I like that most items in Arcanis are not a huge bonus. However, at the same time, the loot options when they occur are often worth far more than the gold share. It can be very frustrating to miss out on an item that you now can't ever get (given the current adventures).

For instance, we played tonight. Ss'kethis would have loved a specific item but lost out on the roll. +1 isn't huge but it's worth far more than a fair bit of Sc to Ss'kethis. I'm fairly sure it is now currently impossible for Ss'kethis to get the item (I don't think they are available in any other adventure).

I don't like the permissive LFR loot system (choose whatever you want of an appropriate level) but Arcanis seems overly restrictive. It's less of an issue if a group always plays together because someone in the group will always have the items found but a lot of LA groups are pick-up so there's a fair chance any given item obtained will be unavailable in the next group you play with. Would it really hurt anything if there were 2 or even 3 copies of items available in the adventures?

Thoughts?

Edit: remove spoiler info about item (sorry - didn't think about it).

Steve, as this is not in the spoiler section you should probably remove the mod title and the specifics on the item. While illustrative I"m sure people can fill in other items of interest. Your point will still be clear even without the details.

With a sweep of his hat,

Paul

I have some sympathies to your position. I played the first arc with my Nierite HC and I missed out on magic items looted from Ymandrakes when we rolled for stuff. Then there was one other module where Crusaders found magic items and I was disappointed that (from his perspective) they were all essentially icky. So he went through the Crusade without picking up a magic item. Yeah. I felt frustration. Whenever I go back through the mod with the Ymandrakes I Jones a little for that beautiful relic cert.

But frustration also passes. Tukufu has had much better luck in the second arc. Hopefully proving things even out over time.

I would contest the point that magic items are undervalued in gold. Some are. Some aren't. The last item I have received is valued at 10 gc (ie 2 runes). As a mechanical matter 2 runes would probably be more valuable to him ... but I have resisted selling both because its cool & because I can eventually buy those runes and I'd never be able to buy this item back... BUT it wasn't the most expensive item out there. If I had somehow gotten the (IMO) less useful item valued at 20 gold Tukufu would almost certainly be sporting a lot of runic bling.



I know of some judges who have done this when they felt an item was "perfect" for more than one PC. Its obviously a subjective call as to what qualifies as "perfect." And its out of line with the campaign guide. Because of that and that double certing has the potential for significant variance with a precious and finite resource, I am uncomfortable with the practice. But I think its a topic that could be addressed with a revision in the campaign guide.

I recall some discussion where the Judge was empowered to do exactly that, provide extra copies of loot where it was appropriate. I dont recall where it is off hand tho

I think recall Tony saying this ... maybe at Arcaniscon. But it was a private groups shooting the breeze IIRC. I don't think its written down anywhere. A lot of potential variance between judges...hence my discomfort. In a home campaign its easy and appropriate for the judge to mke these calls. In a shared campaign its different.

Page 5 of the current campaign guide

Hello,

I have some serious reservations about allowing GMs to multiply items.

Frankly, how often is an item that is "perfect" for one PC is also "perfect" for a second? I can't imagine that this would be a significant number. And if an item truly is "perfect" for a PC then the rest of the group should let that player have it.

If the above occurs in a pick up game, then that's just the way it is. Unless the player can convince the others how perfect that item is for them, then let the dice fall as it may.

Answering the OP's question, the writers take great care and do much hand wringing to put in items that make sense for the story and are interesting for Heroes to have. Multiplying this amount completely throws this calculation out of whack and can easily lead to economic inflation with peopel selling off items for coin.

No item is REQUIRED in ARG for the player to succeed. It's a cool perk and it might give you a slight edge, but we purposefully designed the system to slide the power scale towards what the Hero can do and not what he carries on him.

That's my take on things.

Henry I have always had issues with that rule also... I've give people a hard time about it multiple times.

On the other hand... it seems that we are are at the very basic stages of introducing some sort of economy for magic items, perhaps we could allow for some hand waving because this is a giant shared campaign and allow for people to purchase extra copies past the first if they feel its a must have item.

That seems like an odd rule. It seems to be saying if people are argumentative and difficult then they should be given something extra that polite players do not get. I'd prefer a modification to the rule to the effect of "items may be duplicated if multiple players want it but all copies now have a value of 0 (eg can never be sold)". It may not be realistic but it fixes a lot of problems with a shared campaign where most groups are pickup. This allows players who want to use an item to get it but restrict the selling of items (unless only 1 person (or nobody) wanted it).

Thoughts?

There's a tension in the campaign: It's not a magic-item rich environment because we want the Heroes to be Heroes without needing to rely on their equipment. Take away a Hero's sword, or runes, or armour, and he should still be a Hero. So there is an inherent scarcity, and a story reason for the inherent scarcity.

Unfortunately, it is a human (Player) desire to want stuff, especially due to rarity. If something is rare, it is more likely to be valued higher than any intrinsic value it actually has. That we have intentionally increased the scarcity of magic items has substantially increased their value beyond what they're truly worth.

At the end of the day, this is why we try and get high quality judges who can make good decisions. Further, most of our players understand that just because they don't get something cool this module doesn't mean there won't be something even cooler for them in the future. Enabling a GM authorized duplication was about mitigating those few instances where an item would indeed be 'Perfect' for both characters. Frankly, I'd be perfectly okay with making *all* magic items worth 0 across the board. If you can't use it, you can't sell it. I can only imagine the furor that would raise.

Also, this rule has been in effect for almost a year now. I'm surprised the discussion is just coming up now...

The trickier part comes in when greed is involved, and all I can say to that is: There is more gold in the game than can be spent unless you are paying out ridiculous bribes or buying 10 Altherian Flintlocks and firing each of them every single module. Many of you are already rich enough to retire in the campaign world. It doesn't take that much to live a long, comfortable life. There will continue to be more than enough cash. Maybe not in any single module, but over time, you will generally get more than you spend. Which is more than can be said for real life.