I would like to ask what if anything is Pathfinder RPG doing to mitigate the dependence on magic items that manifests at high levels. I think this is an important issue that could and should be addressed at least to some extent.
Creative Director
|
I would like to ask what if anything is Pathfinder RPG doing to mitigate the dependence on magic items that manifests at high levels. I think this is an important issue that could and should be addressed at least to some extent.
This is a complex question, but rest assured, we're working on the solution to combat the dreaded "Christmas Tree Effect." One way we're doing this is by limiting the number of body slots that can be used for stat-boosting items. But that's only a band-aid, really...
The big thing we're working on to address this is to give the base classes more abilities at high level, and to create more balanced high-level foes for these characters to fight against. To a large extent, the need for so many high-level magic items is created by the fact that a high-level character in 3.5 that doesn't have the items simply doesn't have the staying power against foes with super high AC scores and impossible-to-save-against DCs for their abilities.
By balancing these monsters better, by giving high-level characters more options, and by adjusting pricing on some items, we're hoping to mitigate the magic item bloat.
In the end, of course, each game should have the amount of magic items the GM wants in the campaign, but by reducing the NEED for things like stat boosters and cloaks of resistance and whatnot, we hope to not only reduce the need for this dependance on magic items, but also get some of the more unusual and fun magic items back into "regular rotation" in the game.
I have a suggestion of what could be done to mitigate the problem at least somewhat.
The dependence on magic items at high levels stems primarily from the 'Big Six': http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070302a
Getting rid of all of them would be difficult, but I propose we at least get rid of Rings of Protection, since that does not entail any rebalancing, just a few changes.
Rings of Protection range from +1 to +5. Meanwhile, the general levels in Pathfinder grant something (a feat or an ability score increase), except levels 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18 (and 22 and every 4 levels thereafter if we consider levels beyond 20). That is conveniently enough a total of 5 levels that we can have grant some kind of bonus.
Hence, I propose that we eliminate the entire Deflection bonus category including Rings of Protection that grant this bonus and replace it with a cumulative +1 unnamed bonus to AC at 2nd level and every 4 levels thereafter for all characters. We would, of course, also need to readjust the 'wealth per level' guidelines, removing the requisite costs of rings of protection from the total wealth that characters are expected to have.
Note: This approach could potentially work for some other "Big Six" (now "Big Five", hehe) items and bonus categories, but in other cases it would cause more problems than with removing Rings of Protection and the Deflection bonus type. The next esiest would be Amulet of Natural armor or Cloak of Resistance, but it would be more intrusive into the system to remove those, so we should probably stick with just Rings of Protection.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I hope the answer is nothing. Magic items are part of the game, and I'm of the opinion that if you want to mitigate their use at high levels, that's an alternate system, and shouldn't be part of core.
I'm fine with changes that reduce the use of boring magic items that simply give another +x to (AC, ability scores, etc.) I think the change in the ability score booster items already does this somewhat by freeing up slots for more interesting items. Also, some of the other tweaks in the game make other static bonus items less necessary, as they provide additional bonuses themselves, such as improved AC from the dodge feat or the fighter armor training ability.
EDIT: Ninjaed by James!
|
Creative Director
|
I hope the answer is nothing. Magic items are part of the game, and I'm of the opinion that if you want to mitigate their use at high levels, that's an alternate system, and shouldn't be part of core.
I'm fine with changes that reduce the use of boring magic items that simply give another +x to (AC, ability scores, etc.) I think the change in the ability score booster items already does this somewhat by freeing up slots for more interesting items. Also, some of the other tweaks in the game make other static bonus items less necessary, as they provide additional bonuses themselves, such as improved AC from the dodge feat or the fighter armor training ability.
EDIT: Ninjaed by James!
My ninja skillz are as the WIND! (Not really sure what that means, honestly...)
But yeah; the steps we're taking, as I mention above, are ones that don't make magic item heavy games impossible. They're more hoping to make them more optional than anything else. If you play a magic item heavy game, you can adjust things by throwing more powerful foes at the PCs. But as the game currently stands, the implied baseline is too high.
We'll see how things work out, of course, but my hope is that we can make the game playable with less (or more varied) reliance on magic items, but still workable for groups who like having lots of items.
My ninja skillz are as the WIND!
Wow, your ninja-fu is amazing today! You already posted while I was composing my second post.
I'm fine with changes that reduce the use of boring magic items that simply give another +x to (AC, ability scores, etc.)
And that is precisely what I have in mind. It is these numerical items that make for high-level dependence on magic items - not the interesting items like Helm of Telepathy or the Flaming Sword. It is the numerical items I am gunning for (and even that not entirely - I just want to mitigate their necessity).
I would like to ask what if anything is Pathfinder RPG doing to mitigate the dependence on magic items that manifests at high levels. I think this is an important issue that could and should be addressed at least to some extent.This is a complex question, but rest assured, we're working on the solution to combat the dreaded "Christmas Tree Effect." One way we're doing this is by limiting the number of body slots that can be used for stat-boosting items. But that's only a band-aid, really...
The big thing we're working on to address this is to give the base classes more abilities at high level, and to create more balanced high-level foes for these characters to fight against. To a large extent, the need for so many high-level magic items is created by the fact that a high-level character in 3.5 that doesn't have the items simply doesn't have the staying power against foes with super high AC scores and impossible-to-save-against DCs for their abilities.
By balancing these monsters better, by giving high-level characters more options, and by adjusting pricing on some items, we're hoping to mitigate the magic item bloat.
In the end, of course, each game should have the amount of magic items the GM wants in the campaign, but by reducing the NEED for things like stat boosters and cloaks of resistance and whatnot, we hope to not only reduce the need for this dependance on magic items, but also get some of the more unusual and fun magic items back into "regular rotation" in the game.
