Where has all the magic gone


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think one of the important things to take away from this is that the "specialness" probably isn't going to come from something that's an expected part of a character. It's what you do with it, and how you build on it, that really makes it memorable.


Quite frankly, unless the magic item in question history has something to do with a PC's history, as in the case of,

CoCT spoilers:
An Iomedaean character or one from Lastwall are definitely going to be more interested in Mandraivus's armor than someone else, and as such are more likely to keep it even when "better" gear appears (either by just having subpar armor, or getting the wizard to add enhancement bonuses to it) than a regular character who might just sell it.
it will just be seen as gear to them, and they will dump the moment they think they can get something better.

Really, the best solution is when you want your players to get excited about some piece of equipment is to make it an Artifact, seeing as A) they can't make one for themselves, and B) It has cool abilities that they may not have seen before/be able to duplicate, leading to them lending a greater sense of reverence to the object. For example

Again, CoCT spoilers:
I do not think that their is a party that has gone thru "Skeletons of Scarwall" without thinking that Serithtial is the best thing since sliced bread, an effect that a "regular" powerful magical sword would be less likely to invoke.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

[

I mean, the main topic of the thread is magic items. "Magic items as character progression" is not a quick-and-easy ban, or a subsystem to be discarded without consequence. It's a fundamental pillar of how Pathfinder is structured. Using your "just don't use it" suggestion (which in this case translates to the same "just don't give out as much loot" advice others have given) isn't like banning a class or leaving out Retraining; it's more like cutting everyone's good saves down to bad saves, bad saves down to zero, full BAB down to 3/4 BAB, and 3/4 BAB down to half BAB; and then expecting there to be no consequences.

Cutting out wealth-as-progression from Pathfinder isn't like banning a feat, it's like banning the entire mechanic of having feats at all. There's a big difference between what you're apparently talking about and what Chess Pwn was commenting on.

Wealth as progression has been part of the game since the three volume set. It was critical in 3.5, 4th and to quite and extent, even earlier editions. If you didnt have a magic weapon, you were screwed past a certain level- it was assumed you'd have one.

Magic items are also critical in 5th Ed also.

The difference is that the Pathfinder Devs have been nice enough, open enough and forth coming enough to actually spell out what the expectations are. (And to some extent this also occurred in 4th Ed, too)

But they were always there. (and some AD&D modules even said what kind of magic items the party shoudl have to survive the module).

However the expectations are just guidelines, we played thru RotRL without the strict WBL and it worked fine. Sometime we had more, sometime less, not much chance to "Christmas tree", but a few super items, too.

My campaigns where there were no Ye Olde Magic Shoppes as expected, but really nice customized loot drops also worked fine.

Sure, if you wanna play super low magic then play Iron Heroes, magic is a integral part of D&D.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Bluenose wrote:


Appendix N, relevantly, includes Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories. If you want to emulate stories of that type, I'm not sure recent versions of D&D would be good choices (outside parts of the OSR).

Leiber played D&D with those two characters, so indeed, they do work.

Edition wars are silly, any edition of D&D can be a great fun game with the right DM and a good bunch of players. Conversely, with the wrong DM and a bad bunch of players, it is gonna suck no matter which Edition you play.

I have played them all, they all have good and bad points.

He played those characters, with a version of AD%D that was not nearly as crunch laden as 3.X and it's successors... First Edition. It makes a major difference
Plenty of Crunch, trust me. Especially with added houserules and everyone had added houserules- that's how Fafhrd lost his hand.
I think you're a bit confused. Fafhrd lost his hand because that's the way it was written in story. Do you really think that Fritz Leiber used d20 dice to determine how his stories would progress? IF that were the case, he'd have gotten his hand back with a Regenerate.

1st ed barbarians weren't likely to hunt down magic users for regenerate (which not even every cleric had access to) member major and minor sphere access?

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly, I used to think the overabundance of magic items is also kind of...well, limiting. I was wrong. It's all a matter of perspective. Because wonder is all where you stand.

Magic on this scale basically evolves into technology. Suddenly, all sorts of innovations and ideas become possible. The scale of a campaign can change drastically when someone makes a realization that changes the scale. Take, for instance, a mage that realizes that they can imbue long lengths of steel with the power to repel metal in one direction...and now you have a train. And you can have an entire campaign based around it. Or, maybe, one country gets access to potions so cheaply and easily that their life expectancy and profit greatly overshadows others, and they become a magocracy threatening invasion.

