it needs (in my opinion) to be relatively neutral on the low-middle-high magic concept. What is really magical? Not necessarily something that is enchanted, but instead something that is beyond what a normal person can make. Mithral armor --- magic like, etc...

If magic is going to be low, then there has to be a whole bunch of middle tiers of items that provide a game/mechanical bonus but are not really magical. 3e introduced the concept of Masterwork armor and weapons. That does fill a niche but it would be interesting to take things a bit further and for a low magic campaign that would have masterwork weapons provide a bonus of +1 to +3 (for super rare, one of a kind dwarven forged weapon)

It does not really matter that much if you call it magical or not as far as game mechanics go. The important point is to provide a goal for players (if magical items are so rare).

I know the game numbers are going to be depressed, but most players of the game need a goal. This becomes more important in groups or campaigns where they do not play as often (once per month or so). Players spend more time dreaming of their character and not of the campaign.

goodmangames wrote:This may be just a style of play, but I'm not big on including many magic items. Even "basics" like healing potions. The more "normal" magic is, the less magical it becomes. In my home game the players have a grand total of zero magic items in their possession.

That describes my refereeing as well. None of the heroes in Appendix N are decked-out like Christmas trees with magic items. In my games, magical items are far rarer than magical places (such as a fountain, or a tarn, or an oak grove, or etc.)

Hamakto wrote:If magic is going to be low, then there has to be a whole bunch of middle tiers of items that provide a game/mechanical bonus but are not really magical. 3e introduced the concept of Masterwork armor and weapons. That does fill a niche but it would be interesting to take things a bit further and for a low magic campaign that would have masterwork weapons provide a bonus of +1 to +3 (for super rare, one of a kind dwarven forged weapon).

I disagree on this point. From my line of thinking, what makes characters special is what they do -- not what they own. Sure there are magical items in Appendix N. But they are (usually) rare and unique. I think that's as it should be -- if the goal of DCC is to reflect the fiction of Appendix N.

I don't see a need for the game to fill in the gaps with masterwork weapons and armor that are just +1 Swords by another name. In my opinion, DMs can do that on their own if it fits their campaign.

Do any of us need rules that offer generic +1 to hit, +1 damage swords? Or Armor that offers +1 to AC?

In Conan, he could have a breastplate and a "masterwork" sword in one story and a dagger and a loincloth the next. The more we focus on equipment, IMO, the farther we get away from that.

Following on that, maybe an idea for experience is the "naked and broke" thing. Say a character has chain mail, a shield and a sword. At the end of an adventure, a player can tag one item as a "franchise" item that will carry over. And for every other item roll a d6. On a 1-4 that item is gone but the character gets the item's value times the number rolled on the die in experience.

So if I lost 400gp chain mail on a roll of 3, I'd get 1200 XP.

Ravenheart87 wrote:In Swords & Wizardry, I use the following rule for drinks: the first dose gives you back 1d6 hit points. After that, the following ones give only 1, but you still roll 1d6 for every drink, which adds together with the previous ones, and once it reaches your max Hit Points, you're drunk. You could use some value based on Constitution, but HP usually includes it.

That's interesting. In my house rules for a previous campaign, I made Healing Potions addictive. They allowed you to heal damage at an accelerated rate but they made your body dependent on their healing properties. Characters who used Healing Potions extensively soon found that their bodies lacked the capacity to heal normally.

Another option is the "Vampire Blood" option... Ingesting vampire blood from a vial healed wounds quickly and offered other benefits. But if the character died with it in their system, they rose as a vampire. And it increased their chances of becoming undead later on as well.

smathis wrote:That's interesting. In my house rules for a previous campaign, I made Healing Potions addictive. They allowed you to heal damage at an accelerated rate but they made your body dependent on their healing properties. Characters who used Healing Potions extensively soon found that their bodies lacked the capacity to heal normally.

Another option is the "Vampire Blood" option... Ingesting vampire blood from a vial healed wounds quickly and offered other benefits. But if the character died with it in their system, they rose as a vampire. And it increased their chances of becoming undead later on as well.

