I have a question with regards to the Frightful Presence monster rule. You'll notice that there are three distinct conditions mentioned in the ability description, which I show listed in bold below:
Quote:
Frightful Presence (Ex)
This special quality makes a creature’s very presence unsettling to foes. Activating this ability is a free action that is usually part of an attack or charge. Opponents within range who witness the action may become frightened or shaken. The range is usually 30 feet, and the duration is usually 5d6 rounds. This ability affects only opponents with fewer Hit Dice than the creature has. An opponent can resist the effects with a successful Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 the frightful creature’s racial HD + the frightful creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). On a failed save, the opponent is shaken, or panicked if it has 4 Hit Dice or fewer. An opponent that succeeds on the saving throw is immune to that same creature’s frightful presence for 24 hours. Frightful presence is a mind-affecting fear effect.
Format: frightful presence (60 ft., DC 21); Location: Aura.
2 Levels of Monk (Sensei Archtype)
1 Level of Monk (No Archtype)
Ultimately, I'm attempting to replace Strength and Dexterity with my Wisdom modifier for use with attacking, as per the Sensie ability:
Insightful Strike (Ex)
At 2nd level, a sensei may use his Wisdom bonus in lieu of his Strength or Dexterity on attack rolls and combat maneuver checks with unarmed strikes or monk weapons.
This ability replaces evasion and the bonus feat gained at 2nd level.
The only other way I could do it is through the Guiding Hand feat - which would mean I'd have to get Channel Energy from somewhere (In the campaign setting we're playing in, there are no clerics or paladins, so I'd have to go with priest or oracle with the life mystery).
Feats - thinking about Toughness or Improved Init for 3rd. Considering the Crit chain at higher levels. More Arcana Points might be nice (plan is to pump INT every 4 levels).
Arcana - no clue, whatsoever. Kind of thinking going for a Familiar, more for flavor than anything else.
Another option, depending on how permissive your DM is, would be to go with the Kensai archetype. Then your weapon of choice could be a Katana. Mmmm... Katana...
edit - still can't figure out how to link to google docs... grr..
Fenzl wrote:
I'm a little confused... you're making a STR-based Magus AND a non-Dervish/DEX Magus?
Sorry if I was unclear, I'm sticking with STR for this PC.
Ah. In that case, I would go with a rapier instead of a longsword. The higher crit range will benefit a STR based magus (plus remember, spellstrike does have the ability to crit as well) - and if you could eventually get your hands on a keen rapier, you'd be criting on 15-20 - which is fantastic.
Edit: I forgot a Magus can give their weapon the keen quality, which makes this even better.
The players were hired by the lord of a city to escort him to a "secret meeting" being held atop the land's highest mountain. There have been assassination attempts, some political intrigue and unseen enemies attempting to thwart their journey.
The center of dwarven society, and greatest dwarven city, is build into the mountain the PCs are traveling to. When the PCs reached the dwarven city, they learned of plans to kill the current king (the believed end of the royal line) and seat a noble being controlled by the BBEG.
The reason for this, is that only the king or someone of the royal bloodline has access to the ancient vault, wherein an artifact is kept - an artifact of elven make we will call "The Key". The PCs discovered this plan, and also learned that dwarf in their party is a lost heir to the throne. They prevented the King's assassination, acquired "The Key" but don't yet know what it does.
They PCs were also tipped off that the Lord they have been escorting isn't what he appears to be. When we resume game, they will likely attempt to ascertain his true identity.
What is actually going on:
I need help bringing all of these things together. Sort of... the tie that binds.
-There is no secret meeting. At the top of the mountain is actually a prison, a magical "bubble" holding an elf queen. Accessible only by someone holding "The Key".
-The lord that hired them is actually an ancient elf in disguise (the king/lover/husband of the imprisoned elf queen), and knew the dwarf in the party was an heir to the dwarven throne and thus would have access to "The Key" - he obviously wants to reunite with his love.
