Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Categorized list of DMG Wondrous Items?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 1:48:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

The DMG 3.5 is a mess. You've got these three lists of
Wondrous Items, each sorted alphabetically.

It would be quite useful to have some sort of list where the
Wondrous Items are sorted according to function or effect.
Is there such a thing? Online for free, or in some published
book?

The 1d100-based lists are great for GMs, but not for a
player whose character wants to use his Create Wondrous Item
feat to make one of the non-standard official items. (Or
indeed for a GM who wants to equip his NPCs).

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 4:10:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 22:48:49 +0100, Peter Knutsen <peter@sagatafl.invalid>
scribed into the ether:

>
>The DMG 3.5 is a mess. You've got these three lists of
>Wondrous Items, each sorted alphabetically.
>
>It would be quite useful to have some sort of list where the
>Wondrous Items are sorted according to function or effect.
>Is there such a thing? Online for free, or in some published
>book?

Given the scope of wondrous items, I don't know how much better that sort
of categorization would be.

You'd end up with about 150 categories.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 6:43:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <go1i215rprr579ikkffg29hqb5gbga9o2n@4ax.com>,
Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 22:48:49 +0100, Peter Knutsen <peter@sagatafl.invalid>
>scribed into the ether:
>
>>
>>The DMG 3.5 is a mess. You've got these three lists of
>>Wondrous Items, each sorted alphabetically.
>>
>>It would be quite useful to have some sort of list where the
>>Wondrous Items are sorted according to function or effect.
>>Is there such a thing? Online for free, or in some published
>>book?
>
>Given the scope of wondrous items, I don't know how much better that sort
>of categorization would be.

Two forms that make sense to me are 1) one alphabetical list 2) sorted by body
slot (head, goggles, ...). The latter would have been useful in creating the
various 20th level characters I've been working on.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 8:13:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>Given the scope of wondrous items, I don't know how much better that sort
>>of categorization would be.
>
> Two forms that make sense to me are 1) one alphabetical list 2) sorted by body
> slot (head, goggles, ...). The latter would have been useful in creating the
> various 20th level characters I've been working on.

1. Heal/regen.
2. Physical protection.
3. Magical protection.
4. Movement.
....

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 10:29:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 05:13:15 +0100, Peter Knutsen <peter@sagatafl.invalid>
scribed into the ether:

>
>David Alex Lamb wrote:
>> Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>>Given the scope of wondrous items, I don't know how much better that sort
>>>of categorization would be.
>>
>> Two forms that make sense to me are 1) one alphabetical list 2) sorted by body
>> slot (head, goggles, ...). The latter would have been useful in creating the
>> various 20th level characters I've been working on.
>
>1. Heal/regen.
>2. Physical protection.
>3. Magical protection.
>4. Movement.
>...

Which causes problems with multi-purpose items falling into more than one
category..and even categories as broad as those still leave out TONS of
items.

How about Daern's Instant Fortress?
Talisman of the Sphere?
Bag of Holding?
Bag of Tricks?
Candle of Truth?
Dust of Dryness?

A body slot list would be useful, however, even though it would not include
about 2/3rds of the list.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 1:23:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

So you gonna do something about it, or what?

Ben




"Peter Knutsen" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:38s3cdF5lphtnU1@individual.net...
>
> The DMG 3.5 is a mess. You've got these three lists of Wondrous Items,
> each sorted alphabetically.
>
> It would be quite useful to have some sort of list where the Wondrous
> Items are sorted according to function or effect. Is there such a thing?
> Online for free, or in some published book?
>
> The 1d100-based lists are great for GMs, but not for a player whose
> character wants to use his Create Wondrous Item feat to make one of the
> non-standard official items. (Or indeed for a GM who wants to equip his
> NPCs).
>
> --
> Peter Knutsen
> sagatafl.org
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 2:21:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 05:13:15 +0100, Peter Knutsen
<peter@sagatafl.invalid>
> scribed into the ether:
>
> >
> >David Alex Lamb wrote:
> >> Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
> >>>Given the scope of wondrous items, I don't know how much better
that sort
> >>>of categorization would be.
> >>
> >> Two forms that make sense to me are 1) one alphabetical list 2)
sorted by body
> >> slot (head, goggles, ...). The latter would have been useful in
creating the
> >> various 20th level characters I've been working on.
> >
> >1. Heal/regen.
> >2. Physical protection.
> >3. Magical protection.
> >4. Movement.
> >...
>
> Which causes problems with multi-purpose items falling into more than
one
> category..and even categories as broad as those still leave out TONS
of
> items.
>
> How about Daern's Instant Fortress?
> Talisman of the Sphere?
> Bag of Holding?
> Bag of Tricks?
> Candle of Truth?
> Dust of Dryness?
>
> A body slot list would be useful, however, even though it would not
include
> about 2/3rds of the list.

Body slot list works as long as you include "hands"
and "slotless" as body slots.