That sort of idea (i.e. vampire blood) is what I had in mind for 'magic items' in DCC. A character can go hunt vampires for healing potions and/or brew them. But the brewing is harder to do so there will not be tons of them floating out there. Or maybe, a vampire blood vial is equivalent to heal potion, etc...

As to your addicted to healing potions idea. It is cool, but to be honest at some point you have to limit how many things you pile on the players in a campaign. They are willing to accept a certain amount of risk and hardship, but there has to be a line drawn someplace that limits things.

While it would be nice to make 'natural' healing the norm to be more in line with Appendix N type books, it is something that just does not play out well in most campaigns. Quick healing (via potion or spell) is really the norm for most parties after a few levels. The amount of downtime is just too excessive and boring for most group of players for a marginal RP gain.

I could see making it addictive, but then healing potions would have to be very common in the campaign or it is just an arbitrary rule put in place to weigh down players. Remember, everyone is in the game for fun and making the game a fun is rule #1. Making it challenging is #2. Making it annoying difficult (i.e. penalize for magic healing and not natural healing would qualify).

Please do not take offense (as this is not directed at you), but I am starting to see a definite trend here on the forums of

'lets see how difficult and hellish we can make it for our players'.

Danger should be defined by the challenges that they face. Not about setting rules on rules to limit the characters actions.

Using the excellent vampire example above is a sign of a good rule for the healing properties of something that can be harvested naturally. If that blood is further refined (i.e. converted to a potion by wizard or priest, then the side effects would go away). The same could be done for 1000's of raw components. But the STANDARD potion in the core rules should work straight up as is now.

If someone wants to house rule negative effects, that would be their choice. But it should not be core.

goodmangames wrote:This may be just a style of play, but I'm not big on including many magic items. Even "basics" like healing potions. The more "normal" magic is, the less magical it becomes. In my home game the players have a grand total of zero magic items in their possession. Oh, and one mithril sword, which might as well be magic for all the attention it gets. When they finally get a "real" magic item, it will be a momentous occasion..

Please do not take offense at this, but that is how you run your campaign. To be honest you are in a minority out there for a fantasy RP game world (or at least in my experience).

Most people who are happy not getting magical items do not play a DnD type game at all. Heck, most of those play Shadowrun, StarWars, etc... Where magic items are either non-existent or just not part of the core game.

I would have to say that a MAJORITY of people who play fantasy games, want magic in their game. They want magic items available to find. They can live with not having a Magic Shop to browse, but the items need to be out there and accessible.

Hamakto wrote:Using the excellent vampire example above is a sign of a good rule for the healing properties of something that can be harvested naturally. If that blood is further refined (i.e. converted to a potion by wizard or priest, then the side effects would go away). The same could be done for 1000's of raw components. But the STANDARD potion in the core rules should work straight up as is now.

If someone wants to house rule negative effects, that would be their choice. But it should not be core.

Maybe I should clarify the "addictive" thing? It worked kind of like this. First taste was free. Drink a healing potion and "voila!" all better. Second time around (within a week or so) and natural healing was reduced to 1/2 (roughly). The game I was using allowed for me to just reduce CON by an attribute bonus level only in regards to natural healing. Next drink, the same. And so on. And so forth.

But all that came back after a while if the character avoided those healing potions. And they were pretty buff too -- offering 2d6 + level back, IIRC.

It worked fairly well. I think the impression was that the addiction was "permanent". It wasn't. But it was hard to resist. Which is why it was fun and not just penalizing.

I like Magic Items that are unique. I don't care for vanilla fantasy magic items. That said, I'm unsure if I'm in the minority or not. About half of my current group feels the same, the other half demonstrably do not. I've played in a lot of groups over the last (almost) 30 years. Nearly all of them have been low-magic. Even those that were pitched as not being so were undoubtedly so.

The default, even in the 4e game I'm playing in, appears to be magic items are hard to come by. And if that is the standard, I'd rather my magic item be unique and interesting than just another Dagger +1. I'd rather have THE Vorpal Sword than just a Sword +1 that does +2 to damage.

And I think that's truer to Appendix N. The ideas for healing potions that I've used in games before were presented as options to include something like a Healing Potion but with a "magical" bit thrown in there. I tend to do stuff like that in my games. Nothing is without its price. But that price isn't geared towards screwing a player over. The idea is, as you've stated, to make the game fun.

