Magic Items

Ezri said:
Making it so that people can no longer use the things they already have will be a customer service nightmare. Creating a skill to use them (while that would be an ok idea if we were just starting - I've had that thought myself) will just mean that you'll have to allow people a re-build if they request it, so you've accomplished nothing, as the people with the "pocket scholars" just had to sell back skills to be able to do what they've been doing all along.

Here's my thinking:

You can do one of two things - make magic items harder for combat classes to use, or add a benefit to it that only casters get.

The former will upset lots of people, while the latter could be a big boon to casters.

I have some ideas, but I'm not sure that they're good ones, I'd like some feedback. For the purpose of discussion when I say caster I mean somebody with the skill to cast a spell - which could be a scholar, adept, templar, or any other class that has put build into a spell tree of either school:

Idea #1 - If a caster activates an item in his or her primary school, they may choose to activate it silently. This would still require an OOG verbal of "casting <spellname>." The verbal is not in-game, and may be made while the character is silenced, paralyzed or otherwise incapacitated (yet still conscious). The verbal represents an audible surge of magic coming from the caster, much like the damage swing "2 normal" represents the sounds of battle, swords clashing etc. ("casting" is a placeholder - if somebody has an idea for a better verbal let me know) Ex: Aislynn has a purify item. Because her primary school is Earth, she can activate it while under the effects of a silence to rid herself of the effect.

Idea #2 - A caster who activates an item in his or her primary school may choose to ignore all flaws in said item. Ex: Cedric has a 2/day dragon's breath item, but it has a flaw that only allows it to be used while sitting. Because Cedric's primary casting school is Celestial, he has enough knowledge of the spell to be able to use the item and ignore these restrictions.

Still pondering more, but thought I'd kick these around to start.

**Edited to Add bits from the old thread on other solutions to the Magic Item debate

-Stop allowing permanent NPC items (HQ already does this).

-When items go out of treasure policy, do not put out items with very powerful spells in them, except perhaps where they make plot sense (like a racial artifact or something). No prisons, lifes, circles, dragons breaths, purifies etc. out of items. I'd rather see 8 disarm items than a dragon's breath. You want the big boom? Go to a caster. It means there are more items overall, but it also means that the big spells remain the realm of the caster.

-Player-made items obviously can still be permanenced, or have 9th level spells or whatever. The rules on these would not change.

Eventually most of the other items will get used up, expire or otherwise make their way out of the game. I'm sure some will hang around, but over time things will shift. No, it's not an immediate fix, which is what I'm sure we would like. But sometimes those sort of changes create more problems that we didn't forsee.

Great Ideas
 
tieran said:
The issue with giving scholars a better use for magic items is that it still does not rectify the problem of people who have tons of items.

In my opinion, making it so scholars can ignore flaws or activate under different circumstances will not limit this issue.

If its a good enough item, fighter guy is not going to give up the item just because he has to sing the incant. He's just going to sing it. And if Scholar-man comes up and says, "You know, I can use that without singing." Fighter Guy is just going to say, "No you can't, its mine."

I honestly think that applying some kind of limit to the number of magic items a person can carry and use is going to be the solution.

I wouldn't make it a seperate skill. I'd make it dependant upon other skills & I'd make it caster friendly.

You get X number of items that you can use, and then the first time you purchase a 1st, 5th, & 9th level spell (of each school, so people who dual school get more of a benefit) it increases X by one. Not +1 for each spell of that level, just for the first one.

Rituals cast directly on your spirit don't count, but spirit linked items do.

It'd be a limit on the number of items, not the power of said items or the number of rituals on them, as that encourages people to make their own.

I'm also in favor of no more items for NPCing at all. Give people LCO scrolls & components, so they can make their own. Maybe keep the option of getting low level spells as times ever items. It force more use of formal levels IG.

The ritual system needs a bunch of work as well, not in the "Lets take the rituals out" sort of way (though that may need to be done as well), but more in tweaks to how the system itself works.

I think that magic items (except maye tiny ones) should not go out as treasure at all & that the number of scrolls and components that go out should be doubled or tripled to compensate for that.

I'd be in favor of assigning a produciton value to components, catalysts and rit scrolls, and sending them out as part of the main treasure policy (with an increase in the treasure policy to match up with it all).