Here's where it starts getting difficult. I want the reason for the elf queen to be imprisoned to have something to do with a lost elven city. Releasing her reveals the ancient city along with its power/treasure, but I also want something bad to happen (maybe several bad things to happen). Perhaps in doing so the Tarrasque is awoken.
I like that it gives the PCs choice.
Do they help the elven lord reunite with his lover knowing the consequences (the PCs may or may not be powerful enough to fight a tarrasque by the time they reach the summit).
Do they prevent the elven lord from releasing his queen, saving the lives of people?
Also, there is still a BBEG in the background, that just wants the power/riches he believes can be found in the lost elven city.
So, I guess I'm just looking for a few suggestions to help pull all of this together. There's a good framework, but there's a few holes I'm having trouble filling.
Well, because Leadership is already banned by most non-workaholic GMs ?
Oh, I'm sorry. You meant to say "incompetent" GMs, right? :D
Not only do I allow leadership, but I give it for free to PCs that reach 7th level and have a Charisma of 17 or higher (Those without the charisma requirement may also still opt to purchase the feat).
I just make the PC do all the work. They want a cohort? They are responsible for it.
I'm really not sure I can articulate a proper answer. When I created my world, I just... sat down with a piece of paper and started drawing. I had a basic idea of a theme or concept, but as far as the actually landmass, I just... started drawing.
The +3 bonus is a simplified hold-over from version 3.5
In version 3.5, the max ranks for class skills at level 1 was actually 4 and players were granted enough skill points to compensate. So, for example, a 1st level rogue got (8 + int)x4 skill points to spend.
They come in a wide variety of challenge ratings. So, for a first encounter, I would probably throw the weakest ones at them, maybe like 3 or 4 of them, and see how they do. If they defeat them with ease, maybe try one or two harder ones - and so on.
The point buy system robs your players of roleplay opportunities. To give you an example, I'm currently running a game where the rogue rolled a character with a 6 in intelligence and a 5 in wisdom. He took it in stride and enjoys the hell out of roleplaying an idiot rogue.
Generally speaking, most players aren't going to handicap themselves like that using a point buy system.
Of course they will. Look at the various "guides', nearly every one suggests a "7" in one stat or another.
Next of all, playing with a idiot isn't very fun past the first encounter, nor is it heroic being a idiot.
Then there is nothing less fun than rolling up a 11, 12,9, 8, 10, 11- esp if the next guy gets a 17, 13, 9, 16, 15,14.
Finally, with point buy the whole character creation thing can be done off line.
OP, do a 20 pt buy.
Two PC's? Both need to do some healing then. Bard & Paladin works. Or Inquisitor.
Be very careful with allowing a Summoner. It's great for small parties, but it's very easy to "miscalculate" the "buy" for the eidolon, or forget some important rule.
Of the APG classes, Inquisitor, Oracle or witch works , the cavalier is meh, the alchemist can be confusing. But the Witch isn;t all that good for small parties.
Actually, that group is level 7 already and the rogue is still having a blast :)
I've been thinking about GMing a game for when our regular GM can't make it. Now, I generally know what I'm doing as a player, but I have basically no experience running games.
Here is how I am planning on running the game (subject to change):
1- 15 point buy
I HIGHLY recommend against the point buy system.
The point buy system robs your players of roleplay opportunities. To give you an example, I'm currently running a game where the rogue rolled a character with a 6 in intelligence and a 5 in wisdom. He took it in stride and enjoys the hell out of roleplaying an idiot rogue.
There was one scene in particular where the PCs were handed a bag in a crowded inn. The rogue looked in the bag and saw there was a severed head inside - but he wanted the bag (it was a very nice bag). So, he simply dumped the head out of the bag, sending it rolling across the floor. You can well imagine the scene that unfolded. It was extremely entertaining for everyone involved.
Generally speaking, most players aren't going to handicap themselves like that using a point buy system.