Going to a back-alley alchemist and ordering a poison can be fun, I suppose. But I think it's more fun to go to that alchemist and procure a poison that will kill a MAN in a matter of seconds. But for which the alchemist accepts no payment, only the promise of a favor in return. Funny how players often fail to read the fine print. So now that player has a poison that will kill any man in the setting. But what will that alchemist ask of him? And why did that alchemist give him sole ownership of one of the most deadly poisons in the setting -- which can only be brewed once a generation under the starlight of a moonless sky?

Hamakto wrote:Please do not take offense at this, but that is how you run your campaign. To be honest you are in a minority out there for a fantasy RP game world (or at least in my experience).

Most people who are happy not getting magical items do not play a DnD type game at all. Heck, most of those play Shadowrun, StarWars, etc... Where magic items are either non-existent or just not part of the core game.

I would have to say that a MAJORITY of people who play fantasy games, want magic in their game. They want magic items available to find. They can live with not having a Magic Shop to browse, but the items need to be out there and accessible.

By the same argument, then, MOST people who like collecting magic items will just play WoW. And they can, and they have fun, and they have the option of 4e, WoW, and if they play DCC they can make up their own or port over 3e magic items.

I like having magic items, but the question is making them magical. Take the comic book Fables. One of the characters grabs the actual Vorpal Sword and a magical cloak, and goes to town on the bad guys. The other fables, all with some magic, think he's a hero, and he is. Everyone has powers, like being a sorcerer or turning into a wolf, a beast, the ability to prick their finger and make the whole kingdom fall asleep, whatever. But, those who have magic items have specific items, and none of them are "just" items. They're "the" vorpal sword, or "the" Excalibur.
Later on, however, we learn that there's more to this character's magic items than just giving him awesome powers. They're not the same as just having a sword forged of gold or a cloak woven of moonlight.

The reason we need treasure: there need to be rewards, a sense of progress; but not necessarily calling them *magic* items.

Conan stories have changes in the items he's got, but he also builds up eventually. He gains a kingdom and rules it, defends it. They're just not told in order. Granted, he also gets to be leader of a pirate ship, then the ship is destroyed along with all the crew. He gets stuff and loses it fairly regularly.

Elric, on the other hand, has a franchise item(s). Lord of the Rings sees the finding of actual items that stay with characters. Both of these are fine.

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.

If there is a list of swords in the Core book, I really hope each is named. Different levels of power, and no sale value (one shouldn't "sell" magic; trade and barter, sure, give, yes, and surely find, but never simply liquidate assets), but names. If not, I'll just name each of them and have the PCs find them.

If NPCs each have "a flametongue" then I'd just say they're part of a set of those items made by their patron: the Nine Swords of Flametongue" or something.

Hamakto wrote: Please do not take offense (as this is not directed at you), but I am starting to see a definite trend here on the forums of

'lets see how difficult and hellish we can make it for our players'.

Danger should be defined by the challenges that they face. Not about setting rules on rules to limit the characters actions.

I am sorry that this is the impression which you are getting. I hope that I am not one of the ones contributing to that impression, but I suspect that I am.

The intent is not to torture players. It is to make them think. In modern systems there is the concept of a "level appropriate encounter" what this leads to is adventuring groups that just plow through any situation with sword and spell because they don't need to do anything else. There is no retreat, because there doesn't need to be any. Many of the published adventures from many publishers reflect this. There is only one way through the dungeon and that is by clearing it of monsters in a room by room sweep. There is no thought involved. In OSR games retreat is always and option and is often a necessary one. It also means that dungeons are built with multiple options and multiple paths. It requires thinking. "Can we kill the monster? It appears to be too strong for us. Ok how do we distract or disable it so that we can get past it without killing ourselves? Is there another path we can take that avoids the monster completely?"

There is also a difference of mentality between 3e/4e and DCC RPG. 3e and 4e are heroic games. The PCs are expected to be legendary figures who deal death at every turn and emerge unscathed from each encounter. They are shining examples and stand apart. "Never retreat, Never Surrender" and that sort of thing. In 3e/4e the PCs are idealized. DCC is different. The blurb on the DCC RPG page expains this:

Glory & Gold Won by Sorcery & Sword

You’re no hero.