Limiting the number of items you can carry/use is just like limiting the number of items you can bring into a chapter....there are ways aroud it w/o cheating believe me.
 
Gilwing said:
Limiting the number of items you can carry/use is just like limiting the number of items you can bring into a chapter....there are ways aroud it w/o cheating believe me.

Right it just means that other people would be using them... however, the limitation would be done in such a fashion where you are the only person who can use those items for that logistics period.
 
Magic items are fun and everyone likes getting them. They are also one of the only ways to really reward players who go the extra mile OOG, and this reward still falls far short of how hard some people work. I don't know if the answer is making them less accessible/usable.

To me, the real problem is that an item that duplicates a PC skill should never be more useful than the build bought skill. Some things have that limitation built in, like skill stores being times ever and damage aura being limited to +3. But activate items that duplicate spells are faster to incant and usable in more situations than a spell from memory. I feel magic items should be unique or lesser versions of the build bought skills. Otherwise, casting skills are devalued.

Alliance is designed to emulate classis myth and fantasy, with wizards and warriors and rogues and some that dabble in both. That's really the only reason why we have classes at all. Templars and adepts have controls via build cost that they can't do either as well as a "pure" class" of the same level. But throw in activates and a 20th level fighter is now a 45th level templar, but even more effective because of shorter incants and being able to "cast" in situations where he is incapacitated. An even more extreme example (and I hate revealing this but I think it's good to have a real example): My 38th level fighter is equivalent to over a 75th level templar because of magic items...not counting cloaks & banes.

Scrolls and potions have built in limitations. Some spells just can't be made into them and you have to take 3 seconds to drink or cast from a scroll. They are limited to one use as well. No one ever brings up that these are unbalanced, even though you can have a "pocket scholar" of potions or scrolls.

Changing activates to be only usable or more usable by casters will only change the power paradigm, not eliminate it. My PC as an example again. Instead of swinging 20s with x amount of activates, I'd switch to templar and be a templar swinging 15s with x amount of activates and 1 or 2 ninth level spells. Not much has really changed except my weapon damage has decreased 25%. I played many years swinging 15 or less and the character was still pretty effective.

Granted, this is an extreme example, but it would apply in other cases with similar results.

My original statement was that magic items are fun. I hold to that. People get VERY excited when they find things. They spend hours and hours planning and trading scrolls and components. They lay down hundreds of gold to buy a scroll or primary. It's a HUGE part of the game and an enjoyable one.

So the question becomes, how do we keep build bought skills unique and/or better while still keeping magic items fun and exciting? Telling people they can no longer use them won't accomplish this. Making people "synch" them at logistics doesn't seem fun either. Personally, I love the look on a junior team members face when they are given a magic sword and 5 items to go on their module. "Synching" items will eliminate the usefulness and fun of "team" items. And what happens when your team member decides to sleep in late and no one gets to use or even carry the team item? That's no fun. Everyone being able to use the items is part of the fun.

I don't have any great answers either, I'm just throwing out things for people to think about. The longer incant was an attempt to make build bought spells a little better than the items. Not a full solution and not a great solution, but I thought it was at least a small step in the right direction without taking away a lot of what is fun about items.

Scott
 
What were some of the other possibilities that were discussed in the ARC in the same realm of things?

If you can discuss them now that is...
 
Generally speaking, I liked WCV-Matt's idea (Of sorts) that MI's should enhance the class that the character's playing, not create a Fighter into a Templar, or a Scholar into an Adept. The point of picking a class is to do what that class does, not min/max the system through Magic Items, from my point of view.
 
You know, not to be radical or anything but why dont we just fix it the old fashioned way.
1)For the most part its items in the hands of High level people not low level that is the issue.
2)The items need to be on the player to be an issue.

Just take some of those nasty oblit able monsters in the data base and make ones that do destroy magic instead. Destroy items that the players have, but only give the power to some high end monsters. Then if plot feels their chapter has an item issue, they can write a plot line that involves trimming it down a little. Only use this level of power where you would use other dragon magic levels of effect.

Note one advantage of this approch is no change in the game system at all, and the players dont have to do anything.
 
Posted for Sarah -

Scott: "Scrolls and potions have built in limitations. Some spells just can't be made into them and you have to take 3 seconds to drink or cast from a scroll. They are limited to one use as well. No one ever brings up that these are unbalanced, even though you can have a "pocket scholar" of potions or scrolls."

