I'm getting more and more interested in Pathfinder daily (oddly enough this increasing interest is mirrored by an ever increading disinterest in 4e and WoTC's offerings overall).
I personally find the "Christmas Tree Effect" to be one of the most pernicious problems of 3.5e. The over reliance on magical items sorely limits the type of game a DM/GM can run. Its hard to run a gritty/lower magic campaign when denying PCs magic items will just about guarantee their failure.
I'm hoping that Pathfinder will have a workaround that allows fans of both high and low magic games to play the system without having to look elsewhere. The broader the number of playstyles supported, the better.
The Christmas Tree Effect, above all else, is the biggest "flaw" of D&D (any edition). If PRPG reduces it, I'll be a happy man.
|
Our home game has some house rules that have really reduced reliance on magic items.
1. Base Defense Bonus (BDB). +1/2 BAB to AC, assuming you are wearing armor with which you are proficient.
2. Damage. +1/2 BAB to melee (and ranged) damage. Also, two-weapon wielding allows double (not 1.5) Str damage.
3. Criticals. Natural 20 = Instant critical. To roll your d20 and it comes up in your critical threat range = critical IF the attack hit. Roll again and score a critical = death.
4. Action Points.
5. Revive. Heal Check. Trained only. Requires healer/medical kit. Full round action, DC25 check within 1 round of creature's death. Creature is stable at -9 on success.
6. Condition Track (and Massive Damage Threshold or MAS). Take damage equal to your MAS (Con Score + Sz Mod) = Fort Sv v Damage Taken. Failure = -1 to Atk, Svs, and Checks. Must receive healing above your MAS to remove (or Restoration). Stacks.
...I'm sure more will come to mind in time. But these have all worked to speed the game up astronomically AND move away from the need for bigger and better magic for attacks, damage, and armor. They also lend to a sense of realism.
I haven't given up on the iterative attacks just yet, but am willing to do so. I really like how Star Wars Saga Edition handled them, i.e., via feats. But the gaming group has not yet spoken on this one yet.
Its never been an issue for me. In-fact I've always regarded it as being part of what D&D is. If I'm not mistaken your supposed to enter other plains of existance around level 10, Fight Beholders at level what 10-15, and work your way to Godhood by the time your group is into Epic level. No heavy magic items is just part of the game.
On the other hand I like Orcs to stay dangeous into the double diget range so like others have said I've restricted magic.
Seems to me the very thing that people didn't like about magic item creation was (ie costing XP) is what restricted it in the game world. A magic item should be rare, and magic shopes whould only carry +1 items at best.
I don't like what Pathfinder has done with magic item slots, and I'm not going to use that rule, I can restrict it myself thank you. As to monsters and less magic items a lot of that comes down to using the right kind of monster. Highly magical types should be seen a lot less anyways, but as a rule of thumb if it becomes an issue, make the CR increase by one.
There's a two-tiered advancement system built into 3e. On the one hand, adventuring gives you xp, which give you levels, which give you abilities and bonuses. On the other hand, adventuring also gives you magic items, which give you abilities and/or bonuses, and gold (which can be turned into magic items, which give you abilities and/or bonuses). I can even understand the rationale of the two-track system: the xp advancement is controlled by the player, and the advancement by magic items falls under DM control, for the most part.
That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, however. To my mind, it would be simpler and more elegant to combine the two into a single advancement system. In that manner, adventuring gives bonuses, whether they're through "levels" or "magic items" would be irrelevant. To this end, I require PCs to spend full XP on items they keep (as if they had crafted the items in question). In this manner, XP gives levels OR magic items -- in either case, bonuses or abilities. There are some flaws with this system, in terms of power scaling, if people spend all their XP on levels and none on items, for example. A better system would be non-level-based, in which all abilities and bonuses of any kind (class bonuses to save, resistance bonuses from items; or level bonuses to abilities, or stat bonuses from items; etc.) had scaling XP purchase prices. I'm working on that kind of system, but it's slow going.
In the meantime, 3e has a built-in magic item dependence assumption. It can be ignored, but that messes with EL-appropriateness of challenges. It can also be circumvented, as we've done, but that requires a mess of houserules and nice judgement on the part of the DM and the players.
Or, you can just accept it and keep playing.
|
Just throwing another viwpoint into the mix:
If my players stopped depending on Magic items, they would tear me to pieces. To them there's nothing more exciting than finding a beholder crown or a +5 Greatsword of Bashingness. I don't like the idea of limiting the number of items you can have (kinda like only being allowed to have one ring on each hand) but some varient rules might be welcome. Even another supplement similar to Iron Heroes maybe.
|
The Christmas Tree affect is only a problem if the DM doesn't do anything. A DM can fix it anytime he/she wants.
IMO: The easiest fix, decrease the magic items the PC's get and have them go up against lower CR creatures.
Pathfinder won't be able to fix this, it's trying to be backwards compatible... Try out Iron Heroes or Hero Games too...
While backwards compatibility will make it hard to do much about this, I still hope that they'll do a decent paragraph about this in the final book, complete with rules on how to play with less or even no magic items.