Seeing them as an opportunity allows you to play on different things. Yes, they're ubiquitous, but what are the consequences of that? How seriously do people take them? What do the magic items a culture produces say about its core values? Beliefs? Level of understanding? How do they treat them? Play it up, and no one will ever lose the wonder.

I mean, Eberron basically had magic items on every street corner and it's certainly epic in scale.


DrDeth wrote:

Wealth as progression has been part of the game since the three volume set. It was critical in 3.5, 4th and to quite and extent, even earlier editions. If you didnt have a magic weapon, you were screwed past a certain level- it was assumed you'd have one.

Yep. "+1 or better weapons to hit". Fortunately, despite what the DMG said, most AD&D modules handed out magical weapons and other gear fairly generously.

Part of the problem, I think, is that D&D magic is spelled out, quantified, and carefully defined. As a result, even the most powerful magic has all the awe and mystery of ordering an Extra Value Meal at McDonalds.

Want to make magic feel magical and mysterious again? Don't allow player-character spellcasters. (And probably don't play PF, as a result.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
The difference is that the Pathfinder Devs have been nice enough, open enough and forth coming enough to actually spell out what the expectations are. (And to some extent this also occurred in 4th Ed, too)

I wasn't aware that PF got more specific than the WBL guidelines ported over from 3.5, let alone 4e's parcel guidelines. Good on the Paizo team! Is this in the PF DMG, or in a FAQ or Q&A? Just curious.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
The difference is that the Pathfinder Devs have been nice enough, open enough and forth coming enough to actually spell out what the expectations are. (And to some extent this also occurred in 4th Ed, too)
I wasn't aware that PF got more specific than the WBL guidelines ported over from 3.5, let alone 4e's parcel guidelines. Good on the Paizo team! Is this in the PF DMG, or in a FAQ or Q&A? Just curious.

I believe it's the section on wealth-by-level which explains that under-equipped pcs should lower the party's apl and vice-versa.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

DrDeth wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

[

I mean, the main topic of the thread is magic items. "Magic items as character progression" is not a quick-and-easy ban, or a subsystem to be discarded without consequence. It's a fundamental pillar of how Pathfinder is structured. Using your "just don't use it" suggestion (which in this case translates to the same "just don't give out as much loot" advice others have given) isn't like banning a class or leaving out Retraining; it's more like cutting everyone's good saves down to bad saves, bad saves down to zero, full BAB down to 3/4 BAB, and 3/4 BAB down to half BAB; and then expecting there to be no consequences.

Cutting out wealth-as-progression from Pathfinder isn't like banning a feat, it's like banning the entire mechanic of having feats at all. There's a big difference between what you're apparently talking about and what Chess Pwn was commenting on.

Wealth as progression has been part of the game since the three volume set. It was critical in 3.5, 4th and to quite and extent, even earlier editions. If you didnt have a magic weapon, you were screwed past a certain level- it was assumed you'd have one.

Magic items are also critical in 5th Ed also.

The difference is that the Pathfinder Devs have been nice enough, open enough and forth coming enough to actually spell out what the expectations are. (And to some extent this also occurred in 4th Ed, too)

But they were always there. (and some AD&D modules even said what kind of magic items the party shoudl have to survive the module).

However the expectations are just guidelines, we played thru RotRL without the strict WBL and it worked fine. Sometime we had more, sometime less, not much chance to "Christmas tree", but a few super items, too.

My campaigns where there were no Ye Olde Magic Shoppes as expected, but really nice customized loot drops also worked fine.

Sure, if you wanna play super low magic then play Iron Heroes, magic is a integral part of D&D.

What does your comparison to other editions have to do with my post that you quoted?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
SlimGauge wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Where has all the magic gone

and where are all the CoDz...

Myself, I'd have gone with Peter, Paul and Mary.

Where has all the magic gone, long time passing?
Where has all the magic gone, long time ago?
Where has all the magic gone?
Gone to the big six, every one
Oh when will they ever learn, oh when will they ever learn?

Fluff the magic roleplayer

lived by the sea
and frolicked in the openness
in a land called D&D...

You mean lived by the Sound

More specifically Puget Sound [kind of ironic all the RPG development that's come out of this area.]


Jiggy wrote:
What does your comparison to other editions have to do with my post that you quoted?

To quote your post with added bolding :" It's a fundamental pillar of how Pathfinder is structured. ......

Cutting out wealth-as-progression from Pathfinder isn't like banning a feat,......"

