Talk:Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons)

AfD Debate
Thank gawd for that... :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am still not sure why this topic can be the subject of a stand alone article. If I understand correctly, there is no such thing as a Magic item in Dungeons and Dragons per se; it is a sub-category of fictional artifacts. If it is just a sub-category, what chance are there of establishing notability for this topic if nobody uses a Magic item in a game? --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * tis verily a group of said specific items and a significant plot element...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In truth, Gavin, the fictional artifacts are a sub-category of magic items in general, and magic items most certainly are used in the game, much more than artifacts. Additionally, there are already two reliable secondary sources in the article. It certainly needs more, but that it needs additional citations and is not a notability issue. In fact, I'll add refimprove to the article to indicate that. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The point I am making is that they are not used per se. I don't see how you can establish notability for something that does not exist, either in the real-world or the fictional world. Unless this is a notable category (I have never seen such a thing), I suspect it will not be possible to demonstrate notability for Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons), anymore than you could demostrate notability for say, Magic item (Lord of the Rings) or Magic item (Harry Potter) or Magic item (Bewitched). --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do they have magic items in bewitched? :) BOZ (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (fixed indents) Magic items do exist in the fictional world, and they are used in the fictional world. In fact, magic items are used in the game more than even famous monsters like beholders or drow are. In D&D, magic items are defined just as much as any character class or character race is, and they are almost just as important a part to a character's rules and statistics. An article on them is important to having a well-rounded knowledge of D&D, although the article does need quite a bit of improvement to more fully provide such knowledge. Also, as I said above, two reliable secondary sources have already been added to the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Within the context of the D&D game rules, it is essentially a core topic and hence of high notability to the system. One of the main purposes and rewards of the game is the collection of magic items. Artifacts have a particular meaning in D&D as a sub-category of magic items, albeit the most powerful.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can understand that individual magic items must be important to the game. But the category itself can't be notable surely. It is afterall, an abstract concept. No player plays with a Magic item called a Magic item. Surely it would be better to deal with Magic items as a Category, rather than trying to establish notability for an abstract concept? --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty understanding why abstract concepts couldn't be as notable as the non-abstract. I suppose magic items are abstract in the sense that clothes are abstract. But clothes deserve discussion for their general qualities and contributions to human culture. As magic items are dealt with as a whole in D&D, they have setting and rules-specific information that needn't be repeated on every separate article on archetype magic items.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Gavin by that logic we shouldn't have an article on Christianity since its an abstract thing, but we could have one on each church building. Magic items as a whole are very important in-game, unfortunately you are not personally aware of this. The article is meant to assist you get to know this.  It could be improved, but it is warranted. Hooper (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a very witty use of logic, Hooper! Magic items as a whole are may a very important Category, but that is not the same as being notable or warranting a stand alone article, which is the point I was making. Magic items are already categorised, and you are probably aware of the duplication between Category:Dungeons & Dragons magical items which is the same as Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). What I am suggesting is that we merge this article into the category. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Gavin. I can see how someone not familiar with the subject matter can make such an assumption, but the category (which you've just linked to) and this article are two separate entities. Hooper (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can see how someone not familiar with the subject who hasn't read this article could confuse the two. However, this article is an easy read that can give a viewer a simple understanding that would even allow that novice individual to know the difference between the two.  Seems like only someone "reading" this article with an axe to grind would say they are the same. Hooper (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a deep breath... relax... ahhhh. :) This article was given a Keep with an imperative to improve it, so let's get on to the improving, no? BOZ (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, BOZ. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to Hooper, what I am saying is you don't have to be an expert to realise that Category:Dungeons & Dragons magical items is virtually the same as Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). Perhaps we should seek some third party opinion to discuss this issue? --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is confusion on this issue, I think this speaks to the need to clarify this article. To me, this article is to Category:Dungeons & Dragons magical items as Fruit is to Category:Fruit. Both are needed.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that a better example would be Mythology and Category:Mythology, since fruit is a tangible item, and Gavin's concern seems to be that magic items are an abstract concept. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Mythology is a subject matter all of its own. As this article explains "magical items are sub-divided into several categories". This article would be similar to having articles on Potions (Dungeons & Dragons) or Rings (Dungeons & Dragons). I think this article proves the point that "articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability". I think this is an example of that boundry being crossed, and we are now into game guide territory. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Overview of magic items by edition
This section is probably in most need of cleanup. This point was brought up in the AFD; it makes it seem like 3E and 4E are the only editions worth discussing in terms of magic items in the game. I suggest cutting down on some of the gamecrufty aspects of this section, thus reducing the heavy recentism emphasis, and introducing some discussion of how magic items worked in OD&D, BD&D, 1E AD&D, and 2E AD&D. Anyone want to give that a start? This section, as it is, was initially cut and pasted from Magic of Dungeons & Dragons, so please don't blame me for that. :) BOZ (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it's in need of cleanup, but unfortunately I don't really have time right now to do much with it. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed cleanup templates
I propose that the following cleanup templates be appended to this article to alert other editors that the following issues need to be addressed:
 * 1) notability - the sources cited in the article provide no evidence that this topic satisfies WP:N and it is probable that this will never be the case;
 * 2) synthesis - over 90% of this article is unsourced, and this unsourced content is a synthesis of material from the d20 game guide and 4th Edition Player's Handbook published by the Wizards of the Coast;
 * 3) in universe - much of this article's content is written from an in universe perspective, as if it were fact, not fiction; and
 * 4) fancruft - this article contains an excessive amount of intricate detail relating to the game mechanics of Dungeons and Dragons which only interest players of the game. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the notability (the recent AfD touched on it a bit too and keep was keen) and fancruft, the rest seems warranted. Hooper (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Hooper; article already has two third-party and reliable books cited, so notability is established, although refimprove is certainly warranted. I think that fancruft would be unwarranted because it relates to trivia sections, which this does not include. I could see technical being added to this page, though, to indicate that cleanup is needed of the "Overview of magic items by edition" section. I will add synthesis and in-universe momentarily; I believe that the other tags need further discussion. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree with the cruftiness in the sense that the examples could use tightening up. They appear to have been merged here from separate articles, but excess detail was retained. Take Ioun stones, for example: this item could probably be summarized in a single paragraph that demonstrates the publishing history and universal features of all wondrous items, rather than delving into the specific mechanics of Ioun stones as a singular item.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine by me. I wouldn't want to eliminate mention of ioun stones completely, but a sentence or two would likely suffice, mixed in with other examples. BOZ (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree that notability has been established. The source cited are trivial, and only mention Magic items in passing by acknowledging their existence & function within the game. They don't provide any information about their creation, development or any context as fictional elements. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This was all discussed in the recent AfD and community consensus was not only keep, but that notability was not the issue with the sources. Improvement can be done but notability was discussed.  The community is moving forward on this. Thank you for your concern. Hooper (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My view is that the sources cited are not substantial enough to provide evidence of notability, because they only make a passing acknowledgement of the existence of Magic items. The consensus view is that not only do you need context, analysis, commentary or criticism from reliable secondary sources to establish notability, but you also need this type of coverage in order to meet Wikipedia's content policies. What improvements is Hooper proposing in order to meet the general held view that topics should meet the notability guideline? --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Errr, it definitely needs fancruft, and probably gameguide too. Frankly I'd be concerned that in its current state it's arguably copyvio, because the OGL and the GFDL are not compatible AFAIK. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It definitely doesn't need the gameguide tag. That tag is intended to tag video game related articles which include content discouraged by the video game article guidelines, and the statement that 90% of the article's content is unsourced synthesis seems to be hyperbole. Would anyone care to tag specific examples of alleged synthesis with syn or fact so that they can be specifically addressed? I believe the in-universe tag is also inappropriate, the article does not describe "a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style", it contains numerous references to game mechanics such as attack rolls and AC and real world literature such as Dragon Magazine, Jabberwocky and Rhialto the Marvellous, the broader fiction tag may be appropriate, however if it is used, I would prefer it if the tag was placed in the relevant section or sections instead of at the top of the page in order to make it easier for other editors to find and correct the problematic statements. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