You’re a reaver, a cutpurse, a heathen-slayer, a tight-lipped warlock guarding long-dead secrets. You seek gold and glory, winning it with sword and spell, caked in the blood and filth of the weak, the dark, the demons, and the vanquished. There are treasures to be won deep underneath, and you shall have them.

DCC is meant to be grittier. Elric is not a hero, nor are Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. The PCs in this game are in it to profit and keep their skins intact. They should expect to have to lie, cheat, steal, misdirect, and retreat. In DCC entering a dungeon should be tantamount to guerrilla warfare.

Hamakto wrote: If someone wants to house rule negative effects, that would be their choice. But it should not be core.

Joseph has said a few times that magic is going to be magical and unpredictable. So, just like casting a spell has random effects, magic items should have some of the same properties in my opinion. However, this means there should be a possibility for both positive and negative side effects.

Hamakto wrote:

goodmangames wrote:This may be just a style of play, but I'm not big on including many magic items. Even "basics" like healing potions. The more "normal" magic is, the less magical it becomes. In my home game the players have a grand total of zero magic items in their possession. Oh, and one mithril sword, which might as well be magic for all the attention it gets. When they finally get a "real" magic item, it will be a momentous occasion..

Please do not take offense at this, but that is how you run your campaign. To be honest you are in a minority out there for a fantasy RP game world (or at least in my experience).

Most people who are happy not getting magical items do not play a DnD type game at all. Heck, most of those play Shadowrun, StarWars, etc... Where magic items are either non-existent or just not part of the core game.

I would have to say that a MAJORITY of people who play fantasy games, want magic in their game. They want magic items available to find. They can live with not having a Magic Shop to browse, but the items need to be out there and accessible.

This part I actually agree with, at least partially. Magic and magical items are a huge part of the Fantasy genre. They should be included. I think that, just like monsters, they should be very easy to stat up in terms of the rules and should be tailored to the adventure. There should be uniqueness. A healing potion should be kind of like cola beverages. Both Coke and Pepsi are recognizable as colas, but they are rather different in their formulation. The same should be true of healing potions. This is what the magic item section should be about. It should give advice and a few examples for creating magic items and fitting them to the adventure. It should not just be a shopping list for the Magic Shop which just happens to exist in each town the adventurers will stop in.

fireinthedust wrote:By the same argument, then, MOST people who like collecting magic items will just play WoW. And they can, and they have fun, and they have the option of 4e, WoW, and if they play DCC they can make up their own or port over 3e magic items.

I like having magic items, but the question is making them magical. Take the comic book Fables. One of the characters grabs the actual Vorpal Sword and a magical cloak, and goes to town on the bad guys. The other fables, all with some magic, think he's a hero, and he is. Everyone has powers, like being a sorcerer or turning into a wolf, a beast, the ability to prick their finger and make the whole kingdom fall asleep, whatever. But, those who have magic items have specific items, and none of them are "just" items. They're "the" vorpal sword, or "the" Excalibur.
Later on, however, we learn that there's more to this character's magic items than just giving him awesome powers. They're not the same as just having a sword forged of gold or a cloak woven of moonlight.

The reason we need treasure: there need to be rewards, a sense of progress; but not necessarily calling them *magic* items.

Yes... there are players that attempt to fill every single magic item 'slot' with the best magic item. There are players that are happy just having a few items. But as a core for the game of DCC, we have to be careful with the direction that is taken for the rules.

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.

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.

In the last 3e campaign I played in for a while, my Cleric had a BattleAx +1... he loved that ax and instead of finding a new ax, he spent his money, time and eventually XP on upgrading the weapon over the course of the years. I did have a name for it on my character sheet, but that was the way I thought of it.

But that did start from just a basic +1 Battle Ax.

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.

dkeester wrote:[
There is also a difference of mentality between 3e/4e and DCC RPG. 3e and 4e are heroic games. The PCs are expected to be legendary figures who deal death at every turn and emerge unscathed from each encounter. They are shining examples and stand apart. "Never retreat, Never Surrender" and that sort of thing. In 3e/4e the PCs are idealized. DCC is different. The blurb on the DCC RPG page expains this:

Glory & Gold Won by Sorcery & Sword

You’re no hero.