So, you are completely wrong. It's not in any way shape or form limited to Pathfinder. It's part of D&D.

I know you dont like Pathfinder, you dont play Pathfinder, but perhaps maybe you could scale down your constant attacks on the Pathfinder game in the Pathfinder forums?

Shadow Lodge

So honest appraisals of the system are attacks?

Just kidding, we've known that since the beta.


TOZ wrote:

So honest appraisals of the system are attacks?

If you dont play the game, how can you give honest appraisals?

And if the point of giving honest appraisals is to improve the game, then why not post in that games MB? Why would you not want to improve the game you actually play?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:
If you dont play the game, how can you give honest appraisals?

You can certainly give appraisals about the things that were present when you DID play, however.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
TOZ wrote:

So honest appraisals of the system are attacks?

If you dont play the game, how can you give honest appraisals?

If you used to play it.

I don't really see how saying "WBL is an integral part of pathfinder, so it's not trivial to remove it" is an attack.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You weren't around for the playtest then. :P


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I was here. I was as puzzled by human behaviour then as I am now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
The difference is that the Pathfinder Devs have been nice enough, open enough and forth coming enough to actually spell out what the expectations are. (And to some extent this also occurred in 4th Ed, too)
I wasn't aware that PF got more specific than the WBL guidelines ported over from 3.5, let alone 4e's parcel guidelines. Good on the Paizo team! Is this in the PF DMG, or in a FAQ or Q&A? Just curious.
I believe it's the section on wealth-by-level which explains that under-equipped pcs should lower the party's apl and vice-versa.

As a DM who got tripped up by the passive assumption that gear doesn't matter -- or rather, my players got tripped up by inexperienced me being blithely unaware of the necessity for magical gear -- I was very happy that the 4e guidelines are so explicit about what's assumed, and how to adjust my game if I don't like those assumptions. And I'm glad to discover that PF has some sort of red flag too!

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
To quote your post with added bolding :" It's a fundamental pillar of how Pathfinder is structured. ......

As the one who got adressed by Jiggy I didn't feel that he wanted to differentiate between PF and other forms of D&D so much as to point out that banning WBL isn't comparable to banning a feat (which I agree with).

I still think that considering WBL as integral (and therefore not to be changed) means limiting yourself when it comes to making the game your own. I can understand if someone actually likes the way Pathfinder handles this, but if you don't like it and don't change it either, it stops being a problem of the system and starts becoming a problem for your game.


Many magic items have become an expected part of character building in order to keep them competitive with other players.

You want to get rid of most magical items? Fine. We'll start be replacing things via the Automatic Bonus Progression system. It works great, no longer need you worry about magic weapons or armor, amulets of natural armor, rings of protection, belts of stat increases, or headbands of stats increases.

Then you have to find items that virtually everyone takes for a given class, and roll them into the character progression (like the Gloves of Dueling for fighters or anyone with weapon training might as well be a class feature that they spent 15,000 gp to get). This part is the hard part to do.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
What does your comparison to other editions have to do with my post that you quoted?

To quote your post with added bolding :" It's a fundamental pillar of how Pathfinder is structured. ......

Cutting out wealth-as-progression from Pathfinder isn't like banning a feat,......"

So, you are completely wrong. It's not in any way shape or form limited to Pathfinder. It's part of D&D.

Making a statement about what's true in Pathfinder is not the same as claiming it's only true about Pathfinder. Limiting one's scope so as not to make claims about things outside the scope of one's experience, is perhaps a foreign concept to you...? Or perhaps you were just skimming really fast (twice, since you went back for citations) and mis-read the text? Or something? I'm trying to figure out how you managed to read "X is true in Pathfinder" and retain "X is only true in Pathfinder".

Quote:
I know you dont like Pathfinder, you dont play Pathfinder, but perhaps maybe you could scale down your constant attacks on the Pathfinder game in the Pathfinder forums?

Talking shop about Pathfinder-related game design is not "attacking", and is completely appropriate for these forums. (I do try to keep it relevant to the sub-forum and thread I'm posting in, too.)

Quote:
If you don't play the game, how can you give honest appraisals?

You don't suddenly lose all knowledge of a game when you stop playing. Whatever qualification to comment that I had when I was still playing, GMing, researching, and publishing; I still have now that I quit. It didn't go away. Obviously I would have less expertise in regard to newer content, but I also avoid commenting on that content for that exact reason.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Purely IMHO...the magic lies in a duel between story vs. stats.