As a player I don't mind reliance on interesting and novel magic items, but I loathe my PCs' dependence on rings of protection, rings of resistance, and stat-boosters. It makes me feel as though my PCs aren't really any good--they need supplementation on everything!--and it's also a pain to bookkeep. Late in SCAP we had to make a table of every slot on every PC and slosh items around to get maximal effect--I hated doing it, but the probable TPK if I didn't was worse. (As it was, we had a TPK due to saving throw weakness around that time.)
I would personally like to get rid of rings of resistance and protection, and raise/lower the other numbers necessary to make this work. But the backwards compatibility is iffy.
Mary
Creative Director
|
The thing with this topic is that it's not really viewed as a problem across the board, say, as is the general difficulty of running/writing high level adventures. The main problem as far as I see isn't as much the fact that higher level characters have lots of items, but that they tend to have a lot of the SAME type of items. Primarially... the stat boosters and things like rings of protection, cloaks of resistance, etc. More flavorful and interesting items like the ring of shooting stars or the cloak of arachnidia end up being sold or ignored in favor of the items that are "necessary" in order to keep up with the game.
ALSO: Having to outfit NPCs with these items just so they "keep up" with the challenge expectations is obnoxious as well. It's annoying that, in order to do an adventure with an army of mid to high level orcs, for example, all of them more or less need rings of protection +2 or +1 weapons.
In any case, there are some things that we'll be doing to try to limit the problem. As an example, all of the stat boosting items have been limited down to two body slots (circlet for Int, Wis, and Cha and belt for Str, Dex, and Con I believe). This keeps these six items, for example, from hoarding so many slots, and allows people to have more unique items on their shoulders, for example. It also forces a bit more of a tactical decision and helps to hold back the power; not every high level character can easily have +6 to all his stats from items now. And since those stats will, in theory, be lower... NPCs won't be as forced to wear so many "trying to keep up" items as well. Hopefully, playtests will show that this is a step in the right direction.
We'll be addressing the problem in other ways too, of course. And we'll be listening to these boards for ideas and comments as well, so keep them coming!
|
|
I agree this can be an issue if you're starting a game at a higher level, because the party 'buys their items' for outfitting and the dm can feel like a heal fr not letting them get the items initially...
but...ultimately it is the DM's choice.
in a campaign, just control whats available
Player to DM "Between adventures I want to see if I can find an item to purchase"
DM to Player "Ok where are you going to go and who are you going to see to find the item?"
Player to DM "Ummm cant I just put the item on my sheet?"
DM to player "ummm no, this is a role playing game after all"
Player to DM..."well that sucks, whose in town?"
DM to player "You have the local mage guild chapter, who has a 9th level wizard as the guildmaster, and That hermit out by the river that people suspect to being a wizard..."
Player to DM "What level is he?"
DM to player..."Through some gather information checks and such you gfure hes higher than the guildmaster, but hes not too friendly..."
Player to DM..."Can he make me a staff of super blast and an armband of indistructablelness"
DM to player..."No, I dont think hes that powerful...best he can do is help you locate the items neccessary to make a Staff of fire and maybe a set of bracers of Armor +4"
Player to DM..."Help me olcate the items?...."
DM to player..."sure you didnt just think he had that stuff laying around did you? If he did they'd be his, and I doubt hed just pass them onto you...Now did you want to make your next adventure about going to find the 5 oz of magma from an active volcano to help make the staff, or the the 2 lbs of Adamantium needed for +5 items?"
Player to DM...."It was much easier with my other DM..."
DM to Player "Yeah but didnt you tell me when we started that you guys got bored playing under him?"
Player to DM..."Yeah....."
DM to Player "thats why...trust me, itll be fun..."
;)
I am a DM/Player, and can tell you that the most annoying thing is the dependence on Magic items from most aspects of the game. I ran an Iron Hero' game for about 4 months, and the gaming group at the time loved it, for it was more low magic and alot more deadly. I love L5R for the same reason, that the possibility of a rank 1 samurai can really have a chance at a Rank 5( rare but possible). But I also know that most ie. younger gamers want the +8 dagger of ogre slaying, just to say they do. Older gamers like myself have been there done that, and we enjoy the ROLE play alot more, and knowing that if you face an Adult dragon that you should be pissing your pantaloons, not reaching for your Lance of doom.
*Sigh*
James, just keep up the good work, and add PSioncs as fast as possible:)
We'll be addressing the problem in other ways too, of course. And we'll be listening to these boards for ideas and comments as well, so keep them coming!
If someone takes up 6 slots for these types of items then they don't have room for other items.
I'm really not seeing this as a big deal, and changint it is one step away from backward compatibility, IMO.
All characters benefit from a strength boost (encumbrance) and a boost to their prime requisite (can I still use that term? :) ). Some classes encourage using a 3rd booster (Charisma for Cleric, for example), but if someone chooses to boost all 6 scores by taking up 6 slots - I say let 'em.