Obviously this is purely opinion, so do with it as you will :)
Is it possible for this to truly be a viable PC? I love the idea of a Gnome Illusionist, I'm just not sure I can really contribute much of value to a party with this concept.
The "Fair Tax" is one of the worste tax models we could have. Its a massive increase in tax burden for lower income and a huge windfall for the wealthy. It creates a disproportional tax on people based off of the percentage of income that they spend. People who don't make enough to save anything end up effectively paying the rate as a full % of their income. People who can save money end up getting a tax break on any income they don't spend. They can then make that untaxed income grow indeffinetely, increasing the gap between wealthy and poor.
This is simply not accurate. This would put MORE money into the hands of Americans, not less. Those at the lower income would stand to gain the most from the Fair Tax. A prebate is issued to households which would cover the basic needs, such as food.
Keep in mind something. Corporate taxes would be eliminated from businesses - thus making the United States the world's greatest tax haven for business. When taxes are raised on businesses, the business doesn't actually pay that additional tax. The cost of goods is simply increased. The fair tax simply replaces the inclusive taxes already present in goods.
Republican and Democrats are both responsible for our massive debt. 16 Trillion dollars? Are they insane? I realize social issues are important to a lot of people, but to me - nation debt seems like the elephant in the room. Or... perhaps freight train... filled with elephants.
We need the Fair Tax. I don't care who implements it. The president that does will go down in history as the man or woman that put the country back on the path towards prosperity.
As per the spell the creature that saves is not immobilized, it is staggered.
Staggered
A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift, and immediate actions. A creature with nonlethal damage exactly equal to its current hit points gains the staggered condition.
I tend to not let my vast knowledge get in the way of other peoples games
This concerns me a little. It may be that the rules lawyer thing is just the gaming group's way of dealing with a different issue entirely.
For example: A girl that starts crying at the checkout line in a grocery store when they have to call for a price check, isn't crying about that.
Do you suppose it's possible that your knowledge of the rules is being presented badly, that perhaps those in the group are getting an arrogant vibe from you or that you have a measure of hubris because of what you know? As the old adage goes "It's not what you say, it's how you say it."
Ultimately, it is difficult to say if you are or are not a rules lawyer without actually being present during one of your games. Since this thread is here, and it's being brought up in your games though, there is something wrong.
Personally, if I see something happening during game where a rule is being used incorrectly (like your example of the rogue/rogue multi-classing archetype thing) then the way I typically will handle it, is that I'll wait until the game session is over, then have a private talk with the individual, be it DM or player. That way, they aren't embarrassed about being called out, and it doesn't interrupt the game.
When a character tries to break or burst something with sudden force rather than by dealing damage, use a Strength check (rather than an attack roll and damage roll, as with the sunder special attack) to determine whether he succeeds.
Personally, I've always had a bit of an issue with this - with ability checks in general. Let's use, for example, a burly warrior and a frail wizard. The warrior has a strength of 18(+4) and the wizard has a strength of 10(+0). The two of them come across a simple door and decide to break it down.
The DC to break down a simple door is 13.
The warrior rolls poorly (he rolls an 8, which gives him a final check of 12) so he fails to break down the door even though he's broken much stronger doors in the past.
The wizard smugly steps up and tells the warrior to move aside. He rolls a 16. Bam. The door breaks open and the wizard scoffs at the clearly inept warrior.
Okay, so. I realize the following: I know that something like bashing open a door with a strength check is something that can be repeated, and the chance for the warrior to break the door is ultimately higher due to his strength score. Additionally, I can appreciate the humor that comes from the scenario I depicted.
It bothers me a little though. I haven't actually run the math, but I think the warrior with an 18 strength, and thus a +4 modifier, only has a 20% advantage over the wizard. It just does not feel right.
An idea I had that might work as a possible fix for it, is to allow characters to spend skill point ranks increasing the modifier on ability based checks. So, one would have Strength listed as a skill (I haven't decided yet if I'd make certain abilities class or cross-class) and it would go like this:
Level 4 Fighter with 18 Strength
Skills
Strength - Ranks: 4 - Mod: 4 - Total 8
This now reflects that the fighter has learned how to bash down doors well, or how to control his strength better. In essence... strength training like those that compete in strength competitions.