Story: "By this wand of power I banish thee to nothingness!!"
vs.
Stats: "Eat hot photons, martian slime! "-granted there's still a bit of story here...but when the magical becomes mundane and commonplace...*shrug*

If I want more story...I alter how I present my game. Change how the players interact. The narrative model (Apocalypse World/Dungeon World, FATE, etc...) systems provide insight on how to do this. Essentially, when everyone is a storyteller...which admittedly may require a group of creative players/GMs I have always gotten more 'magic'.

Stats: "Albert the PFS Accountant: 'I roll d20 vs. goblin #2...hit AC 15, 6 hp of slashing damage, plus 6 points for 2H power attack, +2 for rage, +1 for bardsong...oh and he stills has another attack...is there another target within a 5 foot step?' "

Story: "Encouraged by Falstaff's inspiring speech, swinging as hard as he can with a powerful bellow as he uses his blood-soaked greataxe with both hands, Albertus the Abyssal Slayer of Erinoch, cleaves through the hapless minion of evil. As his enemy crumples to the ground a lifeless heap Albertus his vision still overlain with crimson in the midst of his rage, scans back and forth and steps forward ready for his next challenge his axe shaking as his muscles quiver with unused energy."

Not that you have over-exaggerate every move as a 'Master Thespian' using a pseudo high style. But throwing in a bit of detail...and encouraging the PLAYERS to do so never hurts. It keeps the game fresh and I find helps keep the players engaged. When it's not just the GM's story..but the GROUP's story...it's a better tale for all. Collaboration can be a wonderful thing in forging an epic tale.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rerednaw wrote:

Purely IMHO...the magic lies in a duel between story vs. stats.

Story: "By this wand of power I banish thee to nothingness!!"
vs.
Stats: "Eat hot photons, martian slime! "-granted there's still a bit of story here...but when the magical becomes mundane and commonplace...*shrug*

So...sci-fi is stats, fantasy is story?


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
My players don't trade out their magic items. They save them if they get a better one, or pay to have an existing one upgraded. I'm kinda proud of 'em for that. Plus it helps there are no magic marts in my campaign world. The magic they have is found in loot piles of BBEGs or other powerful opponents. And even then they're pretty rare.
Steve Gedes wrote:
There are no magic marts but they can pay to upgrade items they've found. How does that work? They seem functionally the same to me.

As long as the gear upgrade option is played out in such a way as to keep up the sense of mystery it will avoid being the equivalent to the "magic mart".

The Drunken Dragon wrote:

Seeing them as an opportunity allows you to play on different things. Yes, they're ubiquitous, but what are the consequences of that? How seriously do people take them? What do the magic items a culture produces say about its core values? Beliefs? Level of understanding? How do they treat them? Play it up, and no one will ever lose the wonder.

I mean, Eberron basically had magic items on every street corner and it's certainly epic in scale.

I play in an Eberron campaign and I just let the party accountant handle the downtime magic mart stuff. The way Eberron handles magic is the last thing about the setting that I care for; which is to say not at all.

As mentioned, my campaign uses three tiers of magic gear.

Non-magic gear that nonetheless needs magic use for its creation
Traditional magic gear that has a high enough value that only the truly wealthy can see it as a commodity. Basically these are "practice" items for the creation of stuff in the next category
Artifacts - magic items that scale with the PC's progression; I often link these to skill points as opposed to simply tying it to character level; but I can do one or both depending


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Cutting out wealth-as-progression from Pathfinder isn't like banning a feat, it's like banning the entire mechanic of having feats at all. There's a big difference between what you're apparently talking about and what Chess Pwn was commenting on.

Precisely this.

5E assumes the campaign will have magic and the magic that exists will be wondrous.
3.PF assumes the PC's upgrade gear at the same pace as hit points, BAB, etc. Per thejeff's comments, as he nails this aspect of 3.PF rules.


Dr Deth wrote:
Sure, if you wanna play super low magic then play Iron Heroes, magic is a integral part of D&D.

I agree, magic is integral to D&D. I think the OP believes that too and the loss of that wondrous feel to magic, with so many of these systems, is what engendered this thread.

Scythia has mentioned more than once that she allows all rules + 3pp in her game. Whatever the player wants to play, and then works with it. My approach seems parallel except I'm not so interested in the splat books or 3pp. I just want to know what the player wants out of their PC in the game and together we can build that.

Parallel to this is the way I actually run a game. It is less a railroad than it is a road network. That's what I prep for but if the players want to they can go "off road".