Thank you for your answer. I am very happy to hear that this is being considered, as it is a very important issue for me. And you precisely understood what I meant by dependence on magical items - it is the numerical bonus items that cause this dependence, not the 'unusual and fun magic items', which I am in fact perfectly content with.
What we did is say that ability score increasing items do not exist. That usually frees up 6 slots at least that can be used for other more interesting items.
We end up having weaker characters than would otherwise be the case, but weakness is a relative thing. We don't use the CR charts to determine encounters, and the DM give XP when he feels like it as the story dictates, not based on what level we were as compared to the stuff we killed. So what if we fight a bad guy at 10th level, with our minimal stat increasing gear, that's technically a CR 7 monster, that a geared up 7th level group would also be challenged by? It's still a challenge to us, and still fun.
We also houseruled out of existence spells which give a bonus to ability scores. Bull's Strength, etc., don't exist.
As for saves, we decreed that no items can give a bonus to all saves. An item can give a bonus to either fortitude, will, or reflex. Not more than one. We also said that characters can get no more than a cumulative +5 to all saves for every 20 levels. so a 19th level guy can have +1 reflex, +2 fort, +2 will. Thats it. Or some combination that adds to +5. And we also houseruled out of existence buff spells for saves.
We also made caster level part of the saving throw formula for spell DC's. It makes no sense to me that a 30th level wizard's charm person cast on a 0 level peasant would not be more powerful than a 1st level wizard's charm person on the same peasant. Especially since we took away the source of the ability point stat bonus in a magic item. Even still, I don't think intelligence should count as much towards spell DC's as the raw power that a 30th level wizard has behind it, due to his being a 30th level wizard.
We use:
Spell DC's: 10 + spell level + attribute bonus, plus 1 for every 3 caster levels.
my 2 cents...
Joe
joethelawyer on ENWorld
|
|
I would like to ask what if anything is Pathfinder RPG doing to mitigate the dependence on magic items that manifests at high levels. I think this is an important issue that could and should be addressed at least to some extent.This is a complex question, but rest assured, we're working on the solution to combat the dreaded "Christmas Tree Effect." One way we're doing this is by limiting the number of body slots that can be used for stat-boosting items. But that's only a band-aid, really...
The big thing we're working on to address this is to give the base classes more abilities at high level, and to create more balanced high-level foes for these characters to fight against. To a large extent, the need for so many high-level magic items is created by the fact that a high-level character in 3.5 that doesn't have the items simply doesn't have the staying power against foes with super high AC scores and impossible-to-save-against DCs for their abilities.
By balancing these monsters better, by giving high-level characters more options, and by adjusting pricing on some items, we're hoping to mitigate the magic item bloat.
In the end, of course, each game should have the amount of magic items the GM wants in the campaign, but by reducing the NEED for things like stat boosters and cloaks of resistance and whatnot, we hope to not only reduce the need for this dependance on magic items, but also get some of the more unusual and fun magic items back into "regular rotation" in the game.
Thank you, I am so glad this is being addressed and I look forward to seeing how you Pathfinder folks spin it to make it work.
If your encounters are balanced differently, the need for magic items should be less important.
It's not necessarily adressed by some rule changes.
I have a suggestion of what could be done to mitigate the problem at least somewhat.
The dependence on magic items at high levels stems primarily from the 'Big Six': http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070302a
Getting rid of all of them would be difficult, but I propose we at least get rid of Rings of Protection, since that does not entail any rebalancing, just a few changes.
<snip>
Hence, I propose that we eliminate the entire Deflection bonus category including Rings of Protection that grant this bonus and replace it with a cumulative +1 unnamed bonus to AC at 2nd level and every 4 levels thereafter for all characters. We would, of course, also need to readjust the 'wealth per level' guidelines, removing the requisite costs of rings of protection from the total wealth that characters are expected to have.
I would not advocate getting rid of Rings of Protection. They are D&D icons. Iconoclasm is 4e's bag.
But I think there is some wisdom in getting rid of the deflection bonus. I kind of like the idea of named bonuses and ones with the same name not stacking. That's great. And I'm pretty sure it stems from trying to figure out how to get spells that were traditionally cumulative like bless, chant, and prayer to continue to work together while also providing a stable and easily understood way to explain the intricate ways that rings of protection, magic armor, and cloaks of protection worked together.
But the proliferation of bonuses has also been a pain in the butt and leads to people coming up with oddball stuff to add more stacking bonuses, things that sit in different slots, and a general proliferation of magic items that PCs feel they must have.
My suggestion would be to label anything coming from magic - spells, magic items - as magic bonuses and not let them stack. Then things like rings and cloaks of protection can go back to doing double duty - adding to both saves and AC - and neither cloaks nor rings would work together just like back in 1e. Now, you could have something improve your overall defenses again but you'd get the choice which slot to cover instead of getting one for each slot.
Ultimately, the problem with the Big 6 is that they are too easy to pursue as a strategy. In 1e-2e, the items were just as attractive (when they existed - no amulet of natural armor and no difference between cloaks and rings, so really a big 4) but there was no really good way to pursue them as a strategy since magic item creation was so much harder. 3e made magic item creation too easy and so the Big 6 became an extremely powerful strategy. The items themselves are all well and good. I like the expansion of stat-boosters away from just Girdles of Giant Strength and Gauntlets of Dexterity because they offer PCs with weak rolled stats ways to improve their lots in life. They're great compensators for a bad roll or two. I think it may have been a mistake to divide rings and cloaks the way they did since it meant that the one item everyone craved now became two. But overall, the Big 6 aren't problematic in themselves so much as they are problematic in an overall strategy of magic item accumulation - a player-driven strategy.
I don't think there is a problem so much with required magic items but with experience. What is considered a challenge greatly depends on the magic items a party has. A fight with no magic items against a monster could be incredibly challenging even if the monster is low CR than than the players. The reverse is true too.