D&D 4th edition and scrolls
Well while you guys have a tantrum about whether or not this page belongs here, I came here to actually learn about the topic, so it had value to me at least. Anyway I've been looking at D&D4E and it *appears* to me that scrolls have vanished. Is this true or did I misread it? If so, this article should mention that as it is a major change to game mechanics. 59.101.9.56 (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That debate seems to pretty much be over with. Anyway, if you can find more info (was the concept of a magic scroll entirely removed from the game, or are they just rarer?) then feel free to post. :) 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ritual scrolls are consumable items which allow rituals to be performed in half the usual time without a ritual book. I'm not aware of any other scroll types which have made it into 4e. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

enchantment / enhancement
Which is it?

The article uses both in one big messy jumble. 213.112.128.96 (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Different meanings for different uses; give me some examples and I can tell you which one should be which. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Within the context of D&D magic items, "enchantment", as a noun, refers to an item's magical power and properties, and, as a verb, refers to the process of making an object magical. "Enhancement bonus" is a game mechanics term introduced in 3rd edition, it's a bonus applied when calculating the results of certain dice rolls, the 3.x edition rules generally classify most bonuses as belonging to one of several types, and prohibit multiple bonuses of the same type from stacking with eachother on the same roll. 4e has similar bonus stacking rules, but I'm not sure if that specific term is part of the 4e rules lexicon. AFAIK describing, say, a +5 sword as having a "+5 enchantment" or being "enchantment with a +5 bonus" would be correct terminology in all editions because the +5 bonus is a magical property of a magic item, but I think descring it as having a "+5 enhancement bonus" is only correct in 3.x edition and maybe 4th edition ("+5 sword" or "sword, +5" are correct terminology in all editions). I've done soe rephrasing for clarity. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

5th Edition Item Info
I plan on adding some stuff about how items are handled in 5th edition D&D, namely the introduction of the concept of Item Rarity, the various types of items introduced, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VthompUWO (talk • contribs) 17:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The "Example" Section
I believe this section requires a bit of an overhaul, as the content doesn't seem necessarily conclusive to really relating to magic items in D&D. The only real piece of information in this currently is the fact that the Ioun Stones are inspired by Jack Vance. While I think this is an interesting tidbit, I think this section needs to be greatly expanded upon and perhaps rebranded.