However, nothing like a "magic mart" will ever appear in my campaign without it being some sort of plane-hopping adventure. Even then it's unlikely.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Dr Deth wrote:
Sure, if you wanna play super low magic then play Iron Heroes, magic is a integral part of D&D.

I agree, magic is integral to D&D. I think the OP believes that too and the loss of that wondrous feel to magic, with so many of these systems, is what engendered this thread.

Scythia has mentioned more than once that she allows all rules + 3pp in her game. Whatever the player wants to play, and then works with it. My approach seems parallel except I'm not so interested in the splat books or 3pp. I just want to know what the player wants out of their PC in the game and together we can build that.

Parallel to this is the way I actually run a game. It is less a railroad than it is a road network. That's what I prep for but if the players want to they can go "off road".

However, nothing like a "magic mart" will ever appear in my campaign without it being some sort of plane-hopping adventure. Even then it's unlikely.

There's often some confusion in the use of "magic mart" in these discussions. One approach takes it literally: There is a big store with all the available magic items neatly lined up on shelves with pricetags. The other uses it as a metaphor for items being regularly available for purchase, but they're likely scattered throughout the city - some in various shops, some held by private individuals or groups who might be willing to sell. Both approaches can use the same availability by price & settlement size found in the rules.

I've rarely seen anybody use (or even really defend) the first, with the possible exception of high level extraplanar shenanigans. I've often seen it attacked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Dr Deth wrote:
Sure, if you wanna play super low magic then play Iron Heroes, magic is a integral part of D&D.

I agree, magic is integral to D&D. I think the OP believes that too and the loss of that wondrous feel to magic, with so many of these systems, is what engendered this thread.

Scythia has mentioned more than once that she allows all rules + 3pp in her game. Whatever the player wants to play, and then works with it. My approach seems parallel except I'm not so interested in the splat books or 3pp. I just want to know what the player wants out of their PC in the game and together we can build that.

Parallel to this is the way I actually run a game. It is less a railroad than it is a road network. That's what I prep for but if the players want to they can go "off road".

However, nothing like a "magic mart" will ever appear in my campaign without it being some sort of plane-hopping adventure. Even then it's unlikely.

There's often some confusion in the use of "magic mart" in these discussions. One approach takes it literally: There is a big store with all the available magic items neatly lined up on shelves with pricetags. The other uses it as a metaphor for items being regularly available for purchase, but they're likely scattered throughout the city - some in various shops, some held by private individuals or groups who might be willing to sell. Both approaches can use the same availability by price & settlement size found in the rules.

I've rarely seen anybody use (or even really defend) the first, with the possible exception of high level extraplanar shenanigans. I've often seen it attacked.

First, I have seen the literal type of magic mart. Both Eberron campaigns I'm familiar with have those. Except maybe the price tags.

Second, because the price is in the PHB or DMG or UMG or whatever, the buying of magic is treated in a way that is not practically different than the literal magic mart. There it is in print, your PC knows exactly what it's worth... blah, blah, blah... mark off the gold on my CRS and off we go on the next adventure.

Third, given that these two senses of magic mart are not confusing to me, nor are either of them fun to RP in, I/my PC leave it to the party accountant. Some people actually like that stuff and in any group I play in I need at least one and am glad to have her.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
“Quark Blast“ wrote:
3.PF assumes the PC's upgrade gear at the same pace as hit points, BAB, etc.

Yes , but even the Core Rules account for different styles of play, when, for example, they advise GMs that “Low-fantasy games might award only half this value” (value meaning the entry on the Character Wealth per Level table). So the possibility of restricting the access to magic items (which is a direct consequence of handing out less treasure) is already in the Core Rules and most certainly is not against the assumptions of the game. So it’s certainly also possible to have a standard campaign (with regards to PB) and still restricting access to magic items (which will have to lead to further modifications, that goes without question). And if, in the end, my party of level 10 PCs will find a real challenge in a CR 10-encounter (instead of finding it an easy challenge, as seems to be the case for most groups nowadays), it’s not the end of the world, and if want to create an easy challenge for them, I’ll probably just use an CR 8 encounter instead.

But they might start to appreciate the magic items they get just a bit more, if they don’t find them at every corner of their adventure. Still will probably give those things names and histories to make them even more interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Dr Deth wrote:
Sure, if you wanna play super low magic then play Iron Heroes, magic is a integral part of D&D.

I agree, magic is integral to D&D. I think the OP believes that too and the loss of that wondrous feel to magic, with so many of these systems, is what engendered this thread.