The solution is to have a base line of monster at CR based on players with no magic items. Then have a chart for experience based on the monster CR and Magical Inventory of the party. I'd set no magic, low magic, middle magic and high magic columns. IF you party is fully equipped for their level with magic items it's high magic.
CR Base XP Low(75%) MED(50%) High(25%)
1 400 300 200 100
2 600 450 300 150
3 800 600 400 200
4 1,200 800 600 300
5 1,600 1200 800 400
6 2,400 1800 1200 600
7 3,200 2400 1600 800
8 4,800 3600 2400 1200
9 6,400 4800 3200 1600
10 9,600 7200 4800 2400
Ok this is just example and yeah it doesn't work right as the magic is factored into the current levels already but it show's how I'd do it. The base is no magic what so ever. You'd then judge based on the items the players have if they fit into low, medium or high for magic items they have. The cross reference the CR level with the appropriate column to find the XP.
Doing it this way means you could to any level of magic in the game with no expectation of players having the right magic items. The game would progress right with the challenging monsters for what ever level of magic you had. You'd just have to base the CR of the monster off no magic. Now if the players were equipped with high magic at 1st level they should reasonably be able to fight a CR 5 monster gaining what they would have gained if they had no magic at 1st level.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Here's my thoughts on rings of protection. In 1st and 2nd editions, they gave a bonus to AC and saving throws, but 3E split that out into rings of protection and cloaks of resistance. What if PRPG changed them back so that they provided a deflection bonus to AC and a resistance bonus to saves, and increased the price accordingly? This would free up the cloak slot for all the interesting cloaks out there that most PCs never use because they can't go without the resistance bonus to saves, similar to how ability boosters are now consolidated to belts and headgear.
The AoW adventure path is littered with stat boosting items. There must be at least 20 Gloves of Dexterity +2 alone!
I think that stat boosting magic items are the most "necessary" magic items at high level, along with cloaks of resistance being a close second.
Not backwards compatible, but:
Going forward, I'm planning on eliminating stat boosting magic items for the most part in my campaign. (got to keep Gauntlets of Ogre Power of course...) Instead, I'm planning on having ability point progression built into level progression with each level after 1st granting +1 point to any ability of the player's choice for a total of 19 additional points. A necessary rule is that you can't raise any one ability 2 levels in a row. It works out to the equivalent of having two +6 stat boosting items along with your regular ability point progression (one at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th). I don't think it's mere coincidence that, this seems to be about the average amount of "stat boost" for our high level PCs.
It seems to be a much more favorable solution to increasing ability scores than the stat boosting item approach, with freeing up space for the interesting magic items.
Here's my thoughts on rings of protection. In 1st and 2nd editions, they gave a bonus to AC and saving throws, but 3E split that out into rings of protection and cloaks of resistance. What if PRPG changed them back so that they provided a deflection bonus to AC and a resistance bonus to saves, and increased the price accordingly? This would free up the cloak slot for all the interesting cloaks out there that most PCs never use because they can't go without the resistance bonus to saves, similar to how ability boosters are now consolidated to belts and headgear.
This, coupled with my suggestion above might possibly really open up magic item option significantly.
And actually, my idea might be more backwards compatible than I think... what if most stat boosting items in published adventures were converted to monetary treasure? In other words, those Gloves of Dexterity +2 become 100pp and a 1,000gp gem? I'd bet more often than not, this conversion will make NPC stats be equivalent assuming the change.
Here's my thoughts on rings of protection. In 1st and 2nd editions, they gave a bonus to AC and saving throws, but 3E split that out into rings of protection and cloaks of resistance. What if PRPG changed them back so that they provided a deflection bonus to AC and a resistance bonus to saves, and increased the price accordingly? This would free up the cloak slot for all the interesting cloaks out there that most PCs never use because they can't go without the resistance bonus to saves, similar to how ability boosters are now consolidated to belts and headgear.
That would have the benefit of making amulets of natural armor cheaper in comparison, while The bonus from an amulet of natural armor would still not be as good as a deflection bonus from a ring of protection.
Don't nerf or remove any of the "Big 6", nerf the monsters so that the items aren't as necessary.
I would not advocate getting rid of Rings of Protection. They are D&D icons. Iconoclasm is 4e's bag.
I'm willing to sacrifice a Sacred Cow to make for a better game system. But I'm not sure that this is the solution. I'd prefer to see how the PRPG team wants to re-balance the monsters, classes, and spells to reduce magic item dependence before tossing out certain kinds of magical items.
But that being said, people are always interested in accumulating more power, regardless of whether they need it or not. The Item Creation Feats in particular are rife with potential for player abuse. I'm interested in seeing if there will be any caveats in the new Item Creation rules that will make it more difficult for Wizards and Clerics to turn themselves into Magic Item Factories.
Don't nerf or remove any of the "Big 6", nerf the monsters so that the items aren't as necessary.
The problem with that is that PCs will still have the Big 6 whenever possible in order to open up a six-pack of whoop-@ss on the monsters that much more easily.
Don't nerf or remove any of the "Big 6", nerf the monsters so that the items aren't as necessary.The problem with that is that PCs will still have the Big 6 whenever possible in order to open up a six-pack of whoop-@ss on the monsters that much more easily.
The answer to that is for the DM to be throwing more powerful monsters at the PCs, but not giving them more XP, because the monster won't be harder to kill.
Or you can have a bit of a sidebar somewhere in the monster book that tells DMs to increase the power of the monsters (but not CR) if the PCs insist on "blinging themselves out like a magical Christmas tree."
Or you can have a bit of a sidebar somewhere in the monster book that tells DMs to increase the power of the monsters (but not CR) if the PCs insist on "blinging themselves out like a magical Christmas tree."
Blinging themselves out, for some players, is part of the point of the game.
Personally, I tend to use magic items to cover shortfalls, and rarely concentrate on breaking characters purely through using those (much better to pay for permanised spells if you want to do that...)
Depending on the campaign, the way it is run and the freedom of shopping players are allowed, will determine how they turn up to the big fights.