You can "fix" Magic item imbalance by limiting magic items purchased with goblin stamps or put out as treasure in the same way as scrolls and potions. Remove the same spells that are not scrollable and potionable from those types of magic items. (I'd recommend restricting DAs down to 0 for items entering game in this manner as well since it duplicates fighter build.)

Allow PCs who go through the trouble to gather the materials IG to create whatever items they want. (So the uber earth formalist can, in fact, make life items.) This makes PC generated items cooler, makes the process of gathering the materials cooler, and indirectly buffs formal casting by making it a more desirable skill.

You then allow items with "removed" effects on them to expire or spirit lock them (applied as a flaw) to people as a way to remove them from the system. (Most people won't complain about a free spirit lock.)

Treasure policy may need to be adjusted slightly to accommodate the increased demand for ritual items. But if you're not putting out the things they want as ready-made goods, you have much more room to be putting it out in "ingredients."

Is it a neat and clean solution? Not really. It requires new policy to be written and old policy to be reviewed and adjusted. However, it's probably the best long-term solution.
 
doverman said:
Posted for Sarah -

Scott: "Scrolls and potions have built in limitations. Some spells just can't be made into them and you have to take 3 seconds to drink or cast from a scroll. They are limited to one use as well. No one ever brings up that these are unbalanced, even though you can have a "pocket scholar" of potions or scrolls."

You can "fix" Magic item imbalance by limiting magic items purchased with goblin stamps or put out as treasure in the same way as scrolls and potions. Remove the same spells that are not scrollable and potionable from those types of magic items. (I'd recommend restricting DAs down to 0 for items entering game in this manner as well since it duplicates fighter build.)

Allow PCs who go through the trouble to gather the materials IG to create whatever items they want. (So the uber earth formalist can, in fact, make life items.) This makes PC generated items cooler, makes the process of gathering the materials cooler, and indirectly buffs formal casting by making it a more desirable skill.

You then allow items with "removed" effects on them to expire or spirit lock them (applied as a flaw) to people as a way to remove them from the system. (Most people won't complain about a free spirit lock.)

Treasure policy may need to be adjusted slightly to accommodate the increased demand for ritual items. But if you're not putting out the things they want as ready-made goods, you have much more room to be putting it out in "ingredients."

Is it a neat and clean solution? Not really. It requires new policy to be written and old policy to be reviewed and adjusted. However, it's probably the best long-term solution.

Limiting magic items (whether NPC or PC gathered) won't revalue memory cast spells. It's not necessarily the 9th level and a few other spells that causes the pocket caster issue. The core issue is that the activate is still better than the memory cast spell. Life spells are even a worse example, as if they're not in magic items, earth casters will now be much more likely to die if they are put into their death count. Yet the non caster will still be able to activate spell shields, poison shields and cure morts.

What is really the balancing factor of scrolls and potions is how they must be used. You can get hit with a lot of spells in three seconds and you can lost track of an opponent while reading a scroll. You also need to stop fighting to do so.

Taking away people's toys isn't fun. Not having good rewards for people who work very hard for the game is not fun. I don't want to have to face either issue, but I would like this fixed. Going around arbitrarily destroying people's magic items whom staff deems to have "too many" is just an all around bad idea. There are also no monsters with any type of obliterate in the standard Alliance monster database. Any such creatures were created by a local chapter and are hopefully being used very responsibly.

Also, having "grandfathered" items is not a good idea either. In the past when we've drastically changed magic item rules, items were changed as well. Originally you could have an unlimited number of rits on an item. When this was dropped to 20, items had to be split up (and yes, there were items with close to 100 rits on them). Grandfathering makes it hard for future staff members to check the validity of items.

Scott
 
OK. Here's an idea I have heard a couple of times. Spell channeling. Allow casters to do the incant for a spell once, then based on the spell level to cast the spell again simply by saying a brief incatn.

e.g - Stone bolt is a first level spell, it can be channeled once on a casting. The caster would incant "I call forth a stone bolt" and then cast it immediately again saying "stone bolt." More damage faster. You could do the same for earth, of course, throwing what amounts to a binding storm. I think this would be better to balance the magic items, honestly. The problem is lack of caster utility, not over utility of the magic items.
 
doverman said:
The problem is lack of caster utility, not over utility of the magic items.

