|
Maybe Wrath's definition of GM fiat is different from most others, but that doesn't necessarily mean that his points aren't valid in the general context of this discussion.True, and I agree, but when people are discussing an issue, a base line understanding of how a term is being used is useful. As long as everyone has an idea of how many different ways a ambiguous term can be interpreted, and a common base definition can be agreed upon (well, at least settled on, I suppose) it allows for a bit more shorthand in the conversation, making it go more smoothly without having to post the "what it means to me" qualifier in every contribution.
Just reading this forum should give you an idea how hard it is to come to an agreement on how things should be interpreted. :)
Just because you want a world with better economics or fewer magic items than default D&D that doesn't equal DM fiat."Better economics"? In whose opinion? Seriously we are talking about totally subjective views here.
Seems as alot of people are only using the latter part of #3 for the term "DM fiat" (arbitrary order).fiat
1 : a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort
2 : an authoritative determination : dictate <a fiat of conscience>
3 : an authoritative or arbitrary order : decree <government by fiat>
Sorry, how about "economics that better simulate a workable economy"? (Simulate being the key word)
I know "better" is a highly subjective term but c'mon, I don't think even the 3e designers would state the D&D "economy", especially as it pertains to magic items, would be considered internally consistent anywhere but within the game itself.
... would be considered internally consistent anywhere but within the game itself.
Anywhere else that it is relevant that it is internally consistent?
... would be considered internally consistent anywhere but within the game itself.Anywhere else that it is relevant that it is internally consistent?
At the risk of arguing in circles...
Yes, how about the campaign world?
There's consistency within the game that the players are playing and then there's consistency within the world where the characters' story unfolds. If you like the idea of items costing 10s and 100s of thousands of gold pieces and that said gold has been minted in the millions all so your 14th-level PC can feel like he got paid what he's worth while 99% of the game world populace makes less than 1000 gp/year, more power to you. Some of us like our fantasy economies and treasure distribution to be more in line with something we'd read in a fantasy novel.
I'm guessing we may be at opposite ends of the "what we want from a campaign" spectrum.
Regardless, if I as the GM say I'd like to structure my campaign world using an economy other than what's in D&D core and my players are ok with it, I don't consider that to be DM fiat. YMMV.
|
|
... would be considered internally consistent anywhere but within the game itself.Anywhere else that it is relevant that it is internally consistent?At the risk of arguing in circles...
Yes, how about the campaign world?
There's consistency within the game that the players are playing and then there's consistency within the world where the characters' story unfolds. If you like the idea of items costing 10s and 100s of thousands of gold pieces and that said gold has been minted in the millions all so your 14th-level PC can feel like he got paid what he's worth while 99% of the game world populace makes less than 1000 gp/year, more power to you. Some of us like our fantasy economies and treasure distribution to be more in line with something we'd read in a fantasy novel.
I have to say that I complete agree with this -- I like the rules being internally consistent, and I also want my campaign world to be internally consistent (e.g. logical economy, trade routes, politics and so on). If the world and the NPCs only exist to serve the whims and needs of the PCs, why bother writing anything at all? 4E's 'Points of Light' approach may suit many groups, but my players (and I) want to game in a vivid, breathing world that feels as real as possible.
|
With out death there can not be life and without life their can not be death.
That said, death should be an element of every game. It is not about killing PCs... though for most PCs it is about killing monsters. Their should be challenges in a game and consequences. Without these consequences what would be the point of play?
I have played in the 90's under the no consequence system and it really fraustrated me. In the end it came down to what ever book with what ever new trick, skill or item I had to have! It gets very very boring. Just like RPG computer games, I find them very boring if their is not the threat of death.
There's consistency within the game that the players are playing and then there's consistency within the world where the characters' story unfolds. If you like the idea of items costing 10s and 100s of thousands of gold pieces and that said gold has been minted in the millions all so your 14th-level PC can feel like he got paid what he's worth while 99% of the game world populace makes less than 1000 gp/year, more power to you. Some of us like our fantasy economies and treasure distribution to be more in line with something we'd read in a fantasy novel.I have to say that I complete agree with this -- I like the rules being internally consistent, and I also want my campaign world to be internally consistent (e.g. logical economy, trade routes, politics and so on). If the world and the NPCs only exist to serve the whims and needs of the PCs, why bother writing anything at all? 4E's 'Points of Light' approach may suit many groups, but my players (and I) want to game in a vivid, breathing world that feels as real as possible.
For context, when I use the term GM fiat, I am referring to any departure from the core rules not fully integrated into the setting. By "fully integrated into the setting," I mean that the changes are consistent from both a rules perspective and a setting perspective (given the underlying assumptions). Allowing the item creation rules to exist as written, while banning the trade of said items is not consistent (even if such trade is illegal or highly regulated, there would exist trade at some level). Allowing one while denying the other is GM fiat. Allowing both, but denying PCs the opportunity to participate (i.e., forcing them to stay in small communities and restricting their wealth) is GM fiat.
I am not advocating that "MagicMarts" with every item in the DMG appear in every small community. However, even a small hamlet is likely to have an adept or low level spellcaster of some sort who may provide charms, potions, etc. for the local populace (they have to make a living somehow). Larger towns will be more likely to have the occasional low-cost/-powered item available in a merchant's inventory (for example, a masterwork longsword with a magic weapon on command once per day, market price 675gp). Considering that various non-magical items for sale can cost up to and over 1,000gp, what's the big difference (other than in the GM's mind)?Low-level local "healers" or adepts probably make more money by creating herbal concoctions (using 'Heal'-skill) that the locals are able to *afford*, rather than making shelves full of potions and scrolls only nobles or visiting adventurers can buy. Or, they might prefer *casting* their spells for a fee (a daily renewing resource, after all).
Stop with the slippery slope arguments. Your extrapolating to "shelves full of potions and scrolls" shows more about your prejudices than it helps to make a point. Considering that it takes a day to brew a potion or scribe a scroll, it's likely that low level adept or low-level caster with the appropriate item creation feats will have one or two of critical spells (a potion/scroll of cure light wounds for example) on hand for emergencies and will create anything else only to replace an item used/sold or on specific request.
|
|
Stop with the slippery slope arguments. Your extrapolating to "shelves full of potions and scrolls" shows more about your prejudices than it helps to make a point. Considering that it takes a day to brew a potion or scribe a scroll, it's likely that low level adept or low-level caster with the appropriate item creation feats will have one or two of critical spells (a potion/scroll of cure light wounds for example) on hand for emergencies and will create anything else only to replace an item used/sold or on specific request.I am not advocating that "MagicMarts" with every item in the DMG appear in every small community. However, even a small hamlet is likely to have an adept or low level spellcaster of some sort who may provide charms, potions, etc. for the local populace (they have to make a living somehow). Larger towns will be more likely to have the occasional low-cost/-powered item available in a merchant's inventory (for example, a masterwork longsword with a magic weapon on command once per day, market price 675gp). Considering that various non-magical items for sale can cost up to and over 1,000gp, what's the big difference (other than in the GM's mind)?Low-level local "healers" or adepts probably make more money by creating herbal concoctions (using 'Heal'-skill) that the locals are able to *afford*, rather than making shelves full of potions and scrolls only nobles or visiting adventurers can buy. Or, they might prefer *casting* their spells for a fee (a daily renewing resource, after all).
(EDIT: This a reply to both of your posts above)
And if they don't have said Feats? Furthermore, if they are able to cast these spells, that's how they probably prefer doing it, because they can charge local people in relation to what they can *pay*. How many farmers could afford, say, a Potion of Cure Light Wounds? They make about 1 GP per week, after all (at least in FR). Local low-level healers make a decent living by using their skills (such as Heal or Profession) while tending to local population and livery. Considering that in most communities there's not really much competition, and the whole population can be considered to be their customers, they probably make enough money to at least survive. Besides, doesn't making potions cost you?
And if there are local spellcasters with access to 2nd level or higher spells, I don't see how you could order, say, Potions of Bull's Strength. My comment on the "shelves full of potions and scrolls" refers to letting PCs "cherry-pick" any scrolls and potions from such a seller -- even when he couldn't create them (note: not all local healers, at least in Thorps/Hamlets/Villages would necessarily *take* such feats -- in many cases Skill Focus may be more useful to their daily "work"). Is that a 'GM fiat' by your standards, if I don't allow my PCs to buy whatever they want or need?
So here's what it comes down to:
- Are there significant NPCs (local clergy/healers/retired adventurers etc.) who can supply the PCs with such items by creating them?
- Are there enough local/visiting adventurers to merit a supply for minor magic items and potions and scrolls?
- Which risks would importing magic items or potions or scrolls (in case there's more demand than the locals can supply) involve, and how costly is it to minimize these risks? (i.e. are there brigands or evil adventurers who regularly raid the caravans? Orcs or other monsters? Evil organizations? And so on.)
- How much will it all cost? (e.g. hiring experienced caravan guards)
- What kind of items would provide the best "cost/benefit"-ratio -- assuming that at least occasionally you're going to lose your merchandise?
And so on...
In my books it takes a merchant consortium or a company (or a very rich individual) to set up this sort of overland trade. Some organizations or (more-or-less) retired adventuring bands might also be able to do it.