Of course, you could create a new item that augments that +2 Cloak of Charisma by combining it with another item - say a Cloak of the Bat that also provides a +2 to Charisma. That way my cloak of Charisma is unique from your Cloak of Charisma.
Just a thought.
I've never had it become a big issue in the game to begin with. That's from 1E AD&D all the way through 3.5E. We've tended toward low-magic, gritty campaigns. Hasn't been a big problem, to be honest.
We'll be addressing the problem in other ways too, of course. And we'll be listening to these boards for ideas and comments as well, so keep them coming!
May I divert your attention to my suggestion of a paragraph in the GM section about playing without magic items? General guidelines, the consequences, and a couple of rules to keep the power level in about the same levels.
I think stuff similar to the Vow of Poverty (from Book of Exalted Deeds) can be helpful in this regard, as well as d20 Moderns class bonus to AC/Defense, and extra feat slots and ability increases. Add maybe some feats like "Resistance (+1 to all saves, can be taken several times) and the like and you're golden:
I've found that it's not too much of a problem really, with the right rules. You can even use modules and pre-made characters with it without much hassle, if you're willing to "cheat" a bit: Use the stats as written down, but sell them to your players as his normal stats. So you won't subtract his save bonuses from items and add those from class, subtract his magic weapon bonus, but figure in his higher strength score, and so on - you just use the stats as written down and say that the bonuses are inherent.
Only special stuff (like boots of flying or something like that) could cause problems, but then again, there could be a partial conversion that gets rid of the "boring" stat boosters (+1 sword, +2 dex, +3 protection, +4 resistance, +5 armour....), but keeps more interesting items around - maybe even as "least artefacts" (not as powerful as "real" artefacts, but more common).
An added benefit is that the whole money and economy thing would be solved: Adventurers woudln't, by necessity, become the wealthiest people around.
We'll be addressing the problem in other ways too, of course. And we'll be listening to these boards for ideas and comments as well, so keep them coming!If someone takes up 6 slots for these types of items then they don't have room for other items.
I'm really not seeing this as a big deal, and changint it is one step away from backward compatibility, IMO.
All characters benefit from a strength boost (encumbrance) and a boost to their prime requisite (can I still use that term? :) ). Some classes encourage using a 3rd booster (Charisma for Cleric, for example), but if someone chooses to boost all 6 scores by taking up 6 slots - I say let 'em.
Of course, you could create a new item that augments that +2 Cloak of Charisma by combining it with another item - say a Cloak of the Bat that also provides a +2 to Charisma. That way my cloak of Charisma is unique from your Cloak of Charisma.
Just a thought.
Yeah your right almost forgot about this. A group, is a group, I have yest to see any player with a group of say, 4 or more. Someone with only modifier stuff is losing out on a lot of cooler things. Its been my experince that most groups have such items spread out. Then there is also the fact that most DM's mix it up with random items and chosen items, I know I do. Don't pick those items if its an issue. But even with an old DM who only did random stuff it simply was not an issue.
As to flavor well just calling it a +3 ring of Dex is what kills flavor, us DM's have to stop being so lazy (and yes I'm as guilty of it as the next guy) but we have to be more creative as GM's.
If NPs are created using the same ability generation as the PCs, they'll have less need for those stat-boosters to keep up.
"Why, yes, actually. The Evil Darklord does have 18s in every stat. He used the same ****ed-up set of dice you lot keep trying to sneak past me..."
Snorter brings up a good point that has been more of an issue for me in D&D then item slots. When I have the time now and I know what my group is going to face I always check the monsters CR and do the Treasure work up before hand. If it makes sense for the monster to be able to use the items in question, then I let them use it. I sometimes get
"hey he drank all his potions!" and I say, sorry if he had them in the first place he'd use them, you would wouldn't you?
The magic item issue hasn't been a very big one to me. The main issue as I see it is it's too easy to kit the PC up with exactly the magic items they want and that means that the very strong strategies of getting stat-boosters, rings of protection, and all that are simply too commonly seen. THAT's my problem with magic items in 3.5.
I believe pathfinder is going along the right path for reducing magic items with the increase in class power. The additional feats and abilities of the core classes helps to offset the need for some early magic I believe. I would like to see an extension of the masterwork system as I have a number of random items I have created over the years of my campaigns that are "Masterwork" but are not magical. Like a simple book written by a sage that references the human body. Suddenly they have a non magical bonus to the heal skill after successfully reading it.
I've kicked around a few houserules for reducing magic dependancy but never really had to use them because I haven't gotten into high level play.
And I rather like the level of item dependancy you see around, ohh, levels 2-10. At this point magic items are, as it is said, a feature and not a flaw.
D&D is a game about killing things and taking their stuff. Having their stuff be important makes this more fun.
At high levels I don't like how this piles up, though; too much paperwork that adds too little to the game, too many plain bonuses that are just there because they have to be, and too many instances of character getting a whole outfit of +2 items because they all cost the same or less than one (cooler) +4 item.
It needs to be said, though, that those items contend for the same ground as buff spells. If a player didn't have an item for +4 strength, the cleric would just be casting bulls strength on him every ten minutes. And the item is probably less annoying than the spell.