That's not necessarily true. If you want to balance two things, you can take away from the greater or add to the lesser. Which route is chosen depends on many variables.

Since game balance is never a straight math equation and is often a flavor or vision issue, there will always be many different opinions. Do spells need to be more powerful or do magic items need to be less powerful? It seems Dave believes the former while I lean more to the latter. Plus you also need to take into account all the other rules it will impact.

There is something called a pound cake. It is called that because you use a pound each of flour, eggs, butter & sugar. But you can make them with any weight that is a 1:1:1:1 ratio. If you make it with 8 ozs. of butter and a pound of everything else, it will not turn out right. If you have another 8 ozs of butter, you can add it or remove 8 ozs of the other three. But if you only have 8 ozs of butter, you have to remove the other three.

Currently our rules system has three pounds of magic items and only one pound of spell casting. Dave's suggestion would give us maybe a pound and 4 ozs of spell casting. We still need more spellcasting or less magic items. I'm not sure that adding another 1 pound 12 ozs of spell casting is the way to go. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not.

And we haven't even gotten to the eggs or flour.

And add to that some people like things a little sweeter, some like it a little dryer and some like it a little moister. And some people prefer donuts.

Good thing I had a big lunch or I'd be hungry.

Scott
 
doverman said:
Good thing I had a big lunch or I'd be hungry.

Scott

Damn you... it's lunch time on the West Coast!

Just another example of my evil schemes. They only grow more insidious ;)

Scott
 
Honestly I have to disagree that the problem is a lack of caster utility. I believe that in a non-magic item game the power of spells is reasonably balanced with the time required to say the incants. It would be really nice if some way could be figured out to slowly gently de-value the supper items.

While I realize that giving out magic items for NPC'ing and some peoples HUGE contributions to the game it hardly seems like thats the only solution to the issue here. There are a myriad of treasures that people can also get. I would tend to say (although this is just a guess) that magic items are given because they are so nice.... =\ But I don't want to say anything too negative cause I REALLY respect all the work some people go to. ^_^

As for Destroy Formal magic on monsters I have to ask why that is a totally bad way to limit magic items? When you get PC's with lots of life spells running around the plot will eventually throw out Death elementals or Knights... When the PC's are running around with loads of magic items why wouldn't the monsters compensate by trying to destroy some of them? I think that if it were standard for high up monsters to occasionally throw destroy formal magic it wouldn't be that unfair.
 
The bottom line is a basic one, and minds can differ on it.

Some of us feel that magic items should never be better than someone who actually spent the build on the skill -- that a 10th level caster should be a better and faster caster than a 1st level caster with a bunch of magic items.

Those who disagree, disagree and it's just a matter of what you prefer in the type of game you play.
 
Dreamingfurther said:
Honestly I have to disagree that the problem is a lack of caster utility. I believe that in a non-magic item game the power of spells is reasonably balanced with the time required to say the incants. It would be really nice if some way could be figured out to slowly gently de-value the supper items.

While I realize that giving out magic items for NPC'ing and some peoples HUGE contributions to the game it hardly seems like thats the only solution to the issue here. There are a myriad of treasures that people can also get. I would tend to say (although this is just a guess) that magic items are given because they are so nice.... =\ But I don't want to say anything too negative cause I REALLY respect all the work some people go to. ^_^

As for Destroy Formal magic on monsters I have to ask why that is a totally bad way to limit magic items? When you get PC's with lots of life spells running around the plot will eventually throw out Death elementals or Knights... When the PC's are running around with loads of magic items why wouldn't the monsters compensate by trying to destroy some of them? I think that if it were standard for high up monsters to occasionally throw destroy formal magic it wouldn't be that unfair.

Example A: A Player has just donated a $1,000 computer to the game. They NPC a weekend and purchase a five year magic item. They are happy with their donation and their magic item. The game is happy to have a nice, new computer.

The next time they PC, big bad destroy magic monster destroys their magic item.

Example B: Honest Joe the NPC goes out with the destroy magic ability. He randomly chooses 5 people to destroy magic on. 3 are on the same team. They accuse Honest Joe of targetting their team. Honest Joe is now upset along with the 3 players.