Where's the 'GM fiat' in all that? Or how am I being "unfair" to my players? I know that if I actually *let* them shop anything they want, anywhere, they'd make sarcastic remarks about it (after all, they like the setting with details and internal consistency) and asking who is making all the items in said Thorp or Hamlet.
In bigger cities it's a completely another matter -- you could find most items, although some of them might have to be "hunted down" (e.g. from retired adventurers or noble vaults) instead of buying them from a shop.
BTW, did you read my previous reply to you, in which I mentioned why I like running "rural" campaigns? Because by your reasoning it seems I should either let the PCs buy *anything* in their home village (regardless of any sense of realism and consistency), *OR* run my campaigns near big cities (and I *did* mention that PCs are probably able to teleport anywhere in the long run to get more "rare" magic items). Or did I misunderstood your point?
Stop with the slippery slope arguments. Your extrapolating to "shelves full of potions and scrolls" shows more about your prejudices than it helps to make a point. Considering that it takes a day to brew a potion or scribe a scroll, it's likely that low level adept or low-level caster with the appropriate item creation feats will have one or two of critical spells (a potion/scroll of cure light wounds for example) on hand for emergencies and will create anything else only to replace an item used/sold or on specific request.I am not advocating that "MagicMarts" with every item in the DMG appear in every small community. However, even a small hamlet is likely to have an adept or low level spellcaster of some sort who may provide charms, potions, etc. for the local populace (they have to make a living somehow). Larger towns will be more likely to have the occasional low-cost/-powered item available in a merchant's inventory (for example, a masterwork longsword with a magic weapon on command once per day, market price 675gp). Considering that various non-magical items for sale can cost up to and over 1,000gp, what's the big difference (other than in the GM's mind)?Low-level local "healers" or adepts probably make more money by creating herbal concoctions (using 'Heal'-skill) that the locals are able to *afford*, rather than making shelves full of potions and scrolls only nobles or visiting adventurers can buy. Or, they might prefer *casting* their spells for a fee (a daily renewing resource, after all).(EDIT: This a reply to both of your posts above)
AAnd if they don't have said Feats? Furthermore, if they are able to cast these spells, that's how they probably prefer doing it, because they can charge local people in relation to what they can *pay*. How many farmers could afford, say, a Potion of Cure Light Wounds? They make about 1 GP per week, after all (at least in FR). Local low-level healers make a decent living by using their skills (such as Heal or Profession) while tending to local population and livery. Considering that in most communities there's not really much competition, and the whole population can be considered to be their customers, they probably make enough money to at least survive. Besides, doesn't making potions cost you?
And if there are local spellcasters with access to 2nd level or higher spells, I don't see how you could order, say, Potions of Bull's Strength. My comment on the "shelves full of potions and scrolls" refers to letting PCs "cherry-pick" any scrolls and potions from such a seller -- even when he couldn't create them (note: not all local healers, at least in Thorps/Hamlets/Villages would necessarily *take* such feats -- in many cases Skill Focus may be more useful to their daily "work"). Is that a 'GM fiat' by your standards, if I don't allow my PCs to buy whatever they want or need?
Again the slippery slope argument that my position requires that every community has to have someone creating magic items. As far as cost effectiveness, even if a local healer sells one or two potions or scrolls per year, that's still a 12.5-50gp annual profit; the local healer would probably prefer to cast spells, but having one or two extra just in case they need more than they have prepared is hardly unthinkable. For the locals, a payment plan may be in order, but a visiting merchant/peddler would probably be able to afford it if needed. And you're the one that's assuming the PCs can "cherry pick" from a community without basis.
In my books it takes a merchant consortium or a company (or a very rich individual) to set up this sort of overland trade. Some organizations or (more-or-less) retired adventuring bands might also be able to do it.
And one more time with extrapolating to an extensive overland trade of magic items*. What would be the need? Any city would probably have enough spellcasters willing and able to enchant magic items for a local shop to preclude the need to ship them to a different city to be sold (barring any special circumstances such as "gun-running" or smuggling to locations where local restrictions might make such endeavors worthwhile). Anyway, merchants dealing in gems, precious metal, silk, spices, and other non-magical high-value items would need to take precautions to protect themselves; some level (probably limited) of overland trade in magic items would likely be possible by using similar means.
On the cost effectiveness: a spellcaster enchants item for 1/2 market price, sells to a shop at 75% market price, and the shop sells at full market price. Both the spellcaster and the shop make a profit of 25% of the market price, the spellcaster doesn't have to worry about finding an end-buyer, and the shop has a ready source of supply.
*- Although a powerful local/national/international society that regulates the use and trade of magic might make an interesting feature of a specific campaign setting; as a nemesis and/or patron.
BTW, did you read my previous reply to you, in which I mentioned why I like running "rural" campaigns? Because by your reasoning it seems I should either let the PCs buy *anything* in their home village (regardless of any sense of realism and consistency), *OR* run my campaigns near big cities (and I *did* mention that PCs are probably able to teleport anywhere in the long run to get more "rare" magic items). Or did I misunderstood your point?
No, you don't have to provide everything in the home village or set it close to a city. However, if you deny them the chance to travel between villages/towns (where different resources and NPCs may mean different goods are available) or visit a city from time to time (to obtain level appropriate gear), then your "realism" is actually something else. BTW, that's the general "you;" I'm not accusing you specifically of deliberately hampering PC development because you want to tightly control what magic they own. Some GMs, however, do.
While I'm finding the whole magic-item-shop debate interesting, I have to say I was taken aback by the assertation that magic-item acquisition is part of "PC development". Are they goodies? Yes. Is D&D designed with the assumption that the PCs will have them. Yes. But PC development?
Perhaps it is. However, it's a bad idea IMO. Characters should be defined by their abilities and personalities, not their gear. I've seen far too many players who felt their PCs became worthless when their pet magic item was lost, destroyed, stolen, used up, etc.
Which is probably why I DESPISE the Christmas-Tree-Effect.
Characters should be defined by their abilities and personalities, not their gear.
"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king."
Also I assume you never play with a samuari (or similar) character, where their weapons represents something about them culturally.
If you like the idea of items costing 10s and 100s of thousands of gold pieces and that said gold has been minted in the millions all so your 14th-level PC can feel like he got paid what he's worth while 99% of the game world populace makes less than 1000 gp/year, more power to you.
A few are wealth while the great majority are poor. Gee that doesn't sound like a stereotypical "medieval" setting at all.[/snark]
"Woman: Dennis, Dennis! There's some lovely filth down here. Oh, how'd you do? "
Characters should be defined by their abilities and personalities, not their gear."All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king."Also I assume you never play with a samuari (or similar) character, where their weapons represents something about them culturally.
If you like the idea of items costing 10s and 100s of thousands of gold pieces and that said gold has been minted in the millions all so your 14th-level PC can feel like he got paid what he's worth while 99% of the game world populace makes less than 1000 gp/year, more power to you.A few are wealth while the great majority are poor. Gee that doesn't sound like a stereotypical "medieval" setting at all.[/snark]
"Woman: Dennis, Dennis! There's some lovely filth down here. Oh, how'd you do? "
Given that Aragorn didn't get that blade restored until RotK, I submit that he didn't feel defined by it or useless without it. Also, if D&D magic items were treated this way, I seriously doubt I'd have a problem with it.
And since either the magnitude of wealth in my example was lost on you or you're simply choosing to ignore it, I'll just conclude we're not going to see eye to eye on that topic.
Given that Aragorn didn't get that blade restored until RotK, I submit that he didn't feel defined by it or useless without it. Also, if D&D magic items were treated this way, I seriously doubt I'd have a problem with it.
The book or the movie. In the movie you would be right, but of course Peter Jackson though a good director is not very good at following the actual events of the story as written. Seriously listen to some of the commentaries, he said stuff like "We did X because to follow the story we had to." Except if he had followed the story to begin with, he wouldn't have had to do X at all. In other words he wrote himself into a corner, not the original material. As for the books, Aragorn got the reforged sword when the fellowship left Rivendell in the first book.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'd point out that in the Swashbuckling Adventures setting they did suggest the DM 'arranging' for rare/magical items to fall into the characters' hands as they hit the correct level. Using this system, it makes sense that Aragorn got the sword reforged when he did.
Plus they were all outfitted with elven cloaks, arguably a magic bow and knives, magic in the phial. Frodo also had a masterwork/magical sword and a mithral shirt on leaving Rivendel.
If you don't want 'mystic wal-mart' it still supports either customizing treasure to items they want/need, or changing adventures entirely to compensate
I'd point out that in the Swashbuckling Adventures setting they did suggest the DM 'arranging' for rare/magical items to fall into the characters' hands as they hit the correct level. Using this system, it makes sense that Aragorn got the sword reforged when he did.
Plus they were all outfitted with elven cloaks, arguably a magic bow and knives, magic in the phial. Frodo also had a masterwork/magical sword and a mithral shirt on leaving Rivendel.
If you don't want 'mystic wal-mart' it still supports either customizing treasure to items they want/need, or changing adventures entirely to compensate
Yes, they had these items, and like Aragorn's sword, they did not define the character. They had uses within the plot, which is all well and good. My criticism was around the idea that magic-item acquisition equated to character development. Story development, absolutely. But the idea that a character is defined by his magical wardrobe, weapons, etc. within the game is, IMO, lame.