That's the nature of the beast, and if I am playing D&D then I don't want that side of the game scraped. Loot is fun.
But at the higher end of the power scale it looks like it could use just a little reigning in to make the game more enjoyable.
|
|
Snorter brings up a good point that has been more of an issue for me in D&D then item slots. When I have the time now and I know what my group is going to face I always check the monsters CR and do the Treasure work up before hand. If it makes sense for the monster to be able to use the items in question, then I let them use it. I sometimes get
"hey he drank all his potions!" and I say, sorry if he had them in the first place he'd use them, you would wouldn't you?
"He's drinkin' our treasure!"
I always thought Monty Hallism was part of D&D.
As an example, all of the stat boosting items have been limited down to two body slots (circlet for Int, Wis, and Cha and belt for Str, Dex, and Con I believe).
The problem with this is that it hurts multi-stat characters at higher levels.
If a paladin is using his head item for charisma (and he should), he probably won't have a high enough wisdom for 4th level spells without resorting to inherent bonuses.
Clerics will also suffer from the lack of a charisma bonus (though channeling is so much better now than it was, I can hardly call this a loss).
When I compared the 3.5 barbarian to the Pathfinder barbarian, I was assuming a +6 con item. Now, the pathfinder barbarian doesn't have that. That'll cut his rage points by 60.
Almost any archer or finesse fighter is going to hate you. They need dex but also still use strength for damage.
I guess you can still buy secondary abilities, you're just paying.. is it x1.5 or twice as much? And they're really going to be forced to do so.
But since you've already given multi-stat characters the shaft with the point-buy rules I'm not sure I like this.
Also- and this may just be me- but I think the rogue boosting his wisdom or the wizard improving his dex was more on the flavorful side of the equation. Improving stats past your prime requisites was (with the exceptions above) rarely optimal anyway.
I always thought Monty Hallism was part of D&D.
I seem to recall there was an anti-"Monty-Haul" backlash just after Roger E Moore (IIRC) wrote his infamous article in Dragon about some lame who claimed to have killed Thor with a push spell ("The hammer Mjolnir did not fall, of course, so the character claimed that."). For a while, DMs were stingier than Scrooge when it came to handing out goodies.
For a while, DMs were stingier than Scrooge when it came to handing out goodies.
I have seen it mocked, but still prevalent.
And then there was "In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords." Sorry, all your stuff is gone. A rusty dagger is now valuable treasure... be thankful you don't have to fight with a thigh bone anymore!
I have always equated magic items in D&D to technology in our world, look around you and see how much "Magic" you have.
A lot of the problems with this "Christmas Tree" effect are really problems the DM is doing wrong.
Bad guys have potions, scrolls and wands for the same reason the PCs have them, to use them! I have even had a bad guy break a wand just so his enemies would not have it.
Be creative with the items, quirk them up a bit. Make a ring of invisibility work by clenching it in your fist. Open your hand, you become visible. Make that Girdle of Giant Strength +5 a real leather and lace girdle and lets see just how badly that fighter wants his bonus.
Bring back cursed items, nothing curbs the desire for magic items like the threat of the dreaded Girdle of Femininty/Masculinity. Remember making magic items is an art and sometimes by flaw or design, the magic doesn't work just right. Just by adding a flaw to an item, making it a charged item or requiring something to recharge it, be it moonlight or ogre's blood can make using the item much more interesting.
Give the item a legacy, maybe a previous owner wants it back or maybe the actions of a previous owner have tainted the item with a curse or a haunt. A simple Longsword +1 can become a much more valued item if it has a legacy attached to it.
Part of the Christmas Tree effect is due to the carbon copy items included in adventures. Add aspects that make each item unique in ways that can make them more or less usefull, like the Helm of the Red Mantis assassins. Who in the right mind would wear this in public? Do you want to mistaken for an assassin? And you know the Red Mantis will want it back.
The problem with this is that it hurts multi-stat characters at higher levels.
If a paladin is using his head item for charisma (and he should), he probably won't have a high enough wisdom for 4th level spells without resorting to inherent bonuses.
Clerics will also suffer from the lack of a charisma bonus (though channeling is so much better now than it was, I can hardly call this a loss).
When I compared the 3.5 barbarian to the Pathfinder barbarian, I was assuming a +6 con item. Now, the pathfinder barbarian doesn't have that. That'll cut his rage points by 60.
Almost any archer or finesse fighter is going to hate you. They need dex but also still use strength for damage.
I guess you can still buy secondary abilities, you're just paying.. is it x1.5 or twice as much? And they're really going to be forced to do so.
But since you've already given multi-stat characters the shaft with the point-buy rules I'm not sure I like this.
I completely agree with Hydro here. The limiting of stat boosters hurts characters who need multiple attributes. And, much worse, it actually *boosts* primary spellcasters, who really don´t need the help anyway. Melee has enough problems holding up to them, why give them more help in dominating the game?