You’re a reaver, a cutpurse, a heathen-slayer, a tight-lipped warlock guarding long-dead secrets. You seek gold and glory, winning it with sword and spell, caked in the blood and filth of the weak, the dark, the demons, and the vanquished. There are treasures to be won deep underneath, and you shall have them.

DCC is meant to be grittier. Elric is not a hero, nor are Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. The PCs in this game are in it to profit and keep their skins intact. They should expect to have to lie, cheat, steal, misdirect, and retreat. In DCC entering a dungeon should be tantamount to guerrilla warfare.

I disagree with you here and if this is what the game is about, then I am not sure I want to participate in the game. DCC is not just about being money grubbing mercs. They are heroes. They have abilities far beyond the common man. Wield magic the common man cannot comprehend. Face danger that would drive lesser men mad. Survive dragons, orcs and magical blizzards to spend their gold on ale and wenches.

Gritty is good, but do not lose touch that they are really heroic. They may be dirty, grimy, tough hero's... but if they were not heroes they would just keep cleaning out the local orc caves for easy treasure and live 'high off the hog'.

But instead, they keep tackling strong and strong dangers. Pushing back the growth of Chaos, Law, Good, and/or Evil (depending on their alignments).

Without that bit of heroic feel, the campaign will fail. Being murderous mercs is not really that fun after a while... well, not fun for most people. Most people play RPG's to achieve something that they cannot do in their daily lives.

Magic items are just a token that gives them something unique to their character to identify with. Yes, you can RP to your hearts content... but after decades of running a fighter without a magic item, would it still be fun just doing your class abilities? What makes the second fighter different that the first... the 3rd... etc. A set of magic item (even if it is not unique) is something that differentiates the character and gives them something different.

As a side point... we have a player who no matter what class he is playing, plays the same RP type of character. His equipment is what differentiates his character from campaign to campaign. He cannot manage everything with each character as his equipment is always different. I know that may be a unique situation but I would like to point it out.

Would Elric be Elric w/out his sword? Would Frode be alive without Sting and the mithral armor? In so many stories, the heroes survive based on their equipment (many times unique as people have said). From a crossbow that shoots a grapple... to a returning throwing blade. Some are mundane, some are magical. But the equipment helps define a hero and their actions. It also is a tool for a DM to provide tool to help get a character out of a 'gaming rule' rut.

Look at this: MDoA is a cool action... now how about combining MDoA with boots of jumping? Whoa... lots of cool ADDITIONAL options are available. Do not look at magic items as a crutch for players, but instead look at them as a way to expand out the cinematic feel of being a hero.

For a Hero they are!

To get away from the how much and what should be in the list... I would like to propose a couple of quick rules for magic items. These are proposed with the KISS principle in mind (not all my ideas follow that idea).

The following ideas are based on the following assumptions:

1. DCC power curve: The power curve does not scale up as much as in later editions of RPGs')
2. Campaign Magic Level: Ability to handle low, medium, high.
3. Prior editions of DnD all had the issue where characters can become a Christmas tree of magic items... with enough glow to light a small town. This happens as they fill up the various (sometimes) arbitrary item slots.

Make the rules for magic items simple:

Each magic item has an aura or field around it. This item will interfere with other magical items carried by the character. If we go along with this mechanic... we can do things like this:

In a low magic campaign, a character could only carry/use 3 magic items at a time. Medium 5... high 7.

or

They can only use items valued up to 50k gold in a low magic world... 75k or 100k as you progress up in power? Why a monetary value? a more powerful weapon (i.e. vorpal sword) has a powerful magical field that would limit the other items your character could utilize.

Yes, it is a bit arbitrary to have a cut off. But it provides a good game balance and allows magic items w/out the Christmas tree effect. And prevents questions like this... is a magic ear ring a head slot? or extra. Ioun stone is a straight up magic item... no longer a null slot item.