And all of the items you've listed were given more than a passing treatment in the LotR. How often does that happen in your "standard" D&D game where a single character may possess a number of magic items equal to the entire Fellowship? Not very often in my experience.
Excalibur is essential to the Arthurian myth b/c it establishes the identity of the true king and is a symbol of his legitimacy. Arthur doesn't stop being Arthur because he has it or doesn't. The sword opens the door to rulership for Arthur. Arthur's ability to lead troops, inspire loyalty, sense of honor and fairness, etc. define him.
And once again, if magic items were treated with the plot signficance given items in literature, I doubt we'd even be discussing this. It's the proliferation of magic items and the idea that without them the characters stop being heroes that is what cheapens magic items.
All that said, I definitely prefer the approach you've outlined to the Magic Wal-Mart.
But he still has Excalibur. He still has a high end magical sword, just like Aaragon has Narsil. You are right they don't define the characters but people do recognize that powerful magical items where something they had.
Same for a D&D character. If I start with a tenth level fighter and I buy up a nice big magical sword it doesn't mean I'm power gaming. It means my fighter has a nice big magical sword. It could be it was forged by his father before the fighter was sent out to an unjust campaign, and the father died of heart break at the thought of losing his son just as he finished the sword. Over time this death had so much power that it infusesthe blade and makes it magical.
The magic items in this case are "paid for" with the "wealth by level" Just like starting gear this doesn't mean I walked into the magical wal-mart with "X" gold in my pocket and bought what I wanted. Wealth by level represents what the character has acculumated over the course of his life. It's a variant on the stormwind fallacy.
Just because the character has powerful magic doesn't mean he's a christmas tree. He's high level and has gear that is appropriate to his situation. That gear could easily have been gotten through appropriate story means. Ask the character where all that high end magical stuff came from and let them develop some character history with it. It gives the DM plot hooks and gives the character more depth.
If magic items are not roleplayed enough to show their significance, then maybe a group should discuss this when discussing ... roleplaying. The fact that the fighter describes his weapon as a +2 flaming longsword as opposed to "Scorch, the flame of retribution", is a failing of the fighter's player at roleplaying, not a failing of having +2 flaming longswords in the game.
The stats of Bilbo's weapon didn't change when he gave it the name "Sting", but the flavor did and the emotional feel to it did.
Also, why is it that only the DM can decide which equipment is meaningful to a player character. To an NPC, sure that is the DM's realm, but for PCs? Sounds a bit retentative to me.
|
|
Given that Aragorn didn't get that blade restored until RotK, I submit that he didn't feel defined by it or useless without it. Also, if D&D magic items were treated this way, I seriously doubt I'd have a problem with it.The book or the movie. In the movie you would be right, but of course Peter Jackson though a good director is not very good at following the actual events of the story as written. Seriously listen to some of the commentaries, he said stuff like "We did X because to follow the story we had to." Except if he had followed the story to begin with, he wouldn't have had to do X at all. In other words he wrote himself into a corner, not the original material. As for the books, Aragorn got the reforged sword when the fellowship left Rivendell in the first book.
Funny, I always Aragorn was rather defined by his noble and tragic heritage, and his courage and leadership and wisdom -- *not* by the sword he carried.
BTW, are you saying in your second sentence that a good director isn't able to direct a good movie adaptation of a good story, if he stays true to the original work? I don't think that's what PJ implied in his comments, and there are plenty of movies in which the director has succeeded in doing just that.
|
|
If magic items are not roleplayed enough to show their significance, then maybe a group should discuss this when discussing ... roleplaying. The fact that the fighter describes his weapon as a +2 flaming longsword as opposed to "Scorch, the flame of retribution", is a failing of the fighter's player at roleplaying, not a failing of having +2 flaming longswords in the game.
The stats of Bilbo's weapon didn't change when he gave it the name "Sting", but the flavor did and the emotional feel to it did.
Also, why is it that only the DM can decide which equipment is meaningful to a player character. To an NPC, sure that is the DM's realm, but for PCs? Sounds a bit retentative to me.
Sure, but not all swords are "named", or come with a backstory. I don't see it as a player "failing" in anything, if he doesn't come up with a new name for every weapon he carries -- after all, only the significant ones had names in LoTR (and, naturally, MERP supplements). A typical D&D campaign probably features so many magic items that it would be a silly requirement (and cause a lot of extra pressure) if all swords and daggers and halbers had to have a name and a story. It's safe to assume that some of the weapons were manufactured without actual purpose or "soul" (i.e. these are your "rank-and-file" magic weapons). If the player wants to call his new sword inscribed with dwarven runes as "Grimhammer" or "Doomedge", he's free to do that. But it's not obligatory.
|
|
Again the slippery slope argument that my position requires that every community has to have someone creating magic items. As far as cost effectiveness, even if a local healer sells one or two potions or scrolls per year, that's still a 12.5-50gp annual profit; the local healer would probably prefer to cast spells, but having one or two extra just in case they need more than they have prepared is hardly unthinkable. For the locals, a payment plan may be in order, but a visiting merchant/peddler would probably be able to afford it if needed. And you're the one that's assuming the PCs can "cherry pick" from a community without basis.
I'm at loss with you here -- didn't you say that I'm "hampering" PC development and their legal right for magic items, if I'm not giving them what they want? Or that if they don't have a ready access to potions and scrolls and alchemical items, it's a "GM Fiat"? I think we've misunderstood each other?
Alright, maybe I'm still thinking of this in "2E FR"-terms, because I think most hamlets, thorps or villages need not have healers with levels in "actual" spellcasting classes. They do fine with a couple of skills. Anyway, it's not a given that all healers with levels in spellcasting classes would pick Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion -- it depends so much on a number of factors (e.g. said NPC's personality and local circumstances). Without these Feats he couldn't make them. If he *can* create scrolls and/or potions, he most likely cannot afford to manufacture many of them -- if he does, he might wish to save them for a local "emergency" situation (such as a monster attack), rather than sell them to visiting, unknown "boldblades". That's in a small community, but such healers exist in cities as well, because not even most merchants cannot pay to have every affliction or wound magically cured.
I give out a lot of healing potions and scrolls (and other low-level potions and scrolls as well) among treasure (often a "hidden cache" containing two or three potions), even though I may not let them buy whatever spell or potion they want to have. And to clarify: at least based on the comments of several posters, the baseline assumption in 3.5/PF seems to be that players should be allowed to "cherry-pick" stuff out of the book -- even if it made no sense. Now, I may be wrong (in which case I apologise) but I got the picture that you think that even if the GM "restricted" this by telling the players that the local healer has, for example, three potions to sell them, the players should be let "cherry-pick" them from the book. I don't assume (or allow) such things in my game, but apparently the rules (and a lot of people) *do*.
And one more time with extrapolating to an extensive overland trade of magic items*. What would be the need? Any city would probably have enough spellcasters willing and able to enchant magic items for a local shop to preclude the need to ship them to a different city to be sold (barring any special circumstances such as "gun-running" or smuggling to locations where local restrictions might make such endeavors worthwhile). Anyway, merchants dealing in gems, precious metal, silk, spices, and other non-magical high-value items would need to take precautions to protect themselves; some level (probably limited) of overland trade in magic items would likely be possible by using similar means.On the cost effectiveness: a spellcaster enchants item for 1/2 market price, sells to a shop at 75% market price, and the shop sells at full market price. Both the spellcaster and the shop make a profit of 25% of the market price, the spellcaster doesn't have to worry about finding an end-buyer, and the shop has a ready source of supply.
*- Although a powerful local/national/international society that regulates the use and trade of magic might make an interesting feature of a specific campaign setting; as a nemesis and/or patron.
That's true in *cities* which *have* such (high-level) NPCs who specialize in creating magic items (not all spellcasters do it or can afford it, and, like you noted, in some places it might even be "forbidden" or restricted). For example, in the large town I'm running my Beta playtest campaign in, there's one major villain and an armorer capable of crafting magic items -- at least publicly. You see, there are two powerful merchant organizations sabotaging and robbing any such NPCs/groups who might try to import (or create locally) large quantities of magical items. Not to mention several evil adventuring bands (one of which the PCs killed) who would at least *try* to kill and rob such persons (whether they be shopkeepers or the spellcasters themselves). And there are monsters aplenty (and one of the organizations actually hires orcs to do their "dirty deeds" for them).
In towns or cities with thieves' guilds or high-level individual thieves, running a magic item shop carries even the higher risks than selling gems or exotic art objects or spices and so on. Any such shop would need magical guardians and "warding spells" to discourage thieves -- because the rewards are better than from robbing a wine merchant's shop, and therefore thieves may find it more lucrative (and arm themselves with magical items such as scrolls or potions -- or even hire a spellcaster capable of tackling the guardians and spells). Ergo, you need enough money and "power" to set up and defend your shop, or you'll be (even the first items you're going to put on sale need to be discovered or crafted, and cost most likely tens of thousands of GPs).
If these items cannot be created locally so that the PCs won't constantly be begging for or ordering Ring X and Shield Y and Boots of W, then there must be overland trade (barring any active portals).
For example, major organizations might be able to do it, and it might even be worth the risks (e.g. from a major city to "border areas" where adventurers might be plentiful and willing to pay *more* for magic). And, furthermore, in a magic-rich culture (or a city filled with "artificer" wizards) where minor items are commonplace scrolls, potions and magic items in general might cost a lot less than in areas where most items lie in "monster lairs" or vaults of the nobility (and items are crafted for *personal* use mostly).