I long have wanted to play a more low-magic campaign, but as the high level encounters assume that the party is equipped up to the crown of their heads with magic items, and I really like to use the high CR monsters at high levels, so far a good solution has eluded me.
However, I have come up with an idea, which I´ll implement for my next campaign. It has to do with the Vow of Poverty from the Book of Exalted Deeds.
Normally, the VoP makes you give up all your earthly possessions. However, I see also the possibility to extrapolate from the list of abilities a new list of the more "normal" ones and give them to all characters at certain levels. At the same time, all stat boosters are abolished from the game, as are all Deflection / Natural Armor / Resistance bonus items.
The abilities from the VoP like not needing to eat are of course superfluous for such a concept, but I see this as a good possibility to make certain the characters get the abilities needed for high level encounters and also making it possible for the DM to give out the more interesting magic items.
Magic arms and armour should of course still be magic loot, because they are a staple of fantastic literature.
This idea also eliminates one of the biggest problems of encounter building: If you give the enemy lots of magic items to buff them up, at the end of the encounter your PC's have them. Cue item inflation and/or gold inflation
BTW, the board ate my first try to formulate this response, so I hereby join the clamour for a better messageboard. ^^
*Edit* Just while going to bed, another interesting idea came to me, regarding another of the great DM problems I have encountered.
To wit, the economy of the game doesn´t permit you as a DM to give the players great amounts of money ( to, say, build a castle ), because the players are going to invest it in magic items, therefore breaking the balance of the game.
My idea is to separate "normal" money from "magic item" money. I was thinking, that for magic items to be built, a certain type of magic-infused gem or crystal is needed.
This rare substance is minable, but by its magical nature attracts the greed of monsters and hence is possible to be found with them. Due to its ability to having its magic imbued into items ( by people who have the appropiate feats ), it is the only accepted method of payment for magic items or the creation thereof.
With this the DM can control how much costumizability the players have in building the weapon/armour/generic item they want and also can have dragons sleep on vast hoards of gold, without destroying his campaign.
How the economy of a realm is affected by a few million gold pieces released into its market is a whole other topic, of course. But it can be handwaved easily enough, I think.
I completely agree with Hydro here. The limiting of stat boosters hurts characters who need multiple attributes. And, much worse, it actually *boosts* primary spellcasters, who really don´t need the help anyway. Melee has enough problems holding up to them, why give them more help in dominating the game?I long have wanted to play a more low-magic campaign, but as the high level encounters assume that the party is equipped up to the crown of their heads with magic items, and I really like to use the high CR monsters at high levels, so far a good solution has eluded me.
However, I have come up with an idea, which I´ll implement for my next campaign. It has to do with the Vow of Poverty from the Book of Exalted Deeds.
Normally, the VoP makes you give up all your earthly possessions. However, I see also the possibility to extrapolate from the list of abilities a new list of the more "normal" ones and give them to all characters at certain levels. At the same time, all stat boosters are abolished from the game, as are all Deflection /...
VoP set a cool precidence. Basically, if you want to remove or reduce wealth, you just have to give the PCs enough powers to compensate.
There are a lot of ways to do that.
A lot of ways to do that. You'll probably see a longer post by me on this topic later on.
As for separating "magic money" from "real money", if "magic money" has any prevelance at all there is going to be a conversion rate. This is more true in high fantasy worlds and less true (but still a fact of supply and demand) in lower fantasy worlds. Somewhere, there are people with magic gems that are no use to them, and somewhere else there are wizards with a lot of money. That's life.
When you think about it, PCs with a lot of money would still be able to turn it into party power by hiring on characters more powerful than themselves as "henchmen", or by buying long-lasting buff spells from mercenary wizards.
As for separating "magic money" from "real money", if "magic money" has any prevelance at all there is going to be a conversion rate.
Before his departure, Frank had a huge discussion thread on this topic.
VoP set a cool precidence. Basically, if you want to remove or reduce wealth, you just have to give the PCs enough powers to compensate.
There are a lot of ways to do that.
A lot of ways to do that. You'll probably see a longer post by me on this topic later on.
I can´t do it in my momentary campaign, as I have a VoP monk and I don´t want to screw up his character, but for my next one, I´ll definitely try this out.
As for separating "magic money" from "real money", if "magic money" has any prevelance at all there is going to be a conversion rate. This is more true in high fantasy worlds and less true (but still a fact of supply and demand) in lower fantasy worlds. Somewhere, there are people with magic gems that are no use to them, and somewhere else there are wizards with a lot of money. That's life.
When you think about it, PCs with a lot of money would still be able to turn it into party power by hiring on characters more powerful than themselves as "henchmen", or by buying long-lasting buff spells from mercenary wizards.
Yeah, I see it... that´s what you get for putting something to paper just before going to bed. ^^ Well, damn. Somehow there must be a way to separate magic aquisition from money aquisition, so that players keep the possibility of costumizing their arms and armour. And at the same time I would like to give out story-reward money, which I can make sure the players don´t spend on magic items.