Example C: A player comes to ten work weekends and works 16 hours each weekend. They then NPC and purchase a five year item. Destroy Magic monster goes out and blows up their magic item later that year.

Example D: A kid mows lawns all summer to buy the game Rock Band. His parents condone him buying the game and even drive him to the store. The kid plays it all fall semester. His parents hear that a kid down the block failed three subjects because he spent all his time playing Rock Band. The parents take the game away from their kid and throw it in the trash, even though their kid is on the honor roll.

We will now send all customer service complaints to Dreaming Further.

Scott
 
Duke Frost said:
We will now send all customer service complaints to Dreaming Further.

Scott

Your reply was reasonable until this part Scott, there is no need to be snarky when answering an honest question, but there is always a balance in any discussion so I'll try to present some other points.

Potential Example A : "Jim" has been playing for 4 years, putting his character at risk and has taken 3 deaths but has finally gotten his 4th prof, eviserate and all those fun toys. Jim then runs into Joe, Joe donated an old(ish) computer and got credited for $700 worth of gobbies in donation, and some cash and npc'd once. Jim and Joe meet, Joe with his arcane armor, +2 damage reaver, 2xday life item, and 4xday cure light, not only keeps up with Jim, but has the equivalent build of Jim, minus an eviserate. Joe is probably sitting at 25-32 build depending on the event he went to and assuming a gobby blanket. This gets Joe all his basic skills (Weapon master, shield, florentine, whatever) his weapon gives him 30 points worth of WPs (36 if he's a templar) his 2x a day life item is the equivalent of skills that take about 50 build to bottle rocket to.

The above is obviously a slanted situation, why doesn't Jim have neat toys too etc, but Joe could also have other nastier items in his pockets.

Example B: Jim and Joe both start playing at the same time, Joe has more money then Jim and Npcs one event. Suddenly next time Jim is adventuring with Joe, he's at a massive disadvantage, because Joe suddenly has Arcane armor, or 2x Prison, or Cloaks, or Banes, or 3 little items. This is good for Joe, he's got an advantage, its good for the chapter cause it got some donations, its BAD for the chapter because Jim gets a bad taste in his mouth because he gets 'less' because in his eyes he didn't 'Bribe' the Chapter Owner. If Jim feels badly enough about it he quits, and that chapter has one less player, AND misses the chance of seeing Jims 4 friends show up to give the game a try.

Should we be sending Jim's Fairwell letters to Scott?

Example C : Harry potter is a gifted and skilled player of Quidditch, he gains the rank of seeker and a valued place on the team. Malfoy is a poorly liked, unskilled jerk, but donates a stack of Firebroom 6000s to the team and is granted one of the few positions in the team despite his lack of skill or team spirit.
(See I can bring in a metaphor that really has little impact on the discussion at hand too, what fun! :mrgreen: (Sorry couldn't help myself after reading the 'rock band' example that seemed in poor taste.) )

Personally I understand the reasons to offer Stamps/rewards for those that help build up the game, its a good way to get things done etc. But its a fine line between reward those that put in the extra effort, and making people who attend and support the game by playing (and paying PC fees, which pay for the camp etc.) feel like second class players.

Ultimately, like Mike said, Its a matter of opinion where that line is drawn, and I'm certaintly not going to stand here and try to say my view on things is the only correct, or fair one. Especially considering that I'm still a relative 'new comer' (Technically I've passed 2 years, but thats nothing :geek: )

At any rate, I feel Scotts point is well taken, but poorly balanced and your reply was focused only on one part of the argument.

My High BP character can Die and perm,
My In Game crafted rituals can backlash/fail,
My OOG paid for gobbie items can.....? (Stolen/looted, but the point is even with a donation generated items there should be no guarntees that it will last its full lifetime)
 
Well I just submitted a new discussion on Magic items to the ARC, hopefully it will be a step in the right direction if it has merit.

Justin H-
 
Lurin said:
Duke Frost said:
We will now send all customer service complaints to Dreaming Further.

Scott

Your reply was reasonable until this part Scott, there is no need to be snarky when answering an honest question, but there is always a balance in any discussion so I'll try to present some other points.

It was a joke. Sorry you didn't take it that way. It wasn't meant to be "snarky". If it's all I had said without explanation, maybe it would be snarky.

I guess I'll have to save any humor for the HQ boards.

Scott
 
Back
Top