No, you don't have to provide everything in the home village or set it close to a city. However, if you deny them the chance to travel between villages/towns (where different resources and NPCs may mean different goods are available) or visit a city from time to time (to obtain level appropriate gear), then your "realism" is actually something else. BTW, that's the general "you;" I'm not accusing you specifically of deliberately hampering PC development because you want to tightly control what magic they own. Some GMs, however, do.
I have never denied the PCs from traveling somewhere, *unless* it would seriously affect the campaign "story events" and adventure "deadlines" (and I dare to guess that most GMs do this). And I *do* wish to control which sort of magic they have access to -- if they wish to get specific items, they need to craft them or put some effort to achieve them, most likely after several sessions or even levels, depending on the item and the situation they're in. As for "Wealth by Level'... the thing is, I don't think a RPG (even a "gamist" High Fantasy RPG like D&D) should make any assumptions in game mechanics about which sort of items PCs "should" have at each given level. The whole level-based wealth and magic item progression feels silly and artificial, and I don't think it works really well. For example, going by the rules, a 10th level PC could "legally" own a +4 Weapon or Armor or even a Cloak of Resistance. So maybe I am "hampering" PC development in the sense that I prevent the PCs from getting "level appropriate gear" as per the rules. If I were to allow it, I think magic would experience a serious inflation in the eyes of the players.
|
|
Ring of Protection +6 added either +1 or +2 to your saves -- maybe it was +1? No other items (to my knowledge) added any bonuses to your saves, because they were already pretty good (60-75% chance to succeed against anything) at higher levels.I remember something in 1e where cloaks of protection, rings of portection and I think even magic armor and shields not only added to ac, but used their bonuses for bettering saving throws as well.
Was that some weird house rule? Or did that actually exist?
If so +3 plate and a +3 shield and ring or protection +4 would giv you +10 to all saves unilaterally.If it doesnt do that (and i cant find rules to support it)
It may be a good house rules if weak saves are a huge issue.
The Ring of protections added to armor and saves, some versions...like the "+ 6 ring: +1 saves" gave the wearer + 6 on AC and saves but gave everyone in a 5 ft radius the +1 on their saves. Everyone.
A harsh DM could interpet the +6:+1 on saves as the saving throw bonus to the wearer...but from the passages I have read it seems that the secondary save value is only applies to the extended 5 feet radius.It would not give its bonus to AC if worn with magical armor.
As far as armor and shields, I couldn't find anything in the encyopedia magica where they give a bonus to saves, but I could have sworn it was somewhere in the 1st ed DMG...need to check when I get home.
Funny, I always Aragorn was rather defined by his noble and tragic heritage, and his courage and leadership and wisdom -- *not* by the sword he carried.
I think you guys are splitting the hair a bit fine with comments from some people like, "sure it helped the story develop but it didn't help the character develop." Huh? The character is part of the story, if the story develops so does the character. Thus it helped to develop the story and the character. These items are crucial to understanding the character. Seriously, if you saw a story about King Arthur WITHOUT Excalibur, you'd think something was totally bs. If you saw an adaptation of the Hobbit where Bilbo doesn't have Sting or the Ring (or both), you'd think something was totally wrong there. Could Aragorn still have been a special guy without the sword? Perhaps, or perhaps without the sword as a constant reminder of his family's past as he lived his life before Frodo and the fellowship, perhaps he would have fallen just as fast as Boromir did.
BTW, are you saying in your second sentence that a good director isn't able to direct a good movie adaptation of a good story, if he stays true to the original work? I don't think that's what PJ implied in his comments, and there are plenty of movies in which the director has succeeded in doing just that.
I'm not sure where you could draw any conclusion like that from my post. It seems as if you are making some kind of "if ..,then ..." error. I said Jackson was a good director. I also said he wasn't good at following a book as written. These two things are not related. These are independent issues. Perhaps it is in how I wrote the comment that confusion occured. It should read, "... Peter Jackson (though a good director) is not very good at following the actual events of the story as written." I apologize if my writing confused you.
Sure, but not all swords are "named", or come with a backstory.
Neither are most characters, yet some how players and DMs can come up with names and backstories for both of them, at least the ones that matter (orc grunt 2 might just be orc grunt 2).
I don't see it as a player "failing" in anything, if he doesn't come up with a new name for every weapon he carries -- after all, only the significant ones had names in LoTR (and, naturally, MERP supplements).
It is a failing if the reason why people are complaining about including magic items is because their players don't treat them "serious" enough. In that case the DM should address the roleplaying (which is the cause of the problem), not the presence (or lack) of magic items.
A typical D&D campaign probably features so many magic items that it would be a silly requirement (and cause a lot of extra pressure) if all swords and daggers and halbers had to have a name and a story.
Well how about only magical ones for games where the group (or at least the DM) thinks magical items are "important". If you are playing in a game where there are already too many magical weapons out there to name even a quarter of them, then I would say you don't have a problem believing magical items are "important" so this discussion isn't relevant to you (generic you).
It's safe to assume that some of the weapons were manufactured without actual purpose or "soul" (i.e. these are your "rank-and-file" magic weapons).
Sure, but if you want to make magic weapons "flavorless", don't complain when the players treat them so. If you (again generic) want the players to make a big "deal" about magic items, then the DM should do so as well not just piss and moan when the players don't.
If the player wants to call his new sword inscribed with dwarven runes as "Grimhammer" or "Doomedge", he's free to do that. But it's not obligatory.
Generally, sure. In games where people want magic itmes to be "special", then it can be obligatory. Which goes back to my personal preference of liking to see items improved over just dropped for the next best thing.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Well Asgetrion it seems you play a fairly low magic version of FR than I'm used to seeing. And yes the PC's can look for items they'd like to have rather than just the ones you deign appropriate for treasure. The difference is how much you want their search for a magic item to interefere with the storyline you have for your campaign. With access to Cities and Metropoli your PC's should be able to buy level appropriate gear. You as the DM obviously need to oversee what they're looking for lest an item your not familiar with or one you're not exactly happy with pops up.
IMC I have my players give me a list of items they're looking for and why. If this happens during downtime and I don't object to the item I usually allow them to find it within the downtime period. If it's in game then I either make it story goal in an of itself or I require them to use up valuable time to find it. In either case I have them make a Gather Information check DC 10+1 per 1,000gp of the items Market Price. It costs them money to scrape up the info and time which scales by level. Usually 1d4+1 gp for the info, which scales up by x10, x100, and x1,000 depending on level and gathering the info can take hours or days. And in some cases this only allows them to find a Crafter they can commission an item from instead of outright purchasing the item itself.
In any case even though magic items are in the DMG that doesn't mean the PC's shouldn't be able to look through it. What fun is the game if you're a stingy miser of a DM who prohibits all the neat toys from the heroes.
--Lock, Vrock, and two smoking Babaus...
|
Ok, if you want to put limits on items that can be gathered by your players becasue you feel its more appropriate to teh setting, try to balance out that limitiation by some of teh following
- Allow legacy type weapons, armour, equipment that get better with time. Don't alot as much gold to the PCs but have their gear progress in power as the characters do. You can write any kind of back story you want from that. (as theyg et more powerful their innate magic unlocks the secrets, maybe they learn more about the items as time progresses and it becomes more powerful)
- Let the characters choose what gear they're after then have them research where they can find such an item, either tailor made or from some vault somehwere. Let them go adventuring for it. In this way they get their items, you get to keep your game world, and it is less railroady.
- If you're going to limit access to things like higher level healing potions and scrolls (not sure if that's what you're saying but it was the impression I got), then allow some other form of healing available to players. Try the Eberron Action point system, or 4e healing surges.
These are all valid ways of counter balancing the forced restrictions you are placing on the game to simulate the world you're after. They are all houserules you can introduce to help maintain the balance in the game without asking the developers to change things. As amatter of fact, all of these are rules from various alternate sources already available that you can use if you'd like.
Cheers
The fact that the fighter describes his weapon as a +2 flaming longsword as opposed to "Scorch, the flame of retribution", is a failing of the fighter's player at roleplaying, not a failing of having +2 flaming longswords in the game.
Other character in bar: "Crap, I was going to name the +2 flaming longsword I just got 'Scorch'... Now I gotta think of another name. 'Torch?' No good. 'Searer?' 'Sear-er' is kinda awkward to say. Barkeep, gimme another!"
The fact that the fighter describes his weapon as a +2 flaming longsword as opposed to "Scorch, the flame of retribution", is a failing of the fighter's player at roleplaying, not a failing of having +2 flaming longswords in the game.Other character in bar: "Crap, I was going to name the +2 flaming longsword I just got 'Scorch'... Now I gotta think of another name. 'Torch?' No good. 'Searer?' 'Sear-er' is kinda awkward to say. Barkeep, gimme another!"
Barkeep: Trogdor, the Burninator?
|
The fact that the fighter describes his weapon as a +2 flaming longsword as opposed to "Scorch, the flame of retribution", is a failing of the fighter's player at roleplaying, not a failing of having +2 flaming longswords in the game.Other character in bar: "Crap, I was going to name the +2 flaming longsword I just got 'Scorch'... Now I gotta think of another name. 'Torch?' No good. 'Searer?' 'Sear-er' is kinda awkward to say. Barkeep, gimme another!"