Oh, well, off to work. I´ll see if I come up with something else. ^^
Yeah, I see it... that´s what you get for putting something to paper just before going to bed. ^^ Well, damn. Somehow there must be a way to separate magic aquisition from money aquisition, so that players keep the possibility of costumizing their arms and armour..
Well.. I did say "If they have any prevelance." The easiest solution is to say that they don't. Those gems are super-rare, magic is super-rare, and PCs probably are too.
You would just have to accept that you're leaving Faerun, Golarion, and high-fantasy in general far behind.
The usual approach here is to say "There are magic items out there, somewhere, in ancient crypts and mile-deep labyrinths. Go get 'em." You remove magic items from the game and make existing items exceedingly rare.
This is not a +1 keen short sword. This is Harpyfang, the sword of Silmaron the Swift, and there is no other like it on earth. Period.
You may one day find an even more powerful blade, should you grow more powerful and find yourself delving deeper and more dangerous catacombs, but this will still be a priceless artifact. And if the PCs aren't still carrying Harpyfang by level 15 then it's because they've donated it to a shrine, given it as a gift to a king or barron, or had it stolen from them.
Your "magic gems" (or bottle aether, or Hephestian Iron, or godsblood) theory would be best utalized as a way of taking this approach and making it more compatable with normal play styles (i.e, explaining how item creation feats or even item shops would work in a world where magic was priceless). The problem is that, because we have created something that's useful to you even if you aren't an adventurer, and because we have theorized that there is enough of it for it to be a commodity (traded if not sold), then we invariably run into the issue of a conversion rate.
A solution may be to make these gems exceedingly rare (NOT a commodity: they wouldn't be traded most likely) and highly saught after.
Viciously saught after, in fact. Fought over. Bloodily.
Perhaps there are ways for kings and religious leaders to use them as well as adventurers (ways to make them live longer, or make them more lovely), or even magical monsters (maybe dragons or demons need them to advance). In the latter case, simply finding and destroying The Magic is doing the world a favor, whether you make constructive use of it to beef yourself up or not.
In this instance, you divest them from gold by making them much more valuable. You don't "buy" a fledgling adventurer's magic. You kill him and take it.
Trades of gold for magic might happen, just as in the modern world money is often traded for lives... but it would be neither casual nor consistant nor commonplace.
I can´t do it in my momentary campaign, as I have a VoP monk and I don´t want to screw up his character, but for my next one, I´ll definitely try this out.VoP set a cool precidence. Basically, if you want to remove or reduce wealth, you just have to give the PCs enough powers to compensate.
There are a lot of ways to do that.
A lot of ways to do that. You'll probably see a longer post by me on this topic later on.
You know, this is one thing I just WANT for my games.
The system works well, the players have their items that give them bonus, they also like the magic item compendium idea of getting a "cool" item and enchanting the "hardcore" properties, and the people of the realms hav magic itens if they are adventurers, and might sell their incredible and terrible +3 armor with flame resistance to buy a castle. The players don't care much, because we all like to rp, and things were like this since the beggining.
This is exactly the problem: We are happy with it, because it IS.
I talked to my players, and they all liked the idea of somewhat less itens. It's a little sad the idea of having various bonuses because of your itens, not your own power... On the other side, almost everyone love the idea of some strange things that you can only do because of the itens, like running over water and all. This is just..well.. Magic to them.
I was thinking about a way to reducing the items on the game. Maybe giving the PCs static bonuses based on what items Magic Item Compendium expects them to have, only the AC, Attack, Damage, and that kind of +x bonus. Oh, yeah, and removing most of it from the magic items.
I was even thinking about cutting in half all the money of the world. Half thei starting money, half treasures, half monster gear, and give about this half in static bonuses...
Hell, I had some terrible ideas.
Where are the good ones? I could sart thinkin on many ideas, but then, it's good to live in community.
(( Remember that long post I promised? Well, here we go. ))
I've had some luck freeforming the wealth system, myself.
One scarse (not low) magic game that I ran, for example. Yes, the tank had his +1 flaming burst falchion. It was made of the top left fang of the last gold dragon, killed by Rask the Destroyer, and (being a former knight in the Red Tyrant's army) the player had the magical brand needed to legally carry a magic item of such power (or any magic item at all).
But then we had the monk-esque brawler, who had been scribed with permanent enchantments while serving as a gladiatory for an overlord's pleasure (as rare as magic was, making sure The Dominator's gladiator bested The Destroyer's down in the pit was still a top priority).
And then the thief, who had no real magic, but did have "the poison sheet"; a whole page of venoms for every DC, die type and ability score you can imagine. Basically every attack he made was poisoned; he just used common ditch-viper or scorpion poison against mooks while saving the really nasty stuff for bosses.
(after this, I hated the poison rules. But you can't say I never tried them out.)
And then we had the runemage (a magic user that I concocted; sort of a sniper/mage who throws magical tarrot cards carrying spell effects, Gambit-style). He didn't really have much wealth-side, at least to start, and I didn't feel he needed it; he was a spellcaster in a low-magic world, which put him at countless advantages.