I plan on changing the title of the section to something more akin to "Inspiration" or "Sources", and listing a variety of different magic items that consistently appear in the game and their roots in other works. For example, a section where we list magic items inspired by other fantasy stories (Such as the Ioun Stones from Vance, the Hand/Eye of Vecna from Moorecock, Sword of Warning from Tolkien, etc.), and items inspired by mythology/folktale (Winged Sandals from Greek, Flying Carpet from 1001 Arabian Nights, etc.). If anyone has ideas/feedback, please let me know! -Vthomp — Preceding unsigned comment added by VthompUWO (talk • contribs) 01:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 3 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VthompUWO.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bag of Holding as a Metaphor for Racism
It has been disputed in the past, if the passage where the bag of holding is used as a metaphor for white privilege belongs here or not, and now it has been explicitely tagged by CJDOS. I think this should be decided here one way or another, either keeping the passage and removing the tag, or removing the passage.

Personally, I think the passage should be kept, as it shows that something as frivolous as a fictitious item in a game has become so widely know in this instance that it is used to explain something as serious as racism. Also, in the deletion discussion, one argument was that there is no(t enough) coverage outside appearances in the game. Here, we have a secondary source that shows us that the concept has an impact beyond the game. So also looking at the question if this is an encyclopedic subject, this passage in my opinion has some value.

If the majority here should think otherwise, I think when removing the passage the source should be kept anyway, because it at the very least supports the preceding statement "academics have noted that the bag of holding also has symbolic meaning". Daranios (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is an analogy that clearly makes some people uncomfortable. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed so it seems. However, that should neither be a reason not to include this, nor has it any negative connotations for the bag of holding itself. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I was not aware this had been discussed before. I tagged the sentence without removing it, because it has one citation, and felt that it should be confirmed before removal. That said, I don't think the one reference is enough to justify its inclusion. It sounds like the bag of holding was shoehorned into the topic—I mean, the comparison doesn't seem strong enough without further expanding the explanation. The correlation seems tenuous to this article's main topic. Perhaps the inline template would be better suited. &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 18:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC) (reworded 21:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC))
 * That might just work. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have slightly reworded the sentence. What kind of explanation are you thinking of? For me it seems relatively obvious if I am taking the preceding sentence into account (that's why I have combined them now): The bag of holding has gained enough prominence that it is used as a metaphor in academic circles. And Benjamin Woo's a prominent instance of that. But I am biased as I have worked on that. Daranios (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Understand that I'm not trying to be difficult if I come across that way. I was waiting for further replies; I'll swap out  with , with the recommendation that the comparison be expanded upon so it's not so tenuous. It also feels like a comma should be added somewhere. &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 19:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's all good, I did not intend to come over as cross. I just would not know how to explain the matter better. I forgot to mention to your previous remark: I don't think this has been actually discussed before, but there was editorial disagreement as can be seen in the article history between 28 December 2020 and 9 March 2021. Daranios (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

2023
Typo in my edit summary - meant to write "the sourced info isn't irrelevant". Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I got confused for a bit there. In any case, I still see the Woo reference as an unnecessary tangent that probably got shoehorned in to satisfy some editor's social justice obsession. Also, Mizer's dissertation doesn't support the claim that the Bag of Holding has "symbolic meaning and uses" outside D&D; all it does is discuss the item as it relates to accurate worldbuilding.  Philroc  (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, it seems like the piece isn't really relevant to the bag of holding. More like it was just used as a trivial mention to talk about something completely unrelated. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging because I believe these were sources they found & have used in a few articles. While I don't have access to the sources, Daranios has been reliable in terms of citing academic sources in other articles that I've been able to verify so I'm assuming good faith on this inclusion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting this. Looking at it again, as best I can tell Mizer states the importance for players, but indeed no metaphoric use. I don't remember if I've taken that over from an old version of Bag of holding or messed this up myself. I will look for appropriate sources another time. Daranios (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Allright, I have rephrased the claim that the bag of holding is used in academia, both symbolic and otherwise, and provided a number of sources which do that. I have removed Benjamin Woo's example, but kept his article as a source for the use. I have no strong opinion either way, if the example should be additionally included or not. What does anyone think? Daranios (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me.  Philroc  (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks very professional and encyclopedic. &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 17:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that this looks much more appropriate and on-topic than the previous version. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)