Michael Cobin's page

Easy. Abolish wealth by level guidelines. Industrious PCs shouldn't be punished. Then limit the ability of wealth to buy powerful magic items.

The Howard Stern show on Sirius Satellite Radio.

BABABOOEY!!!!

Just a thought: Karrnath uses undead in battle. Would the new channel energy class feature make this a more effective battlefield tactic? If so, would that change the realpolitik of the 5 nations?

I wish I was better at expressing myself about game design issues. But for all my lack of expertise in this area, I feel I should at least try to make a proposal.

From what I can tell, the reason most Paizo fans want to stick with 3.x machanics is two-fold: One, the investment of money in 3.x materials and two, the MMORPG feel of 4e.

Many, but not all, would be fine with complete compatability with hardly any changes to 3.5. That way, they would not have to convert anything and continue on with support from Paizo.

Others have pointed out many things they feel are "broken" about the system. They would like some changes that would lessen their need for houserules, but would cause minimal conversion of 3.5.

I have sympathy for both viewpoints. But I have a suggetion for change anyway.

It's just this: If 4e is going diabloistic, Pathfinder should move in the other direction. The way 3.5 runs unaltered, some have infered that the rules suggest that any and all magic items are for sale in some shop or from private vendors.

Indeed, they have a point. The way wealth, treasure, and XP are so tied together, implying that characters must be dripping in +4 magic gewgaws just to survive encounters does lead to a need for GMs to make magic items available very easily. Of course, the game can be played in this manner, but it is a departure from the way the game has been played in the past.

I don't know how to fix the CR system to remove the "magic shop syndrome" without ruining compatability, but there are some very smart folks on these boards that have offered suggestions. Maybe it's just a matter of framing it differently to give it a more pen-and-paper flavor.

If this could be done, it may be the biggest factor for both the "leave it the same" crowd and the "improve the design" folks.

This is just my opinion, of course, but I'd like to hear thoughts on this. In any case, I'll support Paizo whatever Jason decides.

The way most of us feel about limiting magic item creation and wealth seems to imply that high level play is a completely different system.

I find it hard to imagine beings capable of planar travel, wish, teleport, etc. being poor. So GP costs for the near-epic character shouldn't really be an issue.

Removing XP costs for magic items is a good idea. The only way it can be weird is if GP and time is all that's required to create +4 Vorpal Swords. It should be harder. It should require exotic materials. If it doesn't, how can you explain that such things are rare?

Isn't a character that can create +4 armor high level anyway? If it's just a matter of money, though, a wizard who just qualifies for the required feat can just save up gold and make his +4 whatever. That seems... underwhelming. Boiling the heart of a succubus in the skull of a giant to make a +4 whatever seems... well, cool.

If you really want to encourage adventuring and limit uber-magic item proliferation, just make a rule that says a certain level of magic item needs exotic materials. This doesn't make them unavailable for PCs, it just requires higher level play.

Then PCs can use gold for good reasons. Story reasons. Bling. Flavor. Whatever.

D'oh! I was wrong. Game Balance is more than class vs class. I just read the High Level Economics thread. Frank is a genius. I wish he still posted. I forgot about magic items breaking the game. I've seen it from new GMs. The tiered economy is brilliant.

I always wondered why DMs don't like PCs getting rich. Now I know. I've been fortunate to have played in mostly "No Magic Shop" campaigns.

Thanks for all the input. Maybe balance really is a feature of good game design. Then again, I'm no game designer. I'm just in it for the fun and escapism.

I started playing 2nd edition in the army. It was a blast even though it wasn't really balanced. I had more fun playing a thief or a mage simply because these classes offered more options for non-combat roleplaying. I had fun with fighters, too. I just had to get a little bit creative on what to do between fights. The mage researched spells or worked on item creation. The thief went on burglery sprees.

I've played Rifts. Yeah, the system sucks and balance isn't in the vocabulary, but it was fun. A lot of fun.

I like d20. I'll buy Pathfinder. But I don't care about balance. D&D, I believe, always made "the magic-user" more god-like than the fighter... at high levels. But the uber-mage was still toast if he didn't have melee support.

Bards are cool. Balanced? Maybe now they are. But they were always fun.

I've played lots of roleplaying games. I never did understand the obsession with "game balance". The thief isn't as good at fighting as the fighter. The fighter isn't as sneaky as the thief. It's all in how you play. If something actually does disrupt the game, a decent DM should be able to handle it in a creative way.

I thing overemphasizing balance issues leads to one conclusion: A game that doesn't feel like D&D.

The 1632 series truly is great. I cannot recommend them enough.
Also, check out the Lord Darcy stories by Randal Garrett. Like Sherlock Holmes in an alternate universe with a "forensic sorceror".

I dimly remember a Dragon article from the distant past that was about a "Bag of Housing". It was basically Mordy's Mansion in a bag with some cool additions. It always seemed to me to be the best magic item ever.

Why is my order for The Gamers still pending? Waaaah!!! I want to see this movie.

A great campaign for StarWars D20 would be the characters warping to a galaxy far, far away to prevent an evil film-maker from ruining one of the most beloved franchises in galactic history.

I truly enjoyed the Dragon Compendium. It would be a shame if WotC didn't work with Paizo for the purpose of producing further volumes. I feel bad for all of the fans of Dragon and Dungeon who are on the wrong side of the digital divide.