I tried to name mine "Razorburn".
My companions balked. I named it "Burnrazor" instead.
I'm at loss with you here -- didn't you say that I'm "hampering" PC development and their legal right for magic items, if I'm not giving them what they want? Or that if they don't have a ready access to potions and scrolls and alchemical items, it's a "GM Fiat"? I think we've misunderstood each other?Again the slippery slope argument that my position requires that every community has to have someone creating magic items. As far as cost effectiveness, even if a local healer sells one or two potions or scrolls per year, that's still a 12.5-50gp annual profit; the local healer would probably prefer to cast spells, but having one or two extra just in case they need more than they have prepared is hardly unthinkable. For the locals, a payment plan may be in order, but a visiting merchant/peddler would probably be able to afford it if needed. And you're the one that's assuming the PCs can "cherry pick" from a community without basis.
I said they should have the opportunity to obtain those items, not that they should automatically obtain them. They may need to do some research, traveling, and maybe even some roleplaying to actually obtain a particular item.
Even in a city, a "magic shop" will probably only have a small inventory of items available for immediate sale (a handful of armor, weapons, and other items); commissioning an specific item would require (at a minimum) a down payment equal to the cost of the base item (or supplying the base item itself) plus the cost to enchant (1/2 market price plus any additional cost for expensive material components) with the remainder to be paid after the enchantment process is complete. Even then, prerequisites could easily limit what a particular spellcaster is able to enchant.
In any case, once the PCs reach the middle levels (around 5th-7th), adding/improving enchantments to/on already existing items becomes the most cost-effective method of improving their gear. The "magic shop" tends to fade in importance except as a means of disposing of duplicate, lower-powered items and as a way to get in touch with spellcasters for commissions (another reason to restrict them to Minor items). Once the PCs start reaching 10th-12th levels, powerful organizations such as churches, druid circles, and wizard colleges (if they exist) take on greater roles in providing the PCs with conflict and support (i.e., a Good church may pay the party a bounty of 1/2 market price, or items of equivalent value, for the surrender of Evil items so they can be destroyed). At this point, unless one or more of the PCs has item creation feats, they rapidly start reaching a point of diminishing returns on the availability of NPCs who are able to enchant significant items for the party (because of community level distribution/limits and spell access). The GM should increase the presence of legendary/historically significant items, either for the PCs to track down or to use in story developments (or both).
That's true in *cities* which *have* such (high-level) NPCs who specialize in creating magic items (not all spellcasters do it or can afford it, and, like you noted, in some places it might even be "forbidden" or restricted).
Since when are 3rd-8th level NPCs "high level?" Brew Potion requires CL 3, Craft Magic Arms and Armor requires CL 5 (CL 6 to enchant a +2 enhancement bonus), Craft Wand requires CL 5, Craft Wondrous Item requires CL 3, Scribe Scroll requires CL 1 (and is automatically gained by wizards to boot). A lot of items/abilities classified as Minor (and some classified as Medium) require CL 5-8 and no more than 4th level spells. And who says they have to "specialize?" A simple +1 weapon would net a 5th-6th level NPC with Craft Magic Arms and Armor about 500gp for two days work (assuming the masterwork weapon is already created and an agreement to provide it to a shop at 75% of market price). 500gp is enough to pay for good food and lodging at an inn for over half a year (using the numbers on PHB pg. 129).
In towns or cities with thieves' guilds or high-level individual thieves, running a magic item shop carries even the higher risks than selling gems or exotic art objects or spices and so on.
In what way, exactly? How is a 2,315gp +1 longsword more of a target for theft than a 800gp gold, white gold, and platinum necklace set with three 500gp fire opals and three 5gp garnets?
As for "Wealth by Level'... the thing is, I don't think a RPG (even a "gamist" High Fantasy RPG like D&D) should make any assumptions in game mechanics about which sort of items PCs "should" have at each given level. The whole level-based wealth and magic item progression feels silly and artificial, and I don't think it works really well. For example, going by the rules, a 10th level PC could "legally" own a +4 Weapon or Armor or even a Cloak of Resistance. So maybe I am "hampering" PC development in the sense that I prevent the PCs from getting "level appropriate gear" as per the rules. If I were to allow it, I think magic would experience a serious inflation in the eyes of the players.
3.5 DMG pg. 135: "Table 5-1: Character Wealth by Level is based on average treasures found in average encounters compared with the experience points earned in those encounters... The baseline campaign for the D&D game uses this 'wealth by level' guideline as a basis for balance in adventures." (emphasis mine) It never was, and was not meant to be, anything more. Note that before 3.x, there was no guideline as to what constituted "level appropriate" gear; "level appropriate" was determined solely by the whims and wishes of the GM.
One more time, changes from this baseline should be fully integrated into the setting's history and culture. Otherwise, the internal consistency of the game world suffers and the GM's efforts to justify why certain options in the allowed rules are not available seem arbitrary (IMO).
|
|
I think you guys are splitting the hair a bit fine with comments from some people like, "sure it helped the story develop but it didn't help the character develop." Huh? The character is part of the story, if the story develops so does the character. Thus it helped to develop the story and the character. These items are crucial to understanding the character. Seriously, if you saw a story about King Arthur WITHOUT Excalibur, you'd think something was totally bs. If you saw an adaptation of the Hobbit where Bilbo doesn't have Sting or the Ring (or both), you'd think something was totally wrong there. Could Aragorn still have been a special guy without the sword? Perhaps, or perhaps without the sword as a constant reminder of his family's past as he lived his life before Frodo and the fellowship, perhaps he would have fallen just as fast as Boromir did.
Uh, I thought even the Nazgûls (both in the book and the movie) were afraid and wary of him long before he ever grasped the hilt of ‘Anduril’? Didn't he also succesfully gaze into a Palantil, and match Sauron's overwhelming willpower with his own (managing to actually make Sauron worried)? And was he not known as ‘Strider’ and later as ‘King Aragorn’, rather than the ‘Guy Who Wields Narsil/Anduril’? The sword does not define him – it’s linked to to his tragic past, but the Ring had much more impact on Isildur’s and Aragorn’s fate than the shattered blade of Narsil. And, Boromir fell because he was ashamed for trying to force the Ring from Frodo, and faced (and slew) a horde of orcs to “redeem” himself. He was impaled with several orc arrows (four or five, IIRC), not “mowed down” because he lacked a magical blade. One of my PCs is a pretty “heroic” 18th level nobleman fighter, who once died of five arrows shot by a flying, invisible Ogre Magi using ‘Manyshot’ (each arrow inflicted something like 40 points of damage, i.e. about 200 points in all). My +3 Greatsword (a minor artifact in the campaign) at my side or my other magical gear didn’t help me a whit. I died before rolling for initiative (because I never saw it coming – this happened when we were taking a rest). And, BTW, if I remember his MERP/Rolemaster stats correctly, Boromir *did* wear all sorts of magical equipment (+30 sword and armor, which both translate roughly to +6 enchantment in D&D terms).
Furthermore, if Sting had been left out of the story, I don’t think we would miss it – it adds some depth and flavor, but all the scenes in ‘The Hobbit’ and ‘LoTR’ would work just as well without it. It doesn’t “characterize” either Bilbo or Frodo – neither does the sword “develop” their personalities in the books. The Ring is central to the story, but if it is “owned” by or “characterizes” anyone, it’s Sauron, the Dark Lord, who forged it (and whom Frodo almost turned into).
I'm not sure where you could draw any conclusion like that from my post. It seems as if you are making some kind of "if ..,then ..." error. I said Jackson was a good director. I also said he wasn't good at following a book as written. These two things are not related. These are independent issues. Perhaps it is in how I wrote the comment that confusion occured. It should read, "... Peter Jackson (though a good director) is not very good at following the actual events of the story as written." I apologize if my writing confused you.
He wasn’t good at being faithful to the original story? Sure, he omitted the character of Glorfindel and bolstered Arwen’s role in the movies, added a “troll fight” into the Moria scene and elven troops to the battle of Helm’s Deep, and brought ‘Anduril’ into story in ‘Return of the King’ – other than that, I think he did a pretty good job with following the book. Yeah, some scenes were deleted (he probably would have done them, if he could have made four or five films) or changed -- yet some of them worked very well, and actually brought the "spirit" of the book into life (e.g. when the Rohirrim arrive at the Fields of Pelennor, or when Faramir rides into Osgiliath).
Neither are most characters, yet some how players and DMs can come up with names and backstories for both of them, at least the ones that matter (orc grunt 2 might just be orc grunt 2).
NPCs or PCs and magic weapons are not synonymous to the players or GMs (unless those weapons are intelligent and capable of communication). And very few GMs actually care about the name or the backstory of Orc #1 or Ogre #2 in Encounter #5 – not to mention local merchants or shopkeepers or farmers. Usually, most GMs have perhaps a handful of meaningful NPCs in a campaign, and not all of them even have a description or even a name. I like to drop 100+ NPCs into any campaign I’m running, and try to add some “quirks” and short-hand descriptions to them, and use at least some of them as “plot hooks” (due to these “quirks” or quickly fleshed-out backstories). Most GMs I know don’t do that, and most players I know don’t care about the names of “minor” NPCs or how they look – names and appearances only matter to them if an NPC manages to cheat them or escapes from combat.