Scythia has mentioned more than once that she allows all rules + 3pp in her game. Whatever the player wants to play, and then works with it. My approach seems parallel except I'm not so interested in the splat books or 3pp. I just want to know what the player wants out of their PC in the game and together we can build that.

Parallel to this is the way I actually run a game. It is less a railroad than it is a road network. That's what I prep for but if the players want to they can go "off road".

However, nothing like a "magic mart" will ever appear in my campaign without it being some sort of plane-hopping adventure. Even then it's unlikely.

Also, my traditional response to magic items has been to have the players find a magical artisan NPCs that can be commissioned to craft/upgrade items in exchange for other enchanted goods or coin.

I did develop a literal secondary xp track mechanic to replace the "necessary" boring bonuses, but the game I was playtesting in blew up (almost literally, the party was taken out by misfiring a ship based missile), and we haven't been back to PF since.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
“Quark Blast“ wrote:
3.PF assumes the PC's upgrade gear at the same pace as hit points, BAB, etc.

Yes , but even the Core Rules account for different styles of play, when, for example, they advise GMs that “Low-fantasy games might award only half this value” (value meaning the entry on the Character Wealth per Level table). So the possibility of restricting the access to magic items (which is a direct consequence of handing out less treasure) is already in the Core Rules and most certainly is not against the assumptions of the game. So it’s certainly also possible to have a standard campaign (with regards to PB) and still restricting access to magic items (which will have to lead to further modifications, that goes without question). And if, in the end, my party of level 10 PCs will find a real challenge in a CR 10-encounter (instead of finding it an easy challenge, as seems to be the case for most groups nowadays), it’s not the end of the world, and if want to create an easy challenge for them, I’ll probably just use an CR 8 encounter instead.

But they might start to appreciate the magic items they get just a bit more, if they don’t find them at every corner of their adventure. Still will probably give those things names and histories to make them even more interesting.

Won't challenge your logic but will point out there is a disconnect between what the CRB says GMs can do and what APs give out for loot.

The APs and PFS kind of set the standard and the standard is far closer to a realization of the "magic mart" than it is to the "holy ####! that guy has a magic sword that does what?" end of the spectrum.


Scythia wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Dr Deth wrote:
Sure, if you wanna play super low magic then play Iron Heroes, magic is a integral part of D&D.

I agree, magic is integral to D&D. I think the OP believes that too and the loss of that wondrous feel to magic, with so many of these systems, is what engendered this thread.

Scythia has mentioned more than once that she allows all rules + 3pp in her game. Whatever the player wants to play, and then works with it. My approach seems parallel except I'm not so interested in the splat books or 3pp. I just want to know what the player wants out of their PC in the game and together we can build that.

Parallel to this is the way I actually run a game. It is less a railroad than it is a road network. That's what I prep for but if the players want to they can go "off road".

However, nothing like a "magic mart" will ever appear in my campaign without it being some sort of plane-hopping adventure. Even then it's unlikely.

Also, my traditional response to magic items has been to have the players find a magical artisan NPCs that can be commissioned to craft/upgrade items in exchange for other enchanted goods or coin.

I did develop a literal secondary xp track mechanic to replace the "necessary" boring bonuses, but the game I was playtesting in blew up (almost literally, the party was taken out by misfiring a ship based missile), and we haven't been back to PF since.

Something similar here only it's guilds/covens/cabals of casters in the larger towns and cities with the occasional loan wolf arcanist whose services can be bought or better yet traded for. Sometimes a temple or epic crafter. Anything but a magic mart.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, in a world in which teams of people regularly delve into ancient ruins and similar, take everything even remotely valuable that's not nailed down too hard, and return to town looking to hock half the stuff, there would be quite a lot of money to be made in catering to whatever they're looking to buy, since they're taking money out of the ground/a dragon's horde/whatever and putting it into the local economy.

I mean, if you're the guy who mass produces haversacks, that's a lot more lucrative (and safer) than actually going into the dungeon yourself.

In a world in which adventurers are common, and making magic items isn't hard, magic marts are plausible (and more or less inevitable.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, in a world in which teams of people regularly delve into ancient ruins and similar, take everything even remotely valuable that's not nailed down too hard, and return to town looking to hock half the stuff, there would be quite a lot of money to be made in catering to whatever they're looking to buy, since they're taking money out of the ground/a dragon's horde/whatever and putting it into the local economy.