Its not essential. Sure, some classes rely on magic items to aid them against certain foes (fighters being the classic example) because their role dictates it somewhat (especially in the older systems, with monsters having a hundred different types of damage reduction that only through buying the correct gear could you hope to overcome).
Fact is, give a player the ability to max out their character, and no matter how reserved they may be, they will do it. If you find it is effecting your game too much find a way to 'invoke the metroid clause'* and start from scratch. If they are high enough, competant enough players anyway, they should be able to cope with this anyway.
Always using randomly generated items, and vetting the results, is in my experience one of the easiest ways to prevent the same old setup from occuring on everyone, and means the players have to use what is at hand. Sometimes this can prove more fruitful than plannig and buying everything ahead. If they really want something, make them quest for it, if you think they deserve it.
Thats my 2 copper anyhow.
Stu
*'invoke the metroid clause': An event whereby someone who has been running around able to do and use everything one minute suddenly has a catastrophic accident and is stripped down to the bare basics. Finding them all again in a drawn out, non-linear adventure facing huge bosses and annoying jumpy bits is optional.
|
I hope the answer is nothing. Magic items are part of the game, and I'm of the opinion that if you want to mitigate their use at high levels, that's an alternate system, and shouldn't be part of core.
I'm fine with changes that reduce the use of boring magic items that simply give another +x to (AC, ability scores, etc.) I think the change in the ability score booster items already does this somewhat by freeing up slots for more interesting items. Also, some of the other tweaks in the game make other static bonus items less necessary, as they provide additional bonuses themselves, such as improved AC from the dodge feat or the fighter armor training ability.
EDIT: Ninjaed by James!
My ninja skillz are as the WIND! (Not really sure what that means, honestly...)
But yeah; the steps we're taking, as I mention above, are ones that don't make magic item heavy games impossible. They're more hoping to make them more optional than anything else. If you play a magic item heavy game, you can adjust things by throwing more powerful foes at the PCs. But as the game currently stands, the implied baseline is too high.
We'll see how things work out, of course, but my hope is that we can make the game playable with less (or more varied) reliance on magic items, but still workable for groups who like having lots of items.
Maybe a slight "boost" to saving throws, at least for the "melee" classes? Or Feats that scale up better with levels (e.g. +2 "static" bonus and +1 per 5 levels)? Maybe even Action Points as re-rolls, or 'Save Ends'-type of mechanic (from 4E) for all "save-or-suck"-effects?
At the moment, the characters are totally dependant on either "buffs" or magic items -- more and more as they progress towards higher levels. In a typical campaign (i.e. in a campaign in which the GM doesn't adjust the numbers) they will be "penalized" if they do not have an access to magic items and "buffs". But if the base math/expectations will be changed a bit, and the obligatory dependancy on "counters", "buffs" and/or magic items will be removed, I think high-level play will be more enjoyable all across the board. That way PCs who are prepared and use "buffs" will actually be *rewarded* for it, instead of just "offsetting" the "penalties". And the PCs who are not potion-addicts or "MagicMart" VIP customers won't face "impossible" odds -- challenging, maybe, but not impossible.
I just wish that my fighter could once again, well, *fight* without the fear of being removed from combat on the first or second round by a high-DC 'save-or-die' or 'save-or-suck' effect.
To a certain degree the need more magic items come from fighting high-magic creatures and whatnot. Would a 15th-level human fighter need a bunch of magic stuff against a 15th-level Orc Fighter (switch the class and race accordingly for whatever angel it needs be seen), by the general look of things the answer would be: not really.
Now if your fighting something that’s meant to terrify an entire continent single-handedly (a very old dragon for instance) then of course you aren’t going win just with your skivvies and a pointy stick.
I wonder if part of the ‘Christmas tree’ thing is simply the fact that many players constantly go up against very magical (and generally powerful) monsters without actually going up against anything more down to earth (like a villain from the base races or other LA 0 creatures).
But even if you ‘do’ limit then people will still want them (for whatever reason they may) and they will acquire them by whatever means available. Though I don’t have access to this new bestiary (if it’s out yet) I would love to see these new changes.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
To a certain degree the need more magic items come from fighting high-magic creatures and whatnot. Would a 15th-level human fighter need a bunch of magic stuff against a 15th-level Orc Fighter (switch the class and race accordingly for whatever angel it needs be seen), by the general look of things the answer would be: not really.
Now if your fighting something that’s meant to terrify an entire continent single-handedly (a very old dragon for instance) then of course you aren’t going win just with your skivvies and a pointy stick.
I wonder if part of the ‘Christmas tree’ thing is simply the fact that many players constantly go up against very magical (and generally powerful) monsters without actually going up against anything more down to earth (like a villain from the base races or other LA 0 creatures).
But even if you ‘do’ limit then people will still want them (for whatever reason they may) and they will acquire them by whatever means available. Though I don’t have access to this new bestiary (if it’s out yet) I would love to see these new changes.
Much as I agree with your POV, as you reach higher levels humanoid opponents are just not as threatening to PC's because they don't have enough firepower without high level spells or gear and NPC's just don't have the wealth for it by the RAW.
Example: Maure Castle. By 10th to 12th level my PC's were mopping up the Seeker guards and their captains with little to no effort. In fact I found through out the entirely of that campaign that my most numerous foes, humans and gnolls were defintely outclassed by mid levels. The TIG, the Tyrgs, and the Traps were more formidible than the Seekers on the first two levels...
Example: Serpents of Scuttlecove. The pirates, yuan-ti, and bar-lgura of the Wreck weren't much of a fight. Only the Abomination, the Death Slaad's animated Gate (gargantuan animated obbject), the Orlath and the Orb of the Deep were much of a challenge.
In fact it's quite funny to hear my players say oh look another +1 cloak of resistance or another +1 ring of protection. I think the MIC took a good step in allowing the big six to be easily mixed into interesting items like Vanishers cloaks and the like...