Anyhow, I'm not sure how or if the idea will fly. I figured I'd toss it to the wolves and see if it survives.
The DM who does that extra work is a good DM, and deserves all the respect for fleshing out the campaign world at large. Just like with players, there are good and bad DMs. I consider a DM who doesn't do much work for the campaign world (or to work things out with his players) can't really be called a good one, just like how most of us can agree that munchkins and people who ignore the story completely generally make bad players.
True. The more prepared the DM is, the more depth and richness will be added to the game.
Still, this can differ from gaming group to gaming group. Some groups love the complexities of social interactions in towns. Others really don't care what people think of them and are really just interested in the dungeon crawl.
I'm going to ignore the bickering and respond to the OP.
For me, it depends entirely on the setting. I'm not familiar with, nor have I ever played in PFS. That being said, consider the following:
It stands to reason though that in any high magic setting, the common folk have come to accept the strange and unusual as part of their daily lives. We then go back to the "it depends" aspect of this. How frequently do bizarre things happen? How prolific are non-human races in populated areas?
For the sake of answering the 'how' part of your question, lets assume for a moment we have a village populated by humans. Let us also assume that the only non-human race they've encountered is goblin. We'll also say that the goblins have not been especially friendly, having raided the town, perhaps even killed a few people.
Here we have a populace whose experience is the tilling of earth, the changing of seasons, basic survival, the village festival, and of course all the interpersonal shenanigans common to small communities. Add a collective disdain for the only thing not like them, the goblins in this case, and a form of paranoid racism begins to flourish. Resentment festers from the deaths of loved ones. Children are taught to hate and fear any goblin they see.
Then, one day, a half-demon lizard man with flaming wings and a huge- sized flaming spider pet (I realize it is an exaggerated example, but it is functional for this little scenario) enters town. This creature is so far out of their daily experience, that most will likely respond with terror with perhaps a few with a modicum of fascination. To deal with something so strange, it is likely village elders would be summoned, guards would be alerted, and it would be the biggest event the little village has ever experienced.
We are all influenced by our environment and our experiences, and this is also so for NPCs, both individuals and groups. I'm not a psychologist, but it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to envision the outcome I depicted above, nor does it take much to predict what would happen if a player with a goblin character were to enter town.
Unfortunately, what this means is more work for the DM. If you are going to allow strange races into your game, then you might want to have at least a basic idea of how different communities in your campaign will react.
In the world I created, Drow are exceptionally rare, so much so that most average folk have never heard of them. Elves on the other hand are extremely prolific. So, average people would see a Drow with about the same reaction as seeing an albino, or "I didn't know elves came in that color".
I don't know, guys. Maybe the Antagonize feat is realistic. I've only read through the arguments in favor of Antagonize as written one time and I'm already tempted to go kick a puppy. So if it's possible for an opponent to recite the full text of the Antagonize feat as a standard action, my pacifist character may very well choose to go berserk and punch that opponent in the face.
It is MUCH easier to anger someone than it is to seduce someone. Anyone that drives can tell you that.
I am running a Pathfinder campaign (not in Pathfinder Society as I am using many houserules).
I am curious about a few things in other GMs games...
1. What amount of character points do you allow at creation for abilities? [10, 15, 20, 25]
2. What rate of experience do you use? [Slow, Medium, Fast]
3. What supplements do you usually allow?
Thank you for your responses, that might help me to adjust my own game to fit better the expectations of players.
1) I very much dislike point buy systems, so I use the 4d6 drop lowest. I then also roll a set in secret for each player. The player then has the option of using what they rolled or what I rolled, but the decision is final, even if my scores are worse than theirs.