DougL
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 10:25:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1110050469.031198.72380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
DougL <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> wrote:
>Matt Frisch wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 05:13:15 +0100, Peter Knutsen peter@sagatafl.invalid>
>> scribed into the ether:
>> >David Alex Lamb wrote:
>> >> Two forms that make sense to me are 1) one alphabetical list 2)
>sorted by body
>> >> slot (head, goggles, ...). The latter would have been useful in
>creating the
>> >> various 20th level characters I've been working on.
>> >1. Heal/regen.
>> >2. Physical protection.
>> >3. Magical protection.
>> >4. Movement.
>> >...
>> Which causes problems with multi-purpose items falling into more than one
>> category..and even categories as broad as those still leave out TONS of
>> items.
>> A body slot list would be useful, however, even though it would not include
>> about 2/3rds of the list.
>
>Body slot list works as long as you include "hands"
>and "slotless" as body slots.

Slotless would, apparently, be a huge list and thus possibly not so useful as
the others. Is "hands" for weapons?
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 10:25:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:D 0d13p$9kt$1@knot.queensu.ca...
> In article <1110050469.031198.72380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> DougL <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> wrote:
> >Matt Frisch wrote:
> >> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 05:13:15 +0100, Peter Knutsen
peter@sagatafl.invalid>
> >> scribed into the ether:
> >> >David Alex Lamb wrote:
> >> >> Two forms that make sense to me are 1) one alphabetical list 2)
> >sorted by body
> >> >> slot (head, goggles, ...). The latter would have been useful in
> >creating the
> >> >> various 20th level characters I've been working on.
> >> >1. Heal/regen.
> >> >2. Physical protection.
> >> >3. Magical protection.
> >> >4. Movement.
> >> >...
> >> Which causes problems with multi-purpose items falling into more than
one
> >> category..and even categories as broad as those still leave out TONS of
> >> items.
> >> A body slot list would be useful, however, even though it would not
include
> >> about 2/3rds of the list.
> >
> >Body slot list works as long as you include "hands"
> >and "slotless" as body slots.
>
> Slotless would, apparently, be a huge list and thus possibly not so useful
as
> the others. Is "hands" for weapons?

I think "hands" would be "any wondrous item that has to held in at least one
hand to be used".

- David Prokopetz.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 2:19:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Prokopetz wrote:
> "David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
> news:D 0d13p$9kt$1@knot.queensu.ca...
> > In article <1110050469.031198.72380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > DougL <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> wrote:
> > >Matt Frisch wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 05:13:15 +0100, Peter Knutsen
> peter@sagatafl.invalid>
> > >> scribed into the ether:
> > >> >David Alex Lamb wrote:
> > >> >> Two forms that make sense to me are 1) one alphabetical list
2)
> > >sorted by body
> > >> >> slot (head, goggles, ...). The latter would have been useful
in
> > >creating the
> > >> >> various 20th level characters I've been working on.
> > >> >1. Heal/regen.
> > >> >2. Physical protection.
> > >> >3. Magical protection.
> > >> >4. Movement.
> > >> >...
> > >> Which causes problems with multi-purpose items falling into more
than
> one
> > >> category..and even categories as broad as those still leave out
TONS of
> > >> items.
> > >> A body slot list would be useful, however, even though it would
not
> include
> > >> about 2/3rds of the list.
> > >
> > >Body slot list works as long as you include "hands"
> > >and "slotless" as body slots.
> >
> > Slotless would, apparently, be a huge list and thus possibly not so
useful
> as
> > the others. Is "hands" for weapons?
>
> I think "hands" would be "any wondrous item that has to held in at
least one
> hand to be used".

Pretty much, weapons, most shields, wands, staffs, and most rods use
hands.

The lens of detection (aka magnifying glass) is a wonderous item that
uses a hand slot. There is the Mattock and Maul of the Titans are both
wonderous items that use hands. The Pearl of the Sirines must be in
hand to have its effect. There are four different wonderous items
labeled pipes which likely need hands to play....

Just glancing at the list I would guess that about 10% of the wonderous

items in the game are hands items that don't work unless held in hand.
It is one of the more common slots actually.

DougL
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:23:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 7 Mar 2005 11:19:16 -0800, "DougL" <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> scribed
into the ether:

>David Prokopetz wrote:
>> "David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
>> news:D 0d13p$9kt$1@knot.queensu.ca...

>> > >Body slot list works as long as you include "hands"
>> > >and "slotless" as body slots.
>> >
>> > Slotless would, apparently, be a huge list and thus possibly not so
>useful
>> as
>> > the others. Is "hands" for weapons?
>>
>> I think "hands" would be "any wondrous item that has to held in at
>least one
>> hand to be used".
>
>Pretty much, weapons, most shields, wands, staffs, and most rods use
>hands.

None of which are wondrous items.

>Just glancing at the list I would guess that about 10% of the wonderous
>items in the game are hands items that don't work unless held in hand.
>It is one of the more common slots actually.

There are indeed a fair number of items like that, but 10% seems rather
high to me, unless you really stretch it out and include things like the
Apparatus of Qwalish (sp), since you need your hands to operate the
controls.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:23:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch hastily scrawled:
>On 7 Mar 2005 11:19:16 -0800, "DougL" <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> scribed
>into the ether:
>
>>Just glancing at the list I would guess that about 10% of the wonderous
>>items in the game are hands items that don't work unless held in hand.
>>It is one of the more common slots actually.
>
>There are indeed a fair number of items like that, but 10% seems rather
>high to me, unless you really stretch it out and include things like the
>Apparatus of Qwalish (sp), since you need your hands to operate the
>controls.