It is a failing if the reason why people are complaining about including magic items is because their players don't treat them "serious" enough. In that case the DM should address the roleplaying (which is the cause of the problem), not the presence (or lack) of magic items.*SNIP*
Well how about only magical ones for games where the group (or at least the DM) thinks magical items are "important". If you are playing in a game where there are already too many magical weapons out there to name even a quarter of them, then I would say you don't have a problem believing magical items are "important" so this discussion isn't relevant to you (generic you).
Very few magical weapons were typically named in AD&D (Greyhawk had many famous weapons, but most of them were beyond the grasp of greedy PCs) and perhaps it was more common that PCs named their weapons back then, because magic items were less powerful (and more rare) than in 3E. These days PCs seem to be strutting around with ‘Golf Bags’ filled with all sorts of Keen This and Adamantine That and so on, because the mechanics seem to *expect* that you do (especially the DR system). That’s the real reason for the “inflation” in the value of magic weapons in the eyes of the players -- *not* because they haven’t named them ‘Iron 1’ or ‘Adamantine 3’.
Sure, but if you want to make magic weapons "flavorless", don't complain when the players treat them so. If you (again generic) want the players to make a big "deal" about magic items, then the DM should do so as well not just piss and moan when the players don't.
… have you seen a single adventure in which the author named all magic weapons, or gave them a backstory (not even the ‘White Plume Mountain’ does that)? I can list at least fifty, in which such items are simply part of treasure/gear (‘+1 Keen Longsword’). Isn’t that an indication that it would require a huge amount of extra work, and I doubt that even you do it in your campaigns, right? Don’t get me wrong – I’d love to do it, but that’s extra prep time, and what if your PCs won’t even *find* the damn things, or cold-heartedly decide to sell ‘Swiftflame’ which you spent three hours designing down to the last detail and rune and gemstone (maybe even drew a picture of it, to boot)? Wouldn’t that be a waste of time? Usually I describe every magical or masterwork weapon in “quick” detail: “It’s silver-bladed with ivory handle carved into the tapering shape of two entwined dragons. And there’s a green gem in the golden pommel.”. If the PCs become enamored of a weapon, and want to keep it (for longer than just a few levels), *then* I’d probably fashion a history for the weapon.
Generally, sure. In games where people want magic itmes to be "special", then it can be obligatory. Which goes back to my personal preference of liking to see items improved over just dropped for the next best thing.
No – items can be special without having names. I doubt you’d name your PC’s ‘Belt of Giant Strength’ – or if you did, maybe the other PCs would lock you up in the closest temple dedicated to a deity of mental balance or healing. If the players don’t feel like “naming” their magic weapons, not you or I can force them to. If any GM I play under tried to make me do it, and remained adamant after a serious discussion, I’d probably go with “funny” names or the first ones that pop into mind rather than spend hours thinking of “special” names.
|
|
As for "Wealth by Level'... the thing is, I don't think a RPG (even a "gamist" High Fantasy RPG like D&D) should make any assumptions in game mechanics about which sort of items PCs "should" have at each given level. The whole level-based wealth and magic item progression feels silly and artificial, and I don't think it works really well. For example, going by the rules, a 10th level PC could "legally" own a +4 Weapon or Armor or even a Cloak of Resistance. So maybe I am "hampering" PC development in the sense that I prevent the PCs from getting "level appropriate gear" as per the rules. If I were to allow it, I think magic would experience a serious inflation in the eyes of the players.3.5 DMG pg. 135: "Table 5-1: Character Wealth by Level is based on average treasures found in average encounters compared with the experience points earned in those encounters... The baseline campaign for the D&D game uses this 'wealth by level' guideline as a basis for balance in adventures." (emphasis mine) It never was, and was not meant to be, anything more. Note that before 3.x, there was no guideline as to what constituted "level appropriate" gear; "level appropriate" was determined solely by the whims and wishes of the GM.
I know it's a guideline, but that very same "guideline" in PF Beta seems to be referenced by a lot of people who want to use it as "evidence" of level X fighter having the "legal right" (i.e. "sanctioned by the rules") to buy Cloak +Y and Sword +Z. Also, the very same people say that since it's "official", the game mechanics *EXPECT* you to have that gear, i.e. if high-level play feels "broken", that's due to you not adhering to it -- not because there's anything odd about the rules.
|
|
I know it's a guideline, but that very same "guideline" in PF Beta seems to be referenced by a lot of people who want to use it as "evidence" of level X fighter having the "legal right" (i.e. "sanctioned by the rules") to buy Cloak +Y and Sword +Z. Also, the very same people say that since it's "official", the game mechanics *EXPECT* you to have that gear, i.e. if high-level play feels "broken", that's due to you not adhering to it -- not because there's anything odd about the rules.
Actually, what most people are trying to say is that the game, and creatures encountered at higher levels, are designed with an assumption the players will have bonuses to their stats that are level appropriate. 3.x provides bonuses to stats through magic (either spells or gear). The monetary system is merely an arbitrary way to track the power of the characters and helps to scale the power of the items they have at those levels accordingly.
When high level critters were designed, part of the assumption is that the charaters stats are boosted by a certain level due to gear. At least that's how it was presented in an artical in Dungeon magazine dealing with designing fights on the fly. This is a base assumption of balance at high levels. If YOU as GM change what loot characters are able to attain, you also have to limit the type of creatures they encounter because you've taken from one area of the balance equation. (eg if you arent allowing winged boots or capes of flying, don't keep throwing flying creatures at them. If you aren't allowing things to boost will saves, stop throwing lots of mind dominating creatures their way)
What you're asking for is to boost the inherent stats of the characters because your campaign limits equipment. Imagine if the designers did this. Now we have players whose characters have better saves or stats, but can still access all the magic gear out there to boost it as well (because other GMs do allow purchase of gear).They become untouchable. In other words, you're asking the developers to give the players in your campaign the boost they need to survive high level, then expecting the rest of the gaming community to conform to your concept of magic item limitation to maintain balance.
Once again, if your houseruling loot restrictions, houserule stat improvements or modify encounters accordingly as well.
The current system allows for amazing flexability in what can be done in both published adventures and homebrew games. If we mess with it too much that disappears. I and my players love the vast quantity of magic items available out there. It provides variety and an almost limitless number of character builds and scenarios to build on. It's fun to find it in loot but its also fun to be able tailor your character to help balance out your weaknesses. If you start changing that, then there's a whole aspect of fun that disapears for many gamers.
cheers
|
|
Actually, what most people are trying to say is that the game, and creatures encountered at higher levels, are designed with an assumption the players will have bonuses to their stats that are level appropriate. 3.x provides bonuses to stats through magic (either spells or gear). The monetary system is merely an arbitrary way to track the power of the characters and helps to scale the power of the items they have at those levels accordingly.
When high level critters were designed, part of the assumption is that the charaters stats are boosted by a certain level due to gear. At least that's how it was presented in an artical in Dungeon magazine dealing with designing fights on the fly. This is a base assumption of balance at high levels. If YOU as GM change what loot characters are able to attain, you also have to limit the type of creatures they encounter because you've taken from one area of the balance equation. (eg if you arent allowing winged boots or capes of flying, don't keep throwing flying creatures at them. If you aren't allowing things to boost will saves, stop throwing lots of mind dominating creatures their way)
What you're asking for is to boost the inherent stats of the characters because your campaign limits equipment. Imagine if the designers did this. Now we have players whose characters have better saves or stats, but can still access all the magic gear out there to boost it as well (because other GMs do allow purchase of gear).They become untouchable. In other words, you're asking the developers to give the players in your campaign the boost they need to survive high level, then expecting the rest of the gaming community to conform to your concept of magic item limitation to maintain balance.
Once again, if your houseruling loot restrictions, houserule stat improvements or modify encounters accordingly as well.
The current system allows for amazing flexability in what can be done in both published adventures and homebrew games. If we mess with it too much that disappears. I and my players love the vast quantity of magic items available out there. It provides variety and an almost limitless number of character builds and scenarios to build on. It's fun to find it in loot but its also fun to be able tailor your character to help balance out your weaknesses. If you start changing that, then there's a whole aspect of fun that disapears for many gamers.
cheers
So you're saying the current system works ideally for all levels of play, as long as the GM sticks to the basic assumption made by the designers that a vast array of different kinds of items (i.e. +5 or equivalent at high-level play) are available to the PCs. If a GM prevents or restricts PC access to the items, he should "houserule" any problems away with restricted use of monsters and spells -- or, at least, reduce any DCs, attack bonuses, saving throw modifiers and AC. Did I get it right?
Firstly, I don't think the 3E game mechanics are based on any "absolute" or "perfect" formula, which couldn't be changed for the better. If the baseline assumption for a working, smooth play is gained only via bonuses from magic items and "buffs", then I think there's a "flaw" in the calculations, i.e. game-play will seriously suffer and become less fun, maybe even "break", unless you "patch" it by making constant modifications to the game mechanics (e.g. NPC and monster stats).