--Vrocket Science.
Or you can have a bit of a sidebar somewhere in the monster book that tells DMs to increase the power of the monsters (but not CR) if the PCs insist on "blinging themselves out like a magical Christmas tree."
The players have a set of constraints on their gear. Wealth and body slots being the biggies (and you can ignore the body slots if you have enough wealth).
The DM has a huge amount of control over one of those constraints. If PCs are getting too blingy then you cut back on treasure until they are back in balance.
The other side of the problem is the cost/ benefit breakdown on individual items. If an item isn't as appealing as a stat booster or AC booster then it won't get picked up. If you want more stat boosters in your game you give them out as treasure and keep the price low. Vise versa if you want the players to use stat boosters as much.
By balancing these monsters better, by giving high-level characters more options, and by adjusting pricing on some items, we're hoping to mitigate the magic item bloat.
And now I'm Pathfinder's biggest fan again.
As a DM (and a stingy DM at that), I can NOT give my PCs as many magic items as I don't want to. I'm not so much worried about them getting their hands on too much magic as I am in making sure they can face the opponents they're expected to face when I've decreased their magic item libraries. If the PFRPG solution is to balance monsters to characters with less gear, I'm all for it.
An idea I'd considered if only for the sake of simplicity, was to forget about typed enhancements and just call them all non-stacking. A +2 belt of strength and a spell that gives +4 to strength would, in the end, only give a +4 to strength. Not only would I not have to worry about monitoring which effects stack and which don't, but it kills the need to have multiple stat-boosting items.
The only roadblock, like I said, was never being sure if they'd survive a level-appropriate encounter. My game-mechanic knowledge is thin.
Maybe a slight "boost" to saving throws, at least for the "melee" classes? Or Feats that scale up better with levels (e.g. +2 "static" bonus and +1 per 5 levels)? Maybe even Action Points as re-rolls, or 'Save Ends'-type of mechanic (from 4E) for all "save-or-suck"-effects?
Recovery Saves would REALLY go a long way towards resolving problems with the Save-Or-Suck spells. They provide a mechanic that balances these spells while simultaneously giving players enough wiggle room so that they can actually consider using items that DON'T provide saving throw bonuses. Maybe the Cape Of The Mountebank might actually get used for once!
I just wish that my fighter could once again, well, *fight* without the fear of being removed from combat on the first or second round by a high-DC 'save-or-die' or 'save-or-suck' effect.
And the funny thing is that there are people on this forum that consider it perfectly reasonable for your Fighter to have zero chance of resisting Dominate Person/Monster without having a party member there to dispel the effect. Serves you right - you should have played a Cleric! :lol:
I suggest harkening back to the old days of the game to examine what one would commonly expect to see.
"RAW" dictates a certain gp value of items per player character, as an average, be in each character's possession to reasonably 'deal' with the encounters they expect to face.
The problem with the Beta is that the "swag per character" is HIGHER than in 3.5...
There are a lot of interesting solutions that have been proposed, not just in this thread or during the Beta test but over the past years. One example is the Vow of Poverty from the Book of Exalted Deeds, giving a structured series of bonuses and abilities as the character advanced in character level.
Perhaps an assessment of what is expected to be "on hand" is available by character level, how much of that is going to be dispellable (as opposed to supressable) or only supressable (as with magic items) can be derived?
Structure the "always on" expectations into the core classes, or into the "opening statement" [all characters gain XYZ over the course of levels 1 - 20] as a series of abilities.
The balance of the equation can be equated to gear.
Thoughts?
here's the thing i've been thinking on this.
the reason small (and smaller) characters get pluses to hit, and AC is because they balance each other out when a small character faces off against a small character, but they are harder for a medium character to hit. creating a wash of sorts. i think doing this with classes could be the same. you get a bonus to your ac on the same scale as your bab. stop all bonuses to stats from gear past +2, and all bonuses to hit/damage/ac past +5 and then limit the +5 only to weapons/armor, with the exception of things like bracers of AC which max out at +8 (which is the same as unenchanted full plate)
this would create a game where spells provide bigger bonuses and a fighter fighting a fighter would be on the same scale. monsters would have the same bonuses/restrictions.
you could even, though this would complicate things, have the have the BDB (Base defense bonus) reduce down just like BAB.
As I see it, the game is already very nearly balanced no matter whether you play with Christmas tree magic items, or play with almost no magic items.
One DM puts a party of 5 18th level PCs into a level-appropriate dungeon. These PCs have loads of magic items. Classic D&D style.
Another DM puts a party of 5 18th level PCs into the same dungeon, but these PCs have very little in the way of magic items. Lord of the Rings style.
First room is a CR18 dragon.
One group is readily able to deal with this dragon, the other is not.
Or is that true?
Remember, not everything about that dragon is fixed in stone. That dragon has to roll for HP just like everyone else.
It's very easy for the first DM to play the dragon with an average of 8 HP per HD, and the second DM to play the dragon with an average of 4 HP per HD. Same dungeon, same dragon, just one minor change.
The first DM is playing the game as written, handing out magic items in accordance with the wealth-by-level tables. In return, he doesn't need to modify this dungeon to run it.
The second DM has chosen to play a magic-less (or nearly so) game. It's his choice. He should be prepared to tweak a few numbers from time to time to tone down the challenge.
Tweaking HP/HD is extremely easy.
That should be enough, and completely within the rules as written. But if it's not enough, dropping a few points off the dragon's to-hit modifier and damage dice is pretty easy too - though this does go outside of the core RAW. But again, he's already drifted away from the RAW with his limited magic, and he's already tweaking the dungeon to remove almost all of the magic items from the treasure hoards, so drifting away on the other side of the balance seems a fair compensation.
**************************
I think it's a mistake to try to cater to both worlds. Either go with the magic item Christmas tree, or don't.
But don't try to make a system that works for both ideals.