I mean, if you're the guy who mass produces haversacks, that's a lot more lucrative (and safer) than actually going into the dungeon yourself.

In a world in which adventurers are common, and making magic items isn't hard, magic marts are plausible (and more or less inevitable.)

Mind you, I prefer a world in which "adventuring" isn't a common profession and rarely involves just going into ruins for loot.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, in a world in which teams of people regularly delve into ancient ruins and similar, take everything even remotely valuable that's not nailed down too hard, and return to town looking to hock half the stuff, there would be quite a lot of money to be made in catering to whatever they're looking to buy, since they're taking money out of the ground/a dragon's horde/whatever and putting it into the local economy.

I mean, if you're the guy who mass produces haversacks, that's a lot more lucrative (and safer) than actually going into the dungeon yourself.

In a world in which adventurers are common, and making magic items isn't hard, magic marts are plausible (and more or less inevitable.)

As TheJeff alludes to, the campaign is PC focused. Just because your players are constantly delving through ruins, doesn't mean there is a whole established market economy of folks doing so. In fact most NPCs that try to do that probably end up dead, or retiring after their first success.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
“Quark Blast“ wrote:
3.PF assumes the PC's upgrade gear at the same pace as hit points, BAB, etc.
Yes , but even the Core Rules account for different styles of play, when, for example, they advise GMs that “Low-fantasy games might award only half this value” (value meaning the entry on the Character Wealth per Level table). So the possibility of restricting the access to magic items (which is a direct consequence of handing out less treasure) is already in the Core Rules and most certainly is not against the assumptions of the game.
As has been discovered repeatedly by very intelligent, crunch orientated players and GMs since the inception of Pathfinder, those "assumptions" aren't worth the paper they are written on. Pathfinder does not handle low fantasy well. It just doesn't. Frankly, it handles its "normal" fantasy pretty poorly as well. I have found that giving about twice the listed normal WBL (after accounting for crafting) along with a 20pt buy actually works better than the default. Anyway, you can beat the ruleset around enough to change that, but as noted repeatedly why not use a different system instead?
Quote:
So it’s certainly also possible to have a standard campaign (with regards to PB) and still restricting access to magic items (which will have to lead to further modifications, that goes without question). And if, in the end, my party of level 10 PCs will find a real challenge in a CR 10-encounter (instead of finding it an easy challenge, as seems to be the case for most groups nowadays), it’s not the end of the world, and if want to create an easy challenge for them, I’ll probably just use an CR 8 encounter instead.

This issue isn't a sliding scale. Different classes, and not infrequently entirely different builds for a single class will have very different responses when you start putting chokes on their resources. Characters who provide their own resources very effectively will only have their work day cut down a little (read:many divine and hybrid classes). Characters who are very dependent on support (*cough*fighter*cough*) become horrible resource drains. Cut resources down and you can easily find yourself with a party that has one barely weakened character and three virtually crippled ones that are all quite different in terms of their relative power. That stops being "just do a CR8 instead of a CR10", and starts being "Aggressive Fudging, sensitive and unreliable encounter sculpting, or acceptance that game balance is broken and virtually unfixible without radical adjustments". Do I have to point out how bad this is unless you are prepared to just throw out the mechanics anyway?

Quote:


But they might start to appreciate the magic items they get just a bit more, if they don’t find them at every corner of their adventure. Still will probably give those things names and histories to make them even more interesting.

*sigh*

No, bolting on a name and a history to a +3 bonus does not make it interesting to many (if not most) players. I don't care one iota about what my sword did in some other hypothetical campaign in the GM's head. I care about what I can do with it right now. In that context, a set of sleeves of many garmants and a feather token(Tree) bought from the local Wands-R-Us are an order of magnitude more exciting than Flame Warden, slayer of the 5 guardians of the abyss, weapon of Dygas the Valiant, lost for 1000 years until it was unearthed by a group of adventurers on a quest to {insert campaign here}, and I find it a magnitude more exciting because the sleeves and the tree token actually let me do fun and interesting things, while Flame Warden is just a +3 Evil Outsider Bane weapon whose only purpose (aside from maybe being a plot coupon) is to make me decide whether I want to use its bonuses to replace my character's resources that are devoted to raw survival so I can do actually interesting things with them, or stack its bonuses with my current ones so I have a better chance of being able to keep playing my character. At no point do I say "what an interesting history your item is". Its always "Yeah, Yeah, enough with the amateur creative piece, lets keep playing"


@ Snowblind

I think you made an interesting point about the effect of reduced wealth on game balance. Would it be fair to say that if your particular table was unconcerned with game balance, that is they recognise it exists, they just don't care, then reducing wealth would not be an issue for that particular gaming table?


thejeff wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, in a world in which teams of people regularly delve into ancient ruins and similar, take everything even remotely valuable that's not nailed down too hard, and return to town looking to hock half the stuff, there would be quite a lot of money to be made in catering to whatever they're looking to buy, since they're taking money out of the ground/a dragon's horde/whatever and putting it into the local economy.