2) I use the medium or fast depending on the goals of the campaign. Also, I tend to give much better experience rewards for good roleplaying and good story than I do for killing bad guys. Roleplaying should be more about roleplaying and less about how much damage one can do, in my opinion.
3) Lately I've used the stipulation of "If it's available on PFSRD, you can use it," however I still ask the players come to me with their ideas so I can approve or disapprove it (or help them with the concept if it's an unusual one).
BOOMBOOM
Benefit: As a standard action, you may deal 3d6 damage/level to all enemies within 60 ft. Certain enemies may be immune or have damage reduction against this effect, as determined by the DM.
Isn't this a feat that will work well as long as you have a reasonable DM? After all, anyone out to game the system can do so anyway so allowing this feat won't change anything?
I'd probably make it a full round action for balance.
Do you think it's a balanced feat as is? If not, why not?
Completely irrelevant. The discussion here involves Pathfinder published material.
Then you agree antagonize as written now is broken. Why are we even arguing? The OP just asked is the feat broken and the answer is yes. He didn't even ask for how to fix the feat.
Actually I asked why people thought it was broken. I have learned that:
1. With a reasonable GM, it's a weak feat at best.
2. With a powergamer/ruleslawyer player with no GM control, it appears to be broken.
This.
I maintain that there isn't a feat or a spell or an ability anywhere in this game pre or post errata that cannot be handled by a reasonable DM. Your word as DM is law, and sorry - but the game rules do not trump the DM.
If you, as a DM, think it's logical that a 70 year old lady charges an ogre because he's taunting her - great. Personally, if a player or a monster had Antagonize, it's usefulness would boil down to common sense.
Is a defenseless villager being beaten down by a thug? Antagonize him and draw his attention. Is the ogre looking to distract a guard while his goons attempt to sabotage the bridge he's guarding? They better hurry, they only have one round to do it before he realizes what's going on.
That only proves that rule 0 works, and the ability in question has issues. While many of us don't mind using it at times, rule 0 should not be the default answer to a feat.
GM:Damn, not that feat again. No it does not work.
GM:This time it does.
GM:Not this time.
GM:OK, it works.
If you(not any particular person) thinks an ability is ok because some GM's can just houserule it then nothing is ever broken(not referring to Overpowered, but any ability that should not reach the book).
Player:Hey Paizo has a feat called super charm that adds a +27 to my DC for Dominate Monster, and I can affect anyone even if they should be immune. I also have unlimited castings of dominate monster
Player 2: That is crazy.
GM:The feat is fine. I will just say it only adds +2. See the feat is perfectly fine.
or...
What is "rule 0"? I've never heard that term before. Ah. Okay, I looked it up. Praise Google. The DM is always right. Got it.
The game system provides for us a means to an end - a framework with which to create consistency. However, the game rules and the human element are not mutually exclusive. We are not computers running a program.
Let's look at this another way. Fireball. A 5th level PC could saunter into a crowded market, drop a Fireball, and kill a large amount of innocent people. What is preventing him from doing so? There is no game rule stopping him from doing it. Not even alignment stops him from doing it. If the player says he does it, he does it.
Does that mean Fireball is broken because it can kill indiscriminately a group of people with literally no hope to survive it? The game, despite what most people would say, does assume a measure of common sense and personal restraint. It is the most difficult thing for new players to both realize and master.
Most new players to the game, in my experience, don't do much their first few times playing because they don't realize they can do almost anything. Are there consequences to their actions? Certainly. Is there common sense that says you can or can't do something? Always.
In the end, what am I trying to say?
Is Antagonize broken? In a void without the human element? Perhaps. Is the feat broken when you include common sense and reason? Absolutely not.
Then you agree antagonize as written now is broken. Why are we even arguing? The OP just asked is the feat broken and the answer is yes. He didn't even ask for how to fix the feat.
Actually I asked why people thought it was broken. I have learned that:
1. With a reasonable GM, it's a weak feat at best.
2. With a powergamer/ruleslawyer player with no GM control, it appears to be broken.
This.