It may, however, be possible to find a bit of a middle road. Less magic per level, but still a decent amount of magic per level without turning high-level characters into a walking Tiffany's of magic items.
That way it might even be fairly backward-compatible with all the countless printed 3.x adventures out there.
All good points
good point
One DM puts a party of 5 18th level PCs into a level-appropriate dungeon. These PCs have loads of magic items. Classic D&D style.
Another DM puts a party of 5 18th level PCs into the same dungeon, but these PCs have very little in the way of magic items. Lord of the Rings style.
First room is a CR18 dragon.
One group is readily able to deal with this dragon, the other is not.
Or is that true?
Not true for your example, because the dragon's CR is based off a party of 4 PCs, not 5. The loaded party in this case is likely to walk all over the dragon, the bare-bones party will have to fight harder, and may suffer a death, but will still kill the dragon.
Remember, not everything about that dragon is fixed in stone. That dragon has to roll for HP just like everyone else.
It's very easy for the first DM to play the dragon with an average of 8 HP per HD, and the second DM to play the dragon with an average of 4 HP per HD. Same dungeon, same dragon, just one minor change.
Actually, I believe most monsters are assumed to use Average HP per Hit Die. Meaning the dragon would get 6.5 hp per HD.
Though it is legal for a DM to reduce the HP of the monster, but I personally would find it annoying to have to do that with every monster (or even roll HP for each monster) or face a TPK.
Tweaking HP/HD is extremely easy.
As is throwing in a lower CR monster and giving a bit more XP if it's as challenging to the no-gear party as the CR 18 is to the loaded party, or vice-versa.
That should be enough, and completely within the rules as written. But if it's not enough, dropping a few points off the dragon's to-hit modifier and damage dice is pretty easy too - though this does go outside of the core RAW. But again, he's already drifted away from the RAW with his limited magic, and he's already tweaking the dungeon to remove almost all of the magic items from the treasure hoards, so drifting away on the other side of the balance seems a fair compensation.
What several people who have posted here seem to want isn't lower/limited magic items, but lowered dependence on having the highest rated magic armor, weapon, stat boosters, rings of protection, amulets of natural armor and cloaks of protection.
Keep those items available, but make it so that players either aren't, or don't feel like they are, weaker than they should be.
I think it's a mistake to try to cater to both worlds. Either go with the magic item Christmas tree, or don't.
But don't try to make a system that works for both ideals.
Why not? I don't see how having the system has to be focused on one of the options to the exclusion of the other. I think if Paizo simply repriced some items (the cloak of resistance should probably be worth more than a ring of protection, IMO), and toned down the power of higher level monsters to make bonuses to AC, BAB, Damage, Saves, etc. less necessary, that it would actually satisfy the largest number of people.
DMs who still don't find the option satisfactory would then actually have less work than at present to modify monsters up or down to fit the power of their group.
I think it was a big mistake by WotC to assume that every group will (or should) have the highest rated versions of the "Big 6" and base their CR system off of that.
Why not? I don't see how having the system has to be focused on one of the options to the exclusion of the other. I think if Paizo simply repriced some items (the cloak of resistance should probably be worth more than a ring of protection, IMO), and toned down the power of higher level monsters to make bonuses to AC, BAB, Damage, Saves, etc. less necessary, that it would actually satisfy the largest number of people.
DMs who still don't find the option satisfactory would then actually have less work than at present to modify monsters up or down to fit the power of their group.
I think it was a big mistake by WotC to assume that every group will (or should) have the highest rated versions of the "Big 6" and base their CR system off of that.
You can only balance a game when you are working under the assumption that everyone is "playing to win" and will use everything at their disposal to achieve victory in an encounter. If you balance the game against parties in sub-optimal gear, then parties that DO have optimal gear (the Big 6) will just tear through everything they come across like it was wet Kleenex.
The only options are to 1) remove the Big 6 or 2) assume it's the norm and balance accordingly. But if the Big 6 stays, then we're back to the same old cookie-cutter equipment builds we started with.
Jason has said that they want to take focus off of the Big 6 in an attempt to encourage players to use magical items. But saying it and doing it are two very different things indeed. It's going to be a tough job, methinks.
Excuse my ignorance, but what are "the Big Six" mentioned here?
Thanks a lot :)
You can only balance a game when you are working under the assumption that everyone is "playing to win" and will use everything at their disposal to achieve victory in an encounter. If you balance the game against parties in sub-optimal gear, then parties that DO have optimal gear (the Big 6) will just tear through everything they come across like it was wet Kleenex.The only options are to 1) remove the Big 6 or 2) assume it's the norm and balance accordingly. But if the Big 6 stays, then we're back to the same old cookie-cutter equipment builds we started with.
Jason has said that they want to take focus off of the Big 6 in an attempt to encourage players to use magical items. But saying it and doing it are two very different things indeed. It's going to be a tough job, methinks.
This get to be an even bigger issue if within the same group of players, some are enthusiastically going on the big 6 road where others prefer more flavorful items. Even if ultimately the player is responsible for dragging behind in the race for high attack/AC/saves, it creates nightmarish DMing situations where an encounter is either not a challenge for some or a death sentence for the others.
By balancing these monsters better, by giving high-level characters more options, and by adjusting pricing on some items, we're hoping to mitigate the magic item bloat.
Do you have any other strategy for reducing item dependence? Because honestly, I don't think that's going to cut it. If high level foes are balanced against non-6ed-out PCs, it doesn't make the Big 6 any less desirable to players. It just changes the purpose of the Big 6 from "must have to consistently survive level-appropriate challenges" to "best way to consistently breeze through level-appropriate challenges like so much angel cake."