I mean, if you're the guy who mass produces haversacks, that's a lot more lucrative (and safer) than actually going into the dungeon yourself.

In a world in which adventurers are common, and making magic items isn't hard, magic marts are plausible (and more or less inevitable.)

Mind you, I prefer a world in which "adventuring" isn't a common profession and rarely involves just going into ruins for loot.

In Pathfinder, at least according to JJ, your party is the only group of adventurers. Adventuring is not only rare but unique.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

In Pathfinder, at least according to JJ, your party is the only group of adventurers. Adventuring is not only rare but unique.

Isn't the game itself named for a globe-spanning organization of adventurers that explore, delve, or otherwise experience the lesser seen parts of the world and then journal about it?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Isn't the game itself named for a globe-spanning organization of adventurers that explore, delve, or otherwise experience the lesser seen parts of the world and then journal about it?

No, but the Society does exist, yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
No, but the Society does exist, yes.

So what's the difference between the PCs and every other member of the society that does field work, exactly? I would say both qualify as "Adventurers".

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's not forget that, for instance, Ameiko Kaijitsu is specifically called out as a former adventurer, and that she gives discounts or even free nights in the inn to adventurers. And this in adventure path details.

I'd really like to see this comment by JJ, because that seems...unusual for him to say.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
So what's the difference between the PCs and every other member of the society that does field work, exactly?

The first are adventurers, the second are archaeologists and scholars. This isn't to say that adventurers aren't common, they absolutely are. But the Pathfinder Society isn't filled with them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I, too, desire to see proof of this outrageous claim. We know Mr. Jacobs has never been friendly with the Adventurers' Union, of course. Ugly altercations with our dwarven and monstrous members.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We are the unsilent majority.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The first are adventurers, the second are archaeologists and scholars. This isn't to say that adventurers aren't common, they absolutely are. But the Pathfinder Society isn't filled with them.

I think at the point where you're going on an expedition to explore some ancient ruins that may well be dangerous, you're an "adventurer" just by virtue of going on this kind of adventure. So the gulf between "scholars and archaeologists who go to dangerous uncharted places" and "adventurers" is kind of a distinction without a difference.

I mean, "scholar, archaeologist, and adventurer" are not mutually exclusive; Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones was all three, after all.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I guess we need a definition for what counts as an 'adventurer' then, because most people I know would not agree with you.

Dr. Jones was VERY much a different animal from his peers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, what is an adventurer to you? Because if it precludes scholars and archaeologists, a lot of PCs would be removed from the ranks of "adventurers", too. Is "adventurer" solely someone who goes to dangerous places to get rich? If so, the heroes of many Adventure Paths are not adventurers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, there's two possible senses for "adventurer" from where I sit it's either:

1) someone who goes on dangerous adventures.
or
2) someone with levels in PC classes.

Even if it's the intersection of the two, it's going to consist of a lot more people than "just the PCs". I mean, sometimes those ancient ruins are going to have something dangerous there, and some fraction of people is going to decide that the dangerous thing needs to be dealt with somehow. A lot of PC classes presumably need to be taught by someone else who has levels in that class; if you're a monk, and you trained at a monastery, presumably your teachers had some levels in monk too.

I think the PCs are already special enough by virtue of being the only people in the entire world not being controlled by the GM that they don't need to be the only people who are exploring dangerous places, fighting fearsome foes, or saving the world on any given day. I'm honestly not sure what insisting "literally no one has ever gone in a dungeon to kill a lich or saved the world before" even accomplishes.

Like let's say the various APs are canonical in a sense, did the people who saved the world from Karzoug stop being adventurers once they were done so that the "world's only adventurers" label could go to the group of folks who need to rescue Baba Yaga and prevent eternal winter"?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
So, what is an adventurer to you? Because if it precludes scholars and archaeologists...

It doesn't. But it does require more than just being one of those groups.

101 to 150 of 317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Where has all the magic gone All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.