This provides a 'game mechanic' to limit the power growth of characters in the campaign and provides an explainable balance to players. Do they keep a Sting and a +1 dagger as their magic items, or replace the dagger with something else?

The assumption is that armor is made out of natural materials (i.e. Mithral) so they would not consume slots.

Hamakto wrote: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.

Or different ways to kill a monster -- specific phases of the moon, rituals, pacts with demons, silver, iron, etc. Or the option of retreat.

I had a 1st level party take on a bunch of Shadows. The caveat was that the Shadows were afraid of light. 1st level party did just fine -- with only one character getting drained of around 3 CON -- even though none of them had a magical weapon to use.

Not everything needs to be whacked with a shiny sword.

Hamakto wrote:To get away from the how much and what should be in the list... I would like to propose a couple of quick rules for magic items. These are proposed with the KISS principle in mind (not all my ideas follow that idea).

Or maybe let DCC handle it in a way that is appropriate for Joseph's exploration for Appendix N and then release a 3PP that allows for higher magic options, if they're needed?

I think your idea has merit. And I appreciate your viewpoint. It gels with roughly half of my current group's thinking on the matter.

But I don't see it reflected in Appendix N.

smathis wrote:

Hamakto wrote:To get away from the how much and what should be in the list... I would like to propose a couple of quick rules for magic items. These are proposed with the KISS principle in mind (not all my ideas follow that idea).

Or maybe let DCC handle it in a way that is appropriate for Joseph's exploration for Appendix N and then release a 3PP that allows for higher magic options, if they're needed?

I think your idea has merit. And I appreciate your viewpoint. It gels with roughly half of my current group's thinking on the matter.

But I don't see it reflected in Appendix N.

The only problem with only taking Appendix N as a gospel viewpoint is...

They are stories that have specific events and occurrences that first the story envisioned by the author. Everything in the story is put there by the author with a specific purpose in mind. Either the provide depth for the world and/or setup the hero for success or failure.

In a RPG, you have six heroes that do not always follow the story line. They come up with ideas that the author (i.e. DM) did not imagine. Plus, the DM has a very detailed image of the nuances of the world. Unless you group plays REALLY often and take excellent notes, the players will never have as much knowledge of the subtle things in the world.

But you also have six players who are looking for things to improve their characters. That could be knowledge, skills, equipment or the holy grail of Fantasy campaigns... magic items.

Sting in LoTR has a cool history and all. But after it was introduced in detail in the Hobbit, it was just a damn cool sword in the LoTR. Yes it added depth, but the sword only came into play when it was appropriate to the plot (i.e. give warning goblins were around). Any glowing sword can provide a background for the campaign, but at that point it is up to the DM the detail. Not the rules.

I think that the characters need not start out as heroic in terms of stats/skills/equipment etc - it's how the player plays them and what fate (the dice) decides that brings out the heroism. At higher levels, yes, magic items may come into play more but that's because they are damn costly (and I don't mean in terms of money.) - the character invests himself through questing, sacrifice, serving an otherworldly patron etc.

Appendix N example: Garner F. Fox's Kyrik , a warrior with some knowledge of magic (yeh-an Elric knock-off), possesses the sword Bluefang, it's a damn fine sword to start with but when Kyrik's patron demon goddess takes the form of a metal snake and wraps herself round the quillons and hilt, it gains the power to smash magic objects and wound the earth-bound avatars of demon gods. BUT, by the time it does that Kyrik has proved himself worthy of the goddess' beneficence by his devotion to her. Kyrik is not defined by the sword, but it is his signature weapon, there is a difference (I'm not saying a non-magic weapon can't be special either - but a magic weapon is def. more special).

As I keep saying, I agree with Joseph and Geoffrey about reigning in some of the excesses of D&D towards magic items, but I also agree with Andy ( ) that the game shouldn't just be all gritty - because Appendix N is more than that, and I don't want that limitation slapped on the DM from the start - especially at high levels. As long as they've earnt it, let the characters have their spoils.

Hamakto wrote:The only problem with only taking Appendix N as a gospel viewpoint is...

They are stories that have specific events and occurrences that first the story envisioned by the author. Everything in the story is put there by the author with a specific purpose in mind. Either the provide depth for the world and/or setup the hero for success or failure.