I don't think jacking up their pricing will help either, at least not the way you intend. Either the price raise won't be enough to deter players from seeking out the Big 6 before everything else, or it'll be so much that the Big 6 will become like 3e's lame +6 "artifacts" that nobody cares about. I suppose the second scenario might actually be what you're trying to accomplish, but then why even have any of the Big 6 in the game at all? Gamers generally agree that the Big 6 are the least exciting "magical" items of the hoard, so why not go the whole nine yards and just cut them out of the game?
The only other really good way of eliminating item dependence that I've found is to actually grant Big 6 bonuses via level advancement instead of magical items.
Thoughts?
TS
I oppose merging the physical and mental attribute enhancers into two body slots, because this makes them more favourable to caster types, who heavily depend on one mental stat and need only one or two physical stats to do well.
Fighter types normally need all three physical stats to do well, which puts them at a distinct disadvantage.
But on to my main point...
To combat the christmas tree problem without having to re-do all the monster stats, I´d prefer a system where PCs gain attribute enhancements, resistance bonuses to saves and dodge bonuses to AC at certain levels, due to their gain of experience.
That way you could eliminate all the attribute enhancers, deflection rings, natural armor amulets and resistance cloaks, which also works well with the idea that players get magic items in those slots which have fun and interesting effects.
A system like this would necessitate a re-work of the wealth per level the characters gain, to take into account the now missing items, but I´d think that this would be much easier than reworking all the stat blocks of monsters.
If this is not in the cards as the main system, I´d think offering it as an alternative option would be nice... some groups would probably like a less magic-item dependent campaign.
The only other really good way of eliminating item dependence that I've found is to actually grant Big 6 bonuses via level advancement instead of magical items.Thoughts?
TS
I don't think that will work unless the actual items that are the Big 6 are removed as well... and so are the spells used to offer the same bonuses. Because unless you do both of those, characters will just use the magic item creation rules to make them, ushering the Big 6 right back in.
The problem, as I see it, is easy magic item creation or purchase. When you can make your own stuff or easily find people to make it, you pursue the cost effective items that you use a lot rather than the more flavorful quirky stuff. As long as that stays in the game, expect there to be some form of the Big 6.
For me, the problem is not that the big six are necessary, but also that they are boring. I mean, really, catastrophically dull. How many in-game ways can you really describe that an item makes you harder to hurt, before one must resort to "stacking bonus types."
Bringing the monsters in line with PCs lacking the big six is a start. I would appreciate a sidebar in the running section that explains the significance of these items in the design, and how to circumvent them entirely if desired. I desire to do so, and I think many others might.
|
The dependence on magic items at high levels stems primarily from the 'Big Six': http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070302a
The outcome of that article was the 4e magic item system which has some merit. All stat items are tossed, because they clearly have too much power (and by power that is their value vs other items in the same slot.) The second thing they did was assign certain base bonuses to each slot, a neck slot would say give you +saves (or defenses in 4e land.) Then the item would have a special ability, and a level associated with it. If you had a amulet of mind shielding, it might be a lvl 10 item, so that would give you the affects of mind shielding, and a +2 resistance bonus to your 3 saves.
It is kind of how armor works today, all armor has a + to AC and then you budget up to 5+'s worth of abilities. We may have to fiddle with character wealth and item costs but if every slot was approached with the same idea where the slot addresses one of the big 6, and then adds abilities on top. It brings the flavour and situational items back into play.
What are the big 6 everyone mentions.
Maybe it's the style of game we play and no one really optimizes that much but plays the characters based on concept over min maxing. Or maybe we be using the Big 6 and just never called them that. I have some guesses on what they are but what is the official big 6?
The outcome of that article was the 4e magic item system which has some merit. ... We may have to fiddle with character wealth and item costs but if every slot was approached with the same idea where the slot addresses one of the big 6, and then adds abilities on top. It brings the flavour and situational items back into play.
The only way I can imagine to keep backward compatibility AND dethrone the big six is to include an option for Big Six as level dependent benefits and allow GMs to remove them from the game entirely. It's not that complicated, and it will satisfy the people who are truly upset by this.
What are the big 6 everyone mentions.
I think this one's been explained already. On the same page you asked the question. Here.
Anyway, one method of dethroning the big six would be to make other items more powerful, so grabbing a stat booster wouldn't necessarily be the best choice all the time.
The only other really good way of eliminating item dependence that I've found is to actually grant Big 6 bonuses via level advancement instead of magical items.
Thoughts?
TS
I'm already planning on doing this in my campaign going forward by giving PCs +1 ability point per level. (for a total of 19 points over 20 levels) The only rule I see needed to balance it is that you can't add a point to an ability 2 levels in a row. A character can raise one score up to a max of 10 points over 20 levels. Stat boosting items are for the most part gone... I'm thinking of only keeping only the +2 stat boosters.
Backwards compatibility isn't a big concern for me, but I think it's a simple matter in looking at stat blocks in old material: keep the ability scores of the NPCs, and convert the stat boosting items to monetary treasure (gems, jewelry). I'm willing to bet in most cases, it'll be very close to what the stats would look like under my new method. If you assume NPCs roll for scores (that's how our group plays at least) instead of having the elite array, then I bet discrepancies would be almost non-existent. (though I haven't actually researched it... the AoW campaign is rife with NPCs with all sorts of stat boosters and I may experiment with converting some of them over to see how and if it works)
Making the ring of protection how it was in older editions opens up yet another item slot.
These 2 changes would free up shoulders, hands, waist, and head for more interesting items.
As far as the weapons and armor being part of the big 6... I don't think they are much of a problem as those items are already very customizable and I often find players voluntarily stick with lower enhancement bonuses to get the add-on powers. At the higher levels, the players rely on greater magic weapon and magic vestment to compensate for lower bonuses.
|
|
The only way I can imagine to keep backward compatibility AND dethrone the big six is to include an option for Big Six as level dependent benefits and allow GMs to remove them from the game entirely. It's not that complicated, and it will satisfy the people who are truly upset by this.