For example: if the baseline assumption for an encounter is that PCs have several "buffs" on them, but they didn't have time to cast them or already spent all spell slots or are saving them for the BBEG, the encounter becomes much harder, perhaps even deadly. In a sense, the PCs are "penalized" for no reason -- the designers just wanted to make sure that no encounter is "too easy", i.e. the numbers are calculated to assume all bonuses are *always* on. Also, the PCs are not "rewarded" for using the "buffs", or making their lives any easier -- they're simply "offsetting" a penalty to all rolls to make the fight challenging instead of lethal.
Another example: a final encounter in an adventure assumes the PCs make enough noise (and tangle with the minions long enough) for the BBEG to use "buffs" and potions to make it a balanced encounter. However, the PCs used 'Invisibility' and 'Silence' to penetrate the BBEG's stronghold, and the final encounter becomes trivially easy for them -- unless the GM "fixes" it by some sort of "GM fiat", e.g. the NPC "sensed" them, regardless of how realistic that would be, or perhaps there's a Dispel Magic-trap along the corridor? Or maybe he just adds more monsters to the encounter? In any case, all too often the PCs are not rewarded for clever tactics, because that would lead to an "easy" encounter (i.e. "anti-climax").
And yet another example: PCs spring a trap which causes a 'save-or-die'-spell to kill the party rogue due to a failed save. The group has two options: abandon the "quest" and retreat to the nearest town to get the rogue resurrected, or press on while dragging the rogue's corpse. The party cleric, who is multiclassed into fighter and paladin, digs out a scroll of Raise Dead, but fails the caster leve check to cast the spell. If the PCs push on, the adventure is much more dangerous to them, and they're at a serious disadvantage without the rogue (because GM has calculated the encounters in the adventure with several mid-CR traps). -- on the bright side, each of them have higher saving throw modifiers than single-classed PCs (because all of them have multi-classed), but the cleric is nearly out of spells, yet even after a good night's rest he could memorize 2nd level spells at best.
I think there're a lot of problems in how the current game mechanics work. Multiclassing leads often to "traps", and although such PCs may be fun to play, but they cannot survive at high levels for long (e.g. Fighter 6/Cleric 5/Monk 5) because magic items (and an occasional potion or scroll) may be the only way such a PC . Yet the game rules assume that he has access to high-level powers, and although he's technically a 16th level character, he's far behind in the 'Power Curve' from singleclassed PCs. He may have a better AC and saves and HPs than some of his party members, but he also needs better magic items to be able to *function* and survive in the game.
Likewise, in 3E pretty much all the bonuses scale horribly -- some feats grant static bonuses (e.g. Dodge, Iron Will, Weapon Focus, etc.) that do not scale with your level, and may end up being insignificant at higher levels. How about Saving Throws? Your rogue may be able to dodge fireballs, but how about his chances to save against DC 26 Fort or Will effect? And, furthermore, your fighter's +25 attack bonus may not be nearly enough to hit the BBEG's AC 43, and if the party has no powerful spellcasters, you're absolutely *screwed*. What's the "official" solution to this (which I perceive to be a problem)?
You need magic items and spells to make up for this, and I feel it's a terrible "fix" -- *especially* if you don't want to force players to pick spellcasting classes just because "the game assumes there's one wizard and one cleric in every party".
Sure, I, as GM, can "houserule" or "tweak" anything -- I could even rule that we would use 2D10 instead of D20 in my games or that every class gets a flat +4 to saving throws. But the thing is, the scope of changes in my game doesn't reflect into the 3E/PF society in general. If my players bring their characters to your game, you might need to spend an hour or even two to "convert" and re-equip them. I even once had a GM stripping my 20th level PC from *half* his gear, because they were "too powerful" -- the funny thing is, the NPCs that killed the whole party in the middle of the session had far more powerful stuff (and we had a single round to "buff" ourselves, which wasn't enough, as it turned out).
Finally, it *IS* possible to "recalculate" the numbers so that bonuses scale more in balance to the levels and spells and class features (and I'm not referring to the "absolute balance" 4E tried to achieve). And no, this wouldn't "ruin" the game -- if magic items were calculated as "extra" (rewarding) bonuses, but there would be less bonus types or a "cap" on how much bonuses you can stack with each other, I think we would end up with a more fun and "fair" game which required less "meta-gaming" and "optimization" but worked just as well with all sorts of "builds".
...have you seen a single adventure in which the author named all magic weapons, ...
Have I seen a single adventure where the author seriously gimped NPCs and party loot for their own personal perception of "realism", either? No. So I guess following your logic, it only makes sense to have flavorless magic items in great numbers. Thank you.
|
|
A bunch of well argued points. Sorry but quote function won't let me quote all of it.
Yes I'm saying the game balances well. My group are playing at level 18 in Age of Worms and they're functioning just fine. They've played all the way from levl 1 over the last two years and their characters have travelled well throughout the campaign.
Yes there are some minor tweaks that need looking at. I have never denied that aspect of this discussion. Feat irrelevence at higher levels has already been adressed in the feat playtest. Jason Buhlman indicated there will be either better feats for high level play or that certain feats will scale better. I agree with your point there.
I agree that multiclassing in certain ways is gimped. Partuclarly casters. However, the article I'm using to base my assumption on stated a number of functions to build on the fly. BAB + stat mod + gear or magic. So a deficiency in magic can be catered for by a replacement in gear. You don't need both, but its easier if you have it.
The biggest issue I had with higher level play was the complete loss of multiple attacks when fighting types moved more than 5 feet. That's been adressed in the combat playtest.
Many of the spells have been limited in their effectiveness. In otherwords, many of the problems you're stating have already been adressed in other areas. I don't want to see the fix put in place twice, which actually weakens the game.
In addition, you need to think about the effect changing some of these aspects has on the casters in your party. If you change weak saves so there is say a 40% pass rate (which I believe you're advocating), then 40% of the time your casters actions are going to be useless. I wonder how they feel about that. Now throw in magic gear on top of that. Remember that feats don't provide a bonus, they increase the inherent stat.
There is already a cap on how to buff saves etc, because gear and spells providing the sma e bonus type don't stack. You have to spread your gear. This makes things challenging. It should be challenging, that's what makes the game fun.
Swapping characters between games just highlights that homebrewing games need to balance carefully. Sure its a pain to strip a character down, but that's becasue you worked against the core rules. You have to live with that. If your characters get hardly any gear but the NPC's are fully geared, then that's poor game design. It doesn't fit the consistancy of your homebrew.
I think all there needs to be is a set of outlines for running low fantasy/low gear games that explains how it affects encounter design. The APl of your characters would have to be considered lower, and therefore encounter levels would need to be lowered as well. This type of addendum would help GM's design and run beter games and doesn't involve a rewrite of rules that affects everyones games.
I'm starting to say the same thing over and over now. I've tried to make my point, time to bow ut of this one.
Cheers
My mistake, misunderstood you on the first point. You mentioned they didn't need team work and I went from that.
No worries. My whole problem is that the only classes that you really need for a successful team right now are Wizards and Clerics, and the rest are just kind of... there?
Why would a smart opponent bother fighting summoned critters when the soft targets are there? Protection from spells prevent natural attacks from working so theres a whole raft of summoned critters than aren't much good to you.
Summon Lantern Archons and let them blast your enemy to death with laser beams. Keep them spread out and only have them close in as necessary to block movement and absorb hits.
Also, wanted to appologise as after reading my initial post I came off as sounding a bit aggressive and condesending, didn't mean to be. Sorry
Cheers
Once again, no worries.
"Good games have no magic shops"
So by default Eberron is a bad game?
I think the correct phrase here is "good games have magic shops that have limits on what can be bought". The Magic Shop is ultimately just another tool that the DM can use to distribute magical treasure. The trick is to be stingy with it so that players spend their cash in the game world to do cool things like build strongholds, buy their way into the nobility, and erect monuments and temples to their gods. You'll probably want to make magical items with a value of 25,000 GP or higher almost impossible to purchase without fulfilling a task (or tasks) for the crafter. That's when you start going from the Gold Economy to the Favor Economy.
But in Eberron, magical is EVERYWHERE and you can pretty much go nuts. It's a given that someone will end up with a Final Fantasy-style airship at some point in the campaign, and almost everyone will probably end up with some kind of Dragonmark-powered eldritch magical item that lets them melt people's faces.
a) If the item creation feats exist and are available, what is preventing NPCs from crafting magic items? If they are not prevented from crafting magic items, what is preventing them from selling some of them for money?
Economic and physical self-interest. You'd probably find a few spellcasters in the campaign world that are willing to craft minor magical items for the local nobles or for the usage of adventurers passing through, but most of them are going to refrain from making items any better then that. Magic is the power that makes the world go round after all, and when you're on the top Tier, the last thing you want to do is start creating and selling magical items that might help someone knock you off of your perch.
Instead, they would probably sell their skills as spellcasters and cast spells on demand rather then create items that can be used against them. That way they can make their clients happy, keep their magical power in their own hands, and maintain a scarcity of magical goods on the market, which helps keep prices high.
Most NPC spellcasters that spend their a good portion of their time churning out magical items are probably doing so because they are devout followers of a particular religion or a philosophy, and they are willing to spend their time and resources arming the faithful. Otherwise, you'd better be able to deliver on a pretty big favor to earn that Longsword +4...
I'd point out that in the Swashbuckling Adventures setting they did suggest the DM 'arranging' for rare/magical items to fall into the characters' hands as they hit the correct level. Using this system, it makes sense that Aragorn got the sword reforged when he did.