In a RPG, you have six heroes that do not always follow the story line. They come up with ideas that the author (i.e. DM) did not imagine. Plus, the DM has a very detailed image of the nuances of the world. Unless you group plays REALLY often and take excellent notes, the players will never have as much knowledge of the subtle things in the world.

But you also have six players who are looking for things to improve their characters. That could be knowledge, skills, equipment or the holy grail of Fantasy campaigns... magic items.

But I don't think lists and lists of "generic" magic items is the answer. How many people have had a +1 sword with 1/3 the character of Sting? The typical life-cycle of a +1 Sword is that it gets carried around for a level or two and then gets traded in (or turned into residuum in 4e) when a character finds or can afford an upgrade. It's not like the magic item lists from 1e on have lead to memorable, significant or even magical items.

I suggest that those lists are the EASY way out.

There are other alternatives. Ways to build a campaign organically with magic items that do have meaning and significance. Stuff I do in the games I've run is have the sword that dealt the killing blow to a dragon oftentimes gain a reputation -- as well as absorb some of the power of the dragon. Suddenly that plain, old normal sword is The Dragonslayer. And the character keeps it through the entirety of his career. It grows with him. It's power grows with him.

In one campaign, a Paladin picked up a Sword +1 that had a special property of helping him against Fear attacks. That same sword many levels later was a Holy Avenger. It had a name. It had a history.

I'd rather have magic items that serve as examples for those sorts of signature items than a generic list that we've had for the last 30 years that just stand for the same old, self-referential, disposable "magic item economy" that a dozen other games already have.

I may be in the minority. But I'm tired of the Christmas Trees. I don't want slots and upgrades and a magic sword around every corner. I want Stormbringer. Foeslayer. The Hammer of Ragnarok. Or whatever else groups playing DCC can think of. Sure, I'm not going to freak out if DCC has a Sword +1 or a Potion of Healing. I understand that different people will play the game differently.

But if it includes item slots and spells to break down a pile of +1 Daggers into pixie dust or "exchange rates" for selling unused magic items for gold, I'll question exactly what inspirations the game was drawing from. If a character is lucky enough to find a Magic Item or imbue an item with the power of an epic foe, I don't think anyone should consider "upgrading". That weapon should stay with the character as a family heirloom at the very least.

Sure, it requires a bit more work on the DM to keep those items growing with the characters and to help the campaign to flow around (and include) those items. But I find it more rewarding. And I haven't had a player "trade in" a magic item in 20 years.

I don't feel that this approach is "gritty" or somehow penalizing the players. It's making these things "magical". More magical than going down and buying a shield at an Enchant-O-Mart.

I definitely agree with you there. I do not like the way 3e or 4e did magic items. It took the magic out of magic items. It was more just like buying special equipment than a magic item.

Hence my ideas with the initial post. You go back to the 1e way of doing magic items, where you have to achieve specific rare items to even craft them. There is no way to 'convert old items' to power, they are gifted away.

One of my thoughts were that armor and weapons (the two most common items) were not going to be magical, but instead made from 'special' materials (i.e. Mithral). They would only be magical if there were enchanted with additional powers.

To use another example... a vial of Vampire blood is a full Heal spell... non magical. But a potion of heal would definitely be magical.

Dipping a sword in dragon blood would make it flaming for a period of time... not 'magical'.... but enchanting it to make it permanent would be magical (i.e. each sword would have the name of the dragon killed to make the flaming sword).

The point is that a table of items with prices in the DCC book is a good thing. It provides DM's who do not have the time or creativity a good base to play the game. I believe one of the earlier design posts said something like this (I did not find it on a quick look):

The goal of the DCC is to publish one short book (64 page-ish) that someone can buy and be able to play a complete game with a sit of Dice. That means that it needs basic class, spells, weapons, common monsters and magic items (with all the accompanying rules). I am not talking a comprehensive list of 1000's of items, but a good solid list similar to what is in the DMG (sans Artifacts and some of the more exotic --- and possibly copyrighted magic items).

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.

One thing that has not been brought up yet is the fact that magic in DCC is based on supernatural entities. I wonder how they would like to be bound into magic items?