The outcome of that article was the 4e magic item system which has some merit. ... We may have to fiddle with character wealth and item costs but if every slot was approached with the same idea where the slot addresses one of the big 6, and then adds abilities on top. It brings the flavour and situational items back into play.
The Magic Item Compendium gave one the cost of adding the stat buffs to other items, basically saying you could have your boots of striding and spring of dexterity +6. Or your great reach bracers of strength etc.
It is very similar to the pathfinder rules that let you add additional abilities to items at 50% more cost. So now that I think about it, I think the pathfinder rules solves the problem by letting you stack your items how ever you like.
You can have your diadam of +6 to all mental stats + something
your belt of +6 to all physical stats +something,
your amulet of +5 natural armor + something
your cloak of +5 resistance +something
and your ring of protection +5 and something.
Weapons and Armor are already enchantable up to an effective +10(max 5 bonus.) Now all we need is to start killing dragons and getting the money to make all this stuff.
I don't think that will work unless the actual items that are the Big 6 are removed as well... and so are the spells used to offer the same bonuses. Because unless you do both of those, characters will just use the magic item creation rules to make them, ushering the Big 6 right back in.
The only other really good way of eliminating item dependence that I've found is to actually grant Big 6 bonuses via level advancement instead of magical items.Thoughts?
TS
How so? If my fighter has a +5 enhancement bonus to all attack and damage rolls, there's really no use in making a +5 sword. There will still be corner-case uses for stat boosters, but I think that's okay.
Not that I'm opposed to simply ripping the Big 6 & related paraphernalia completely out of the game, but I don't think it's strictly necessary.
TS
One DM puts a party of 5 18th level PCs into a level-appropriate dungeon. These PCs have loads of magic items. Classic D&D style.
Another DM puts a party of 5 18th level PCs into the same dungeon, but these PCs have very little in the way of magic items. Lord of the Rings style.
First room is a CR18 dragon.
One group is readily able to deal with this dragon, the other is not.
Or is that true?Not true for your example, because the dragon's CR is based off a party of 4 PCs, not 5. The loaded party in this case is likely to walk all over the dragon, the bare-bones party will have to fight harder, and may suffer a death, but will still kill the dragon.
4, 5 either way, the example still stands. Must have had a little 4e mentality creep in there...
Remember, not everything about that dragon is fixed in stone. That dragon has to roll for HP just like everyone else.
It's very easy for the first DM to play the dragon with an average of 8 HP per HD, and the second DM to play the dragon with an average of 4 HP per HD. Same dungeon, same dragon, just one minor change.Actually, I believe most monsters are assumed to use Average HP per Hit Die. Meaning the dragon would get 6.5 hp per HD.
Though it is legal for a DM to reduce the HP of the monster, but I personally would find it annoying to have to do that with every monster (or even roll HP for each monster) or face a TPK.
Agreed that it is annoying, but it is the choice of a DM who runs a campaign that deviates from the RAW. If he expects to do so without any annoyance, he's in for a bit of a surprise.
Tweaking HP/HD is extremely easy.As is throwing in a lower CR monster and giving a bit more XP if it's as challenging to the no-gear party as the CR 18 is to the loaded party, or vice-versa.
Well, sure, but it seems to me that scrathing out the 100 HP and changing it to 70 HP is a little easier than scratching out the whole monster and finding something of a lower CR that fits the scenario and won't kill the players.
That should be enough, and completely within the rules as written. But if it's not enough, dropping a few points off the dragon's to-hit modifier and damage dice is pretty easy too - though this does go outside of the core RAW. But again, he's already drifted away from the RAW with his limited magic, and he's already tweaking the dungeon to remove almost all of the magic items from the treasure hoards, so drifting away on the other side...What several people who have posted here seem to want isn't lower/limited magic items, but lowered dependence on having the highest rated magic armor, weapon, stat boosters, rings of protection, amulets of natural armor and cloaks of protection.
Keep those items available, but make it so that players either aren't, or don't feel like they are, weaker than they should be.
As others have mentioned, it seems an impossible task to reduce dependence on the Big 6 items but still leave them in the game.
If I don't need a +5 sword to hit that Balor, that's all well and good, but I will still want a +5 sword so I can hit him more often and for more damage.
If I don't need a +5 cloak of resistance to survive the breath weapon of that colossal dragon, that's all well and good, but I will still want a +5 cloak of resistance so that I am even more likely to survive in the event that I roll badly.
Taking away the dependence does not take away the desirability.
I think it's a mistake to try to cater to both worlds. Either go with the magic item Christmas tree, or don't.
But don't try to make a system that works for both ideals.Why not? I don't see how having the system has to be focused on one of the options to the exclusion of the other. I think if Paizo simply repriced some items (the cloak of resistance should probably be worth more than a ring of protection, IMO), and toned down the power of higher level monsters to make bonuses to AC, BAB, Damage, Saves, etc. less necessary, that it would actually satisfy the largest number of people.
DMs who still don't find the option satisfactory would then actually have less work than at present to modify monsters up or down to fit the power of their group.
I think it was a big mistake by WotC to assume that every group will (or should) have the highest rated versions of the "Big 6" and base their CR system off of that.
As I have mentioned, and others have as well, "toning down" the monsters "to make bonuses to AC, BAB, Damage, Saves, etc. less necessary" won't work as you expect.
Players without the formerly mandatory items will still want them. Without them, they will survive just fine. With them, they will survive much more easily. Maybe even automatically.
It doesn't matter whether you're a power-gamer or a role-player.
Power-gamers want to be uber and will want to destroy their enemies in the blink of an eye, so they will seek out the best items to do this.
Role-players should be thinking "Well, my fighter wants to live. He wants to slay his enemies. He wants to protect his friends. And he wants to survive while he is doing this. It is entirely within his RP persona to seek out items that enable him to do all this as effectively and safely as possible."
Either way, the player or the PC will be looking for these items.
Reducing the monsters' core statistics just means the characters who have these items are never challenged by the weaker monsters.