I maintain that there isn't a feat or a spell or an ability anywhere in this game pre or post errata that cannot be handled by a reasonable DM. Your word as DM is law, and sorry - but the game rules do not trump the DM.
If you, as a DM, think it's logical that a 70 year old lady charges an ogre because he's taunting her - great. Personally, if a player or a monster had Antagonize, it's usefulness would boil down to common sense.
Is a defenseless villager being beaten down by a thug? Antagonize him and draw his attention. Is the ogre looking to distract a guard while his goons attempt to sabotage the bridge he's guarding? They better hurry, they only have one round to do it before he realizes what's going on.
I do not have an opinion if this is for Pathfinder Society.
For a regular home game with friends however, it is perfectly acceptable to have some leniency. Let him spend his money on creating a +1 item. Trust me, it will not unbalance your game. If for some reason it becomes a problem, magic items are incredibly easy to take away from players. Like taking candy from a baby :)
The easiest, and probably most... flavorful way to reign in the power of a wizard is through spell components. Material components are one of those things most people skip right over or don't worry about. Take Fireball for example. The material components needed to cast it once is a ball of bat guano and some sulfur... each time the wizard casts the spell. Just how many balls of bat guano is the wizard carrying?
Simply block access to the Eschew Materials feat for wizards and you now have a way to easily limit what spells the wizard can cast, and how many times he can cast them.
Recently one of my DMs decided to make a medieval/fantasy Japanese themed campaign. In an effort to create a character with an interesting roleplaying twist, I decided on making (or attempting to make) a blind Samurai with the Sword Saint archetype.
As we've seen versions of this type of character in various films (Ichi and Ninja Scroll for example), the DM has already expressed approval and has asked me to look into the feasibility, including any homebrew rules we'd need to come up with to make it possible.
Blindness has severe penalties associated with it, as follows:
* –2 penalty to Armor Class
* Loss of Dexterity bonus to AC
* –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks.
* All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail.
* All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character.
* Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone.
It also states the following: "Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them." - however it does not go into detail about what precisely happens.
Additionally, there is a 3rd level spell that cures blindness completely, whether natural or caused by a spell or effect - which quickly invalidates the character's theme. It would be like Geordi La Forge getting his true vision back in the first season of Next Generation.
Now, as my DM pointed out, people that have been blind their entire lives could plausibly have improved hearing.
I've looked into the Blind Fighting feats, and they do make sense to take for this character, and the DM is prepared to give me bonus feats to offset the blindness a bit.
Anyhow, I wanted to get some community feedback and suggestions on this, see where things go!
There's a DMing technique that I like to use known as the:
Ticky Ticky:
This was something I actually learned from White Wolf storyteller. In that setting, here's the scenario:
The players are in a crowded restaurant, waiting for their contact to arrive. One of the PCs then gets a call or a text message informing them that there is a bomb in the restaurant that is going to explode in three minutes.
At this point you the DM shows the players that you are setting a stopwatch for three minutes, and that they better come up with something quick! What are they going to do? They are to protect innocent lives... are they going to try to evacuate the restaurant? Are they going to try and find the bomb in time?
Using this on players is FUN. You really get to see them scramble.
Now. What does this have to do with the topic at hand? I believe one of the points being brought up is the resting every hour problem. There are ways to add a time crunch to an story, even in D&D without needing a bomb. Perhaps the antagonist has set an hour glass, and when it runs out something bad happens. Perhaps there's an impending celestial alignment an evil wizard is waiting for. You get the idea. The players can't spend days upon days exploring a dungeon and waiting for an alchemist to buff himself every hour.
So I'm having three new players come in to replace old ones, and since they're level 12 (!!!) and brand new, I'm rolling up their characters for them. As DM I mostly just give advice to the rogue when he texts me at 1 AM trying to crunch the math between a punching dagger and a knife for his new knife master build, but I made a pretty kickass Monk, and a Barbarian who is a walking, swinging sack of HP.
