4E: Identifying Magic Items

Previously, I talked about how appraisal works in 4E. In a similar vein, I was initially resistant to how identifying magic items was changed in 4E. No longer was ''identify'' or ''analyze dweomer'' necessary - if you think someone's magic, just take a rest, feel it up, and - voila! You know everything there is to know about the object (barring unique things like artifacts). That had to be wrong - it was too easy! Not to mention that that's the way it works in computer games. Thus, a bad idea - right?

Actually, no. Now, like appraisal, some people maintain that being able to easily identify magic items takes the mystery from the game. But again, I would say that if something is happening on a regular basis (and finding magic items in D&D - any edition - is generally a regular event), then it goes from "mystery" to "routine annoyance". Identification as it stood in 3.5 was simply a speed bump to keeping a few useful items and selling a bunch of other stuff as well as a siphon for monetary resources (for the 100gp pearls, whether to pay an NPC or for the party's wizard to use, at least until the PCs had access to analyze dweomer).

One nice thing about this technique is that it helps alleviate how a buyer of an item knows what they're getting is legit without having to spend the money or resources on identification magic. On the other hand, I can also see this being an issue with rules lawyers. According to the book, you don't have to know something is magic in order to handle it to determine its powers (thus undermining the primary use of the detect magic aspect of the Arcana skill). I can easily see a group of PCs scooping up everything that's not nailed down on an adventure and then "handling" all of it when they get a chance (we've all known people like that in our games; one in particular comes to mind for me). No need to detect magic on the treasure. That hasn't been a problem for my current group, but it's still something I think needs to be addressed. My current thought is that you can't handle something to identify it if you don't already know it's magic. It's a little contrived but it's simple and doesn't require additional die rolls, subsystems, or anything like that (and "knowing" something is magic extends to, say, the evil villain's sword - you don't have to make an Arcana check on it since you saw it burst into flame and fly around the room under its own power).

4E Economics: The Appraisal Skill

One of the myriad changes in 4E that I took particular note of was the elimination of the Appraisal skill. At first, my reaction was "how are PCs supposed to know the value of the items they find?" I soon realized that the answer was "You tell them." Given the over-emphasis I've placed on the importance of semi-realistic economics in D&D, the concept was at first appalling to me. But I shortly came to the conclusion that not only was the elimination of Appraisal a good idea, the introduction of the skill in 3.x was a bad idea in the first place. I suspect this may be why it was dropped in the new edition. Some would snarkily suggest that it was dropped because it was a "role-playing" skill, but that's a load of crap - Appraisal was nothing more than a drain on the game, as I'll illustrate below.

First of all, this may have been a problem that didn't exist for some people - how many people actually used the skill in their game anyway? For those who did, the usual results included the following:

• Two sets of records had to be maintained, one for the players perceived values and one for the DM's actual values
• Lots more dice-rolling to see what the PCs thought the items' values were
• PCs getting either the value of the items or less (if their appraisal was too low, they got short-changed; if too high, few if any DMs would give them their asking price)
• Going through the process of selling each item one at a time rather than the player just saying "OK, we're selling this loot" and handling the accounting themselves

More realistic? Sure, but at what cost? More bookkeeping, more dice-rolling, and more time spent on something that doesn't add to the fun of the game. And in the end, the result is the same or worse as not having an Appraisal skill - the PCs get the value of the items or possibly less. On top of that, one or more (usually two at most) of the PCs end up having to tie up skill ranks in Appraisal that they could be using for more useful skills (including those used for "role-playing").

One argument in favor of something like Appraisal is that it maintains a "sense of mystery". Bullocks. There's no mystery in Appraisal - the PCs know that they're not going to find the Greyhawk equivalent of the Cullinan Diamond in the horde of the 5th-level bandits they just killed. Mysteries occur infrequently - that's why they're mysteries. And their rarity makes them interesting. Something that happens regularly (like having to appraise your loot) is mundane and routine. And given that adventurers regularly are dealing with non-monetary treasures - gems, jewelry, objets d'art, etc., it's not unreasonable to assume that they get an eye for the value of those sorts of things. Not a necessary rationalization but useful if you don't feel entirely comfortable with the hand-waving.

Of course, if your group likes having to appraise everything it finds and feels that the "mystery" or "realism" adds to the game, more power to you! For me, this is one aspect of the economic changes in 4E that I have no problem accepting (more on the ones I do have a problem with in another post).

Map of the Avellyn River Valley

The Avellyn River Valley is where my current campaign is set so it behooved me (behooved me?) to create a map of it. It took me awhile to find the time but I finally started a couple weeks ago. My biggest obstacle had been to decide what tool to map it in. I already owned Campaign Cartographer 3, but if I used that I was apt to spend more time on the map than I wanted - not just because of CC3's UI and CAD quirkiness, but I would probably have gotten caught up in making sure the colors, contours, textures, etc. were perfect. I didn't want to do that - I wanted a functional map that I could put together quickly (though still something that looked halfway decent).

I took a look at Dundjinni, but it wasn't going to be easily useful for what I wanted. I've never cared for Fractal Mapper but I took a look at the demo of the latest version to see if it would work for me (as I expected, it didn't). AutoRealm wasn't an option since I figured I had that already with CC3. I also rejected Hexmapper; even though I have a nostalgic affinity for the old style of hex maps, after I make them they never really click with me.

I finally decided I'd just use the animated brushes in GIMP and just draw it out that way. But I didn't have any suitable symbols (or enough of the same style to be able to put together a consistent-looking map). I thought about making some from Fractal Mapper, but I didn't want to pay for the program just for the symbols, especially when I could use the ones in CC3. Eventually, I came upon the "B&W" symbol set in the Campaign Cartographer Annual 2008, which had fortuitously just been released in August. The one drawback - I had to pay for the entire year rather than just for the one set I wanted.

In the end I bought the Annual. It's proven to be very useful for my purposes, though I still paid too much. However, between the B&W set, the Peter Fenlon (MERP-style) set, and the Heraldry set, I figure I should get some good use out of it. And perhaps some of the other sets as well (including the ones that haven't been released yet).

CC3 can still be very frustrating though, like last night when I tried to put a city symbol in front of a river. You'd think "Bring to Front" would be enough, but it wasn't. Eventually I just deleted the city and put a new one down, and that stayed on top. Not sure if that was a CC3 thing or a CC3-Vista issue. But still, while you can do amazing things with CC3, for casual mapping I find it cumbersome and obtuse. The CC interface has improved but it still has a ways to go.

Google Chrome

So, I tried out Chrome (Google's new browser) for a couple days. Kinda nice, the UI is a bit more streamlined. Overall, though, I don't see a compelling reason to switch to it from Firefox, at least not yet. I'll be keeping an eye on it though.