Which slot would you classify the Apparatus as using?



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:25:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2005 11:19:16 -0800, "DougL" <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com>
scribed
> into the ether:
>
> >David Prokopetz wrote:
> >> "David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:D 0d13p$9kt$1@knot.queensu.ca...
>
> >> > >Body slot list works as long as you include "hands"
> >> > >and "slotless" as body slots.
> >> >
> >> > Slotless would, apparently, be a huge list and thus possibly not
so
> >useful
> >> as
> >> > the others. Is "hands" for weapons?
> >>
> >> I think "hands" would be "any wondrous item that has to held in at
> >least one
> >> hand to be used".
> >
> >Pretty much, weapons, most shields, wands, staffs, and most rods use
> >hands.
>
> None of which are wondrous items.

Which is POSSIBLY why the next thing in my post is a list of
wonderous items.

The existance of multiple whole categories of items that use
hands as a slot is relevant in that it establishes the existance
of the slot.

> >Just glancing at the list I would guess that about 10% of the
wonderous
> >items in the game are hands items that don't work unless held in
hand.
> >It is one of the more common slots actually.
>
> There are indeed a fair number of items like that, but 10% seems
rather
> high to me, unless you really stretch it out and include things like
the
> Apparatus of Qwalish (sp), since you need your hands to operate the
> controls.

10% would be only 30 items, if anything I badly understated the
case. Have you actually LOOKED at the list? I get past 30 well
before I reach the end, and WITHOUT counting a bunch of dubious
items.

Bead of Force, Chime of Opening, Cube of Force, Cube of Frost
resistance, Cubic Gate, Deck of Illusions, Drums of Panic,
5 x Dust, Gem of seeing, gloves of arrow snaring (use the gloves
slot but ALSO require a free hand to use), harp of charming,
5 x horns (I won't count the horn of Valhala or it would be
six), Lens of Detection, Lyre of Building, Mattock and Maul of
Titans, Necklass of fireballs requires hands to throw the beads
and does NOT count as a necklass slot, Pearl of the Sirines, 4x
Pipes, ext...

The Effriti Bottle and all of the Figurines plus a bunch of other
items (feathers, manuals, marvelous pigments, ext...) all also
require hands to activate, but I won't count them.

I really don't see how you can possibly justify NOT counting
aparatuses, you need hands to use them and can't use your hands
for anything else at the same time, so how can they NOT be using
the slot, but since you don't think they should count I will
not count them.

DougL
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 3:57:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <38s3cdF5lphtnU1@individual.net>, peter@sagatafl.invalid
wrote:

>It would be quite useful to have some sort of list where the
>Wondrous Items are sorted according to function or effect.
>Is there such a thing? Online for free, or in some published
>book?

I think an alphabetical listing would be far more usefull.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:56:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

doug.lampert@tdytsi.com wrote:

>> A body slot list would be useful, however, even though it would not
>> include about 2/3rds of the list.
>
>Body slot list works as long as you include "hands"
>and "slotless" as body slots.

"Body slot". Hee!
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 3:36:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:57:10 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>In article <38s3cdF5lphtnU1@individual.net>, peter@sagatafl.invalid
>wrote:
>
>>It would be quite useful to have some sort of list where the
>>Wondrous Items are sorted according to function or effect.
>>Is there such a thing? Online for free, or in some published
>>book?
>
>I think an alphabetical listing would be far more usefull.

Given that one of those already exists (That's how they are listed in
the DMG), why can't we also have one that sorts them by function?
Or better yet a database with columns for function, theme (fire,
undead, etc), price, caster level, prerequisites, that would let us
sort them in whichever way was usefull at the moment. You can never
have too many indices on your data.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 10:59:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Chad Lubrecht wrote:
<snip>
> Or better yet a database with columns for function, theme (fire,
> undead, etc), price, caster level, prerequisites, that would let us
> sort them in whichever way was usefull at the moment. You can never
> have too many indices on your data.

You can never have *enough* indices, but you can have too many.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 9:10:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

chad.lubrecht@verizon.net wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:57:10 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>wrote:

>>I think an alphabetical listing would be far more usefull.
>
>Given that one of those already exists (That's how they are listed in
>the DMG)

Actually, they're subdivided by minor/medium/major and THEN alphabetical.

--
This episode of LOST was brought to you by the letters L, O, S, and T,
and the numbers 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, and 42.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 10:20:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ubiquitous wrote:
> chad.lubrecht@verizon.net wrote:
> > Ubiquitous wrote:
> > >
> > > I think an alphabetical listing would be far more
> > > usefull.
> >
> > Given that one of those already exists (That's how
> > they are listed in the DMG)
>
> Actually, they're subdivided by minor/medium/major
> and THEN alphabetical.

No they're not. WIs are listed flat-out alphabetically. If you're
referring to the "random" tables, those aren't, either. Those are
divided by minor/medium/major, then listed by *cost*.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
!