Later on, he would have gotten a class feature which would let him scribe 'permanent' cards to stockpile his spells/day (much like a wizard does with scrolls).
As they advanced, I gave further benefits on more of a case-by-case benefit. Often, these were pulled messily out of sourcebooks, and in those sourcebooks they had GP values attached; technically, I don't think my party was ever too far out of line in terms of wealthy by level.
Once a player was given a "frozen dream" (Book of Eldritch Might), the vision within inspiring him and granting him a handy moral bonus for the rest of the day. After their third or fourth tussle with ice gargoyles, the fighter started pulling their teeth out and using them to make arrows (which I allowed to deal numbing DEX damage just like the creatures' bite; he ended up putting a lot of work into that, so why not?). Likewise, the thief was occassionally given opportunity to extract/concoct new poisons, or found new mundane equipment that made it more powerful (syringe arrows, heheh). The rune mage was in the middle of decyphering a weighty and ancient arcane tome (highly contraband) that would have given him more spells known. After killing enemies, the party would once or twice pick up magical 'bombs' that those foes (who's masters were mighty indeed) had employed against them, but were wary of using them, not knowing exactly how they worked.
I also used a fair bit from the DMG II: After a brief dip in the "Pool of Frozen Souls" (and 6d6 shriveling points of cold damage), they all picked up cold resistance for the next week. Around the same time they contracted a guardian spirit, which is a super-cool mechanic that you should look up if you can get your hands on that book.
This was all without straying too far from home.
Which isn't to say that you shouldn't stray far from home, mind.
Essentially, think of wealth as power that is found, given or imposed rather than that which develops internally. It could be anything; you don't need Ye Olde Magick Shoppe to use it if you're creative. Anything that grants successively more and more power.
Wild magic infusions. Demonic pacts. A pirate ship who's cannons deal acid damage, and which eventually starts flying and dropping powderkeg bombs on enemies. "Divine favor" and permanent or temporary blessings/miracles. PC mutations that grow more powerful and terrible with time. Chakra powers or stages of enlightenment. Leadership and PC followers. I could go on.
Hell, I think my earlier definition was too narrow. Just think of it as a scale of character advancement parallel to (but unhampered by) class advancement.
You could (and this I like) even have a second layer of "classes" on top of the first, related to personality or the like. So that you aren't just a Fighter, but a Stalwart Fighter, or a Spitfire Fighter, or a Spitfire Wizard, or a Leader Wizard.
Being a "Stalwart", or a "Leader", would imply a scaling power factor that worked just like a class, and granted as much power at any given level as having magic items would have.
Incase you couldn't tell, I've often contomplated the hole that is left in the system by removing magic items (as many people do), and long ago realized that this was a blessing in disguise. Like a confectionary cavity in the middle of the system, just waiting to be filled with creamy awesome-sauce.
I've often considered writing a first-draft for a sourcebook on the subject and trying to pimp it out to some third-party publisher, but predictably, never gone through with it.
You have interesting and nice ideas, and althought I like most of them, the idea of Magical Locations seems good to me to some extent only.
My gaming world is as magical as common D&D, indeed, but I want the magic itens to be less common. I still want them however.
The mutations, things, internal powers, legacy of old kings and all are great, and I already use them, here and there. To tell the truth I tend to make them last a year, and simply don't give the money the power would cost.
But something stings me still: It is not compact. I can use my imagination, and my players like it, but the also grew to like to know some things -like what they will gain next level-, and I still think that a progression of bonuses would be interesting. Maybe a bonus power here and there, sure, to compensate, Magical Location's style of thing... but not by default...
I was thinking, then... I already use Defense Bonus, and Armor as DR.
Maybe a bonus to attack and damage would be nice. They would be nice, but surely there's not much logic (no problem, if it makes the game more "creamy" and "tasty"). I can think about defense bonuses to saves, too.
The problem is: How much bonus? Then, how less money? Then, how less enchantement? If I give a bonus to resistance, are there magical amulets that give bonus to resistance?
Maybe I could house rule that if you have a +2 Defense bonus to saving throws, this does not stacks with the +1 enhancement of the item...
Or yet, only make items that give resistance against certain effects. Not a +1 to saves, but a +3 vs illusions...
There are so many options...
But and the attacks? If you have a +1 bonus to attack and damage, dos it stack with your magic weapon? Or maybe magical weapons and armor only have special abilities, no enhancement... Or +1 enhancments costs double.
And HOW MUCH common power? Half treasure? One third of the treasure?
This is starting to get big... Any ideas already people?
Speaking as a player, it won't really help me if the GM describes the +4 stat-booster item in colorful and engaging terms. It's nice, but it doesn't change the basic problems:
--My character's innate 18 int is no big deal. He needs boosting or he looks like a wimp, despite being at human max. This is irritating.
--I would rather have a magic item that said something about my particular character: a ring of shooting stars for the follower of Desna, a ring of fire resistance for the pyromaniac, etc. But bitter experience shows that if you don't get the generic stuff, the high-end AP scenarios will kill you. So I end up selling the interesting item--there's no slots left for it--in favor of generic ones. Bleargh.