But I'm sort of struggling to find good feats for the Cleric. Other than extra channel and channeled revival. What are some other cool feats for a healbot to be using?
P.S. please don't criticize making a new player a healbot. I know the follies involved.
Firstly, I'm amazed that the community here doesn't have the imagination to see that a character that doesn't or can't do damage to things isn't fun.
I love playing "healbot" characters personally. It gives me other ways to play the game rather than how well I can kill things. I also completely agree that there is a serious lack of feats for healbot type characters. I've tossed around a few ideas here in the forums but have gotten very little feedback.
*gets off soapbox*
Things that are within the rules:
You might want to consider giving that character the Healing domain, since it will give all of his cure spells Empower.
Then, since the characters are level 12, you could grant him the "Healer's Touch" achievement feat, which maximizes the clerics healing spells.
Homebrew Stuff:
Another idea I had, was introducing a Metachannel feat, which allows the cleric to spontaneously apply metamagic feats to their channel, burning a number of 'turning' attempts equal to 1 + level adjustment of the metamagic feat.
Although I haven't sat down to write it up, it would be interesting to have a feat that gave distributed overhealing to other injured party members.
The math the game is based on assumes magic items.
That's like saying life is based on math. Sure, when you boil it down you're probably right. However it isn't static. The wonderful thing about D&D is how fluid and flexible it is because it has so much variation. Don't like that your party is defeating the monsters too fast? Add two or even three more antagonists to a fight. Party becoming overwhelmed by encounters designed for their level? Drop to a lower challenge rating but award the same XP. Simple.
I'm not convinced players NEED magic items to survive at any level in the game. The trick is, as a DM, to minimize the amount of "Save of Die" things you throw at the group.
For example: In the campaign I'm running, through some extremely clever trickery, I managed to separate the group from all of their wonderful magic items. They were all also in separate jail cells and had to rely on their class abilities and their wits to get out of the cells, and then deal with the guards. While they were dealing with the guards, getting everyone out of their cells, I introduced another antagonist as lesser demons started swarming into the hall.
The players had a blast figuring all this out and fighting a battle on two fronts. Eventually, when they won, they were reunited with their beloved stuff. Never be afraid to take it away from them!!! They will cherish it more when/if they get it back.
Another option to make magic items more special involves, unavoidably, more work for the DM. Don't make magic items random. Give them purpose, names, and backgrounds. That way, that Ring of Protection +2 is instead something like "Liandara's Band" - give it a flowery description and a history that could potentially either come back to haunt the player or even put him in a tough situation. It's possible the player will encounter "Liandara" - and I'll leave it up to your imagination as to the many different things that can happen there.
I would rather see a feat, spell effect, class ability, or magical item that takes overheal and distributes it to other injured party members, perhaps within 30' of the initial target healed.
Now THAT would be a fun and helpful mechanic.
Hmmm... In fact, I might have to work with my group and come up with something.
This room is 40' by 40', players enter this room through a door on the southern wall.
A Permanent Image spell has been cast upon this room, making it appear as though the party has traveled outside. The image will also depict an old dwarf, leaning up against an oak tree smoking a pipe. He will engage the party in idle chat and entice them with apparent knowledge of the location of great riches.
The illusion's purpose is distraction. There is another door to the North hidden by the illusion and sealed with an Arcane Lock spell. As soon as the party enters the room, the southern door will quietly close and also seal with an Arcane Lock. A reservoir above the room begins filling with water as soon as anyone enters the room.
The reservoir takes 1 minute to fill. Once it is full, 4 tiles in the ceiling will pop out and allow the water to flood into the room. The room will fill completely in 3 rounds, at which point you get to dust off the rules for drowning.
Obviously, don't put the party in this situation if they can't deal with Arcane Locks. The difficulty of this room can also be increased through Walls of Force. Additionally, you can also have a Summon Monster spell go off as well, forcing the party into some underwater combat while trying to get out of the room.