Plus they were all outfitted with elven cloaks, arguably a magic bow and knives, magic in the phial. Frodo also had a masterwork/magical sword and a mithral shirt on leaving Rivendel.
If you don't want 'mystic wal-mart' it still supports either customizing treasure to items they want/need, or changing adventures entirely to compensate
You hit the nail on the head with this post. The GM should be giving the players the treasure that they NEED, and then let the players buy a few piece of magical items that they WANT, and then have them spend the rest on other things that help flesh out their role in the campaign world.
Actually, what most people are trying to say is that the game, and creatures encountered at higher levels, are designed with an assumption the players will have bonuses to their stats that are level appropriate. 3.x provides bonuses to stats through magic (either spells or gear). The monetary system is merely an arbitrary way to track the power of the characters and helps to scale the power of the items they have at those levels accordingly.
The problem with this is that you end up with characters that have to wear certain specific sets of equipment in order to survive. Given the fact that "magical item diversity" is a Pathfinder design goal, it's going to be hard to reconcile "needing items" with "encouraging people to use oft-ignored magical items".
Perhaps it is. However, it's a bad idea IMO. Characters should be defined by their abilities and personalities, not their gear. I've seen far too many players who felt their PCs became worthless when their pet magic item was lost, destroyed, stolen, used up, etc.
I know, I abhorr the way it works too... sadly, chronical magic-item dependency and planned obsolence are both hardcoded into the system from the fact that a monter's CR is formulated for a party of 4, all outfitted with the respective treasure according to level, and the monster is assumed to be able to be defeated using 25% of a party's resources. Drop a "naked" lvl 9 party against a CR 9 monster and in the best case it will suck up all of the party's resources (forcing them to rest unless they want to die upon stumbling on a kobold), in the worst you get at least one guaranteed casualty.
Which is probably why I DESPISE the Christmas-Tree-Effect.
Amen, but then there's no use in keep beating on a dead horse, the designers are keeping the christmas-tree-effect and that's final, no if's, and's, or but's... backwards compatibility issues.
For alternatives, however, I recommend looking in the Covenant Items section of the Midnight game.
I Just had a though, after not reading this thread for a few days and then realizing there were 50 new posts!!
What about the Idea of a Feat (or feat tree) that allows the heroic characters to christen their weapons/armors/items with magical abilites.
LEts say: Name item (level 10th), allows character to assign unmagical item with some magic (plus one whatever) or maginify existing magic item (already plus one become falming or whatever)
Infuse item (15th level) (more powerful version
Greater infuse item (20th level) more powerful still
As the character levels he can take a weapon, armor or whatever along with him, allowing it to grow with him so like bilbos sting the fact that he named it sting and accepted it as his own, actually would give it more power or a differnt feature and so on.
It's just a concept, I dont have any mechanics down, but it should be pretty easy, no?
What about the Idea of a Feat (or feat tree) that allows the heroic characters to christen their weapons/armors/items with magical abilites.
That's what Covenant Items are about actually, items that grow as its owner does. It doesn't cost a feat per se, but it is only during a worthy enough moment that a character unconsciously imbues a weapon or armor or such into becoming a Covenant Item, and the GM rules on when the item gains new abilities, but the character chooses which ones, as long as they're within his character's concept.
The Wizard magazine also proposed a similar alternative some time ago, but this was more akin to the item creation feats, where the character invested XP in his weapon's abilities as soon as he wanted and could afford them.
|
|
...have you seen a single adventure in which the author named all magic weapons, ...Have I seen a single adventure where the author seriously gimped NPCs and party loot for their own personal perception of "realism", either? No. So I guess following your logic, it only makes sense to have flavorless magic items in great numbers. Thank you.
Um. That's all you have to say? Because following your logic, you're effectively deviating from the 'Wealth by Level' and 'Ecnounter Reward' -guidelines results in the NPCs and PCs being at a serious disadvantage (i.e. "gimped") against "standard" challenges, and eventually leads the game "breaking" at higher levels. Thanks for proving my point.
And as far as "flavourless" magic goes, you probably noticed that I add as much details and descriptions to the magic items as I'm only able to. If every magic item had a history and name in published adventures, that would affect the page count (and the cost and deadlines, too). If you, as GM, try to achieve that -- well, how many extra pages of text are you willing (and able) to write for every session?
Because following your logic, you're effectively deviating from the 'Wealth by Level' and 'Ecnounter Reward' -guidelines results in the NPCs and PCs being at a serious disadvantage (i.e. "gimped") against "standard" challenges, and eventually leads the game "breaking" at higher levels. Thanks for proving my point.
You have a point? Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about here. Where have I ever suggested something that goes against the guidelines for NPCs and PCs for gear?
And as far as "flavourless" magic goes, you probably noticed that I add as much details and descriptions to the magic items as I'm only able to. If every magic item had a history and name in published adventures, that would affect the page count (and the cost and deadlines, too). If you, as GM, try to achieve that -- well, how many extra pages of text are you willing (and able) to write for every session?
As much that is necessary to make the session enjoyable to all. If that means have to write a 12 page background on each item, so be it. Or maybe just a couple of quick details about each item is enough, and more can be expanded on later if the item becomes more important. You know like what a lot of people do for NPCs, how you might start with Bill Hardy town blacksmith (LN expert 6) and eventually end up with a whole background story about Mr. Hardy as the game progresses and he becomes more important.
|
|
Because following your logic, you're effectively deviating from the 'Wealth by Level' and 'Ecnounter Reward' -guidelines results in the NPCs and PCs being at a serious disadvantage (i.e. "gimped") against "standard" challenges, and eventually leads the game "breaking" at higher levels. Thanks for proving my point.You have a point? Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about here. Where have I ever suggested something that goes against the guidelines for NPCs and PCs for gear?
... I seem to have mistyped the first sentence, which should actually read: "Because following your logic, you're effectively saying that deviating from the 'Wealth by Level' and 'Encounter Reward' -guidelines results in the NPCs and PCs being at a serious disadvantage (i.e. "gimped") against "standard" challenges, and eventually leads the game "breaking" at higher levels. Isn't this your point here? And I'm arguing that if the game makes such basic assumptions that each party must include a cleric or a wizard (preferably both) whose spell selections always include certain "must-have" spells and every party member must have certain items to compensate for their "weaknesses", there's something flawed in the math behind the numbers. D&D should support all types of parties without the game becoming an excercise in optimizing party tactics and ability/spell/feat synergy and items (i.e. the more you "meta-game", the better and "smarter" you play).
As much that is necessary to make the session enjoyable to all. If that means have to write a 12 page background on each item, so be it. Or maybe just a couple of quick details about each item is enough, and more can be expanded on later if the item becomes more important. You know like what a lot of people do for NPCs, how you might start with Bill Hardy town blacksmith (LN expert 6) and eventually end up with a whole background story about Mr. Hardy as the game progresses and he becomes more important.
Are you, perchance, studying or working full-time? Because if you are, I wonder how you're able to do that and write material (adventures) for each session, and yet include 12-page backgrounds on each item? Most of us have a hard time with bringing decent adventure material (hence the apparent popularity of, say, Paizo's stand-alone and AP modules) to the game table. My campaigns typically have about 100+ minor and major NPCs (shopkeepers, PC "mentors"/superiors/allies/family members, guard captains, town drunks, farmers, etc.) with most of them having at least brief notes about personality and looks (and I write more as the campaign progresses). But magic items... sure, if we're talking about the Andurils or Excaliburs or Glamdrings of the campaign -- these are items that I write history about. The +1 long sword the gnoll captain is wielding? Or the +2 dagger the invoker minion uses as a "secondary" weapon? Uh... I think I've got enough work on detailing the campaign world and writing adventures. *If* the PCs want to know more about these items... sure, then it's a different story. But I don't want to write extra material "just in case" that the PCs might not even be interested to hear about.
Seriously, which is more important to you? A well-written campaign arc with interesting adventures, or mediocre stuff with brilliantly written magic item backgrouds your players are not interested in?
|
D&D should support all types of parties...
Well, it does, but the GM has to put in work if using published adventures, or roll his own, so to speak.
The game has, since AD&D and Holmes Basic, supported the idea of the "big four" being the core basis for the mechanics. 3x further added the concept of "WBL" to represent the typical amount of gear a party would need to tackle CR appropriate encounters.
If any of these elements are changed, the game will still support what you want to do, it will just take a bit more work to tailor the challenges to the party composition/magic level you want to play.
It isn't the system's job to cover every contingency, party makeup, or magic level. That's why we have GMs. D&D isn't all things to all people, which is why several other fantasy rpgs exist, but D&D IS what it is, and has been that for a long time, and continues to be more popular than the other systems, so why should it change the basic premise overmuch?
One day in 1974, a little box with three books appeared on store shelves. One day later, someone created houserules for that game.
Are you, perchance, studying or working full-time? Because if you are, I wonder how you're able to do that and write material (adventures) for each session, and yet include 12-page backgrounds on each item? Most of us have a hard time with bringing decent adventure material (hence the apparent popularity of, say, Paizo's stand-alone and AP modules) to the game table.
[sarcasm]
What's all this crap about "studying or working full-time? You should either be playing D&D or raiding with your World of Warcraft guild!
[/sarcasm]