In our current game we've given each PC an heirloom item and are adding "newly discovered" powers to all of the heirloom items every odd-numbered level. Coming up with the right powers is a challenge--the PC can't as easily swap them out if they don't work out in play--but it does greatly increase the flavor and the sense of character uniqueness.
One of the bits of SCAP I hated the most was the decision, late in the campaign, that we had to scrap the fighter's deeply significant sword in favor of something with better anti-DR properties. He'd taken that sword from someone he'd killed unjustly, and was trying to redeem himself so as to be worthy of it. Giving it up was just *wrong*. But the endgame was so damned hard that eventually I gave in, because it's hard to have interesting roleplaying after the TPK.
Obviously the GM can control this in a homebrew game, but how to improve things in an AP? The generic items are way superior to anything else you could do with the slot, alas. We had a TPK in SCAP because the scenario asked for all the PCs to make four hard saves vs. petrification and we hadn't stacked up enough plusses to do it.
I also agree, worriedly, with the poster who says that if you don't do this with items you'll have to do it with spells, which is worse from a bookkeeping point of view. I'd really like high-level characters' abilities to be generally adequate to high-level challenges without constant boosting. But I don't see how to keep compatibility, short of an Iron Heroes like system--and even then, treasure for an Iron Heroes game should be totally different than treasure for a normal game, and how do you handle that in modules meant to be compatible?
Mary
|
Speaking as a player, it won't really help me if the GM describes the +4 stat-booster item in colorful and engaging terms. It's nice, but it doesn't change the basic problems:
--My character's innate 18 int is no big deal. He needs boosting or he looks like a wimp, despite being at human max. This is irritating.
I'm not sure I would complain about having 18 Int at low levels. With five Stat boosts with leveling that puts you at an innate 23 Int by level 20. Unless you need to split your stat boosts up. But a 23 at lvl 20 is not bad. And just to be sure, you do know that 18 is max for starting? Your stat boosts can take you up over 18.
I fail to see the problem with Items. It sounds more like poor DMing to me. You hand out the magic items, you hand out the materials the PCs need to make items. You hand out the gold they need to buy supplies. You control every single aspect of the process, for the most part.
If PCs are getting items that are out of control, that are not in line with the CR of monsters they are fighting, then the fault lies with the GM, not the rules.
Do PCs need to have amazingly high all powerful items to take out monsters? Nope. With some planning, knowing your strengths and weaknesses, and knowing when to run, they have everything they need.
For Example, let's look at Fellowship of the Ring, the Movie. The party is being pursued by a Balrog. You have one epic wizard, a high lvl ranger, a mid lvl fighter and archer-fighter, and three low level rogues. No cleric. And the Balrog is closing in. What do you do?
Well, if you are PCs you stand and fight! Then when everyone dies you try and figure out why. You blame the adventure writer for being too stupid, you blame the rules for not letting 3rd lvl rogues do damage to the Balrog, you blame the DM for not handing out enough magic items before you tried to kill the Balrog...
but you never blame the PCs for being stupid...
If the PCs are too dumb to run, then too bad. Run away today to learn the weaknesses of your enemy, plan, and lay traps then pounce on your enemy another day.
If you can't use your brain when playing, just play WOW. or 4E. :) (had to get the jab in on 4E sorry)
Honestly, I'm not a fan at all of Pathfinder's two stat boost slot system, if for no other reason than that the Magic Item Compendium addressed the issue already, and more elegantly. Not charging a PC "extra" to put the stat boost/deflection bonus/resistance bonus necessities on a cool item is a great idea, and one I've whole-heartedly embraced.
I've built characters with much cooler gear ever since - give someone a Phoenix Cloak of Resistance +5 (for the price of the Phoenix Cloak and the Cloak of Resistance), and they've got their nessa item and their cool shiny item at the same time. Combining the default items into other items is a very good solution unless you intend on overhauling everything related to the system.
Though I do like taking a page from Vow of Poverty - the enhancement bonuses to stats and deflection bonuses are a decent metric that could be used well with little change. I'd be leery of giving out the enhancement bonuses to attacks or actual AC - I prefer the idea of magic swords and armor providing those instead, but make it easier for a PC to transfer abilities from other items, or just for their items to be enhanced as appropriate.
One thing I've been doing recently in my games is not actually giving the PCs gold at all. When they level, I let them buy gear for the difference of their old level and their new one, without having to find a magic shop or anything. It allows me to give NPCs whatever equipment I want without having to worry about the PCs getting it, and they get the stuff they want. If they want their weapon to gain a new ability, it does. Typically I've waived this as "you find a treasure hoard, this is how much gold worth of stuff you each get" but I've also considered it as a method for representing character abilities growing as well. Honestly, I just like getting cool stuff, and losing out on the neat items you can get seems sad.
I think that one thing Pathfinder may want to consider is adopting SAGA/4.0's 2 stat bumps every 4 levels method - it allows people to increase stats other than their primary without as much penalty, and puts slightly less onus on getting stat boosters for those stats.