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
Because inherent bonus + external bonus due to items I can pick and choose is still better than inherent bonus. People always want to get better at doing the stuff they do because it make it easier, improves their survivability.
It's not strictly necessary to remove all of the items from the game, nor would I really advocate it. But the only real systemic fix is to either remove them or make it nearly impossible for focusing on the Big 6 to be a meaningful strategy.
Personally, there are elements of the items I like. I like stat-boosters. They are a particularly useful way for characters low on a stat, particularly Con, to move up in the world and improve. I like the idea that resistance bonuses were made cheap so that it would be easier to bump up your saves than for your opponent to bump up his spell DCs. I like that 3e tried to make a workable system of magic item creation that didn't require super-arcane processes cooked up by the DM for characters over 11th level.
But I think the chicken of unexpected consequences came home to roost and brought us the boring Big 6.
I suppose you could devise a method of level-based but external magical items to replace the typical boosters. Then you've got a regular progession, easy to estimate, but that also excludes other external boosters. That's what a purely internal set of level-based bonuses would lack - some mechanism to exclude other boosters.
The trouble here is in backward compatibility and working it into D&D lore without diverging too much from it (again, that's 4e's bag and that's why some of us aren't too keen on it).
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.
So? That's the way the game has been set up since AD&D (and even earlier). More magic items = more power. In my AD&D days, they were called "Monty Haul" campaigns; I'm sure they'll still be around even when D&D is on its 97th Edition.
So? That's the way the game has been set up since AD&D (and even earlier). More magic items = more power. In my AD&D days, they were called "Monty Haul" campaigns; I'm sure they'll still be around even when D&D is on its 97th Edition.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.
Agreed that it has always been this way.
My argument was against the concept of weakening the monsters as a means of breaking this mold, which won't work because the PCs will still desire, acquire, and utilize the items against the now weakened monsters.
Taking the items out of the game (no +hit magical weapons, no +AC armors, no rings of protection, cloaks of resistance, etc.) would be nearly as big an overhaul as the entire magic/monster balance of 4e and would certainly not be backaward compatible with 3.5.
This means they pretty much need to be left in Pathfinder.
Which means monsters cannot be weakened to encourage DMs and players to avoid these items - really that would only encourage players to want the items so they can crush the weaker monsters more easily.
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
Just weakening monsters would have to go way beyond hp: the first group has rings of evasion, save-boost items, boots of flying, rings of fire resistance. They all save against the breath weapon, take no damage, and fly over and kill the dragon. Group 2 has none of those items. Reduce the dragon to 10 hp, and if it breathes, it will still kill the entire party. At high level, instant-kill effects (or ones that generate enough damage to swamp any number of hp) trump mere weapon damage. We'd have to redo everything from the ground up: all the CRs, abilities, etc. No thanks!
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.
This is an important idea, because it potentially allows us to reduce dependence on the "big six," but still retain them in the game. Say your class & level gave you a +4 enhancement bonus to Str, for example, but you find a belt +6. The belt is still valuable... but it's in essence a +2 item, rather than a +6 one, because enhancement bonuses don't stack. If characters got resistance bonuses to saves, enhancement bonuses to attributes, and deflection bonuses to AC (and natural armor bonuses as well, for martial types and druids especially) as part of their class/level abilities, then the better items would still be desireable, but the dependence would be gone. Reduce wealth by level to compensate, and everything is peachy: monsters say the same, CR stays the same, all item price charts stay the same.
Taking the items out of the game (no +hit magical weapons, no +AC armors, no rings of protection, cloaks of resistance, etc.) would be nearly as big an overhaul as the entire magic/monster balance of 4e and would certainly not be backaward compatible with 3.5.
I agree 100% with this. It just sounded like you were saying that even if you retooled everything from scratch, you still couldn't reduce dependence on rings, cloaks, belts, etc.
Director of Games
|
Hello Everybody,
We are tackling this problem from a number of angles. The first, and most important, is on the monster side of the equation. High level monsters have some statistics that scale out of control, making many of the "big 6" a basic necessity of survival (this has primarily to do with monster attack rolls, AC, and special ability DCs). The opposite side of the coin is an understanding of how the game world itself works. Although it is not in the beta, the final book will contain a discussion about the assumed magic item level in the world. This default in 3.5 assumed a rather high level of frequency of "magic shops" and the like. We are going to change this assumption to a lower frequency (or at the very least suggest it.. as our published products have been doing for some time now). The final book will include rules for what this medium assumption is (some magic items, but not carte blanche access to everything in the book), as well as a low and a high level assumption (with advice on what that means to your game).
This means that characters will be a bit less optimized in their gear choices, which is probably a good thing (and it feels much more like the core assumption of the game). Item crafters are still an issue, but the creation time for some of these higher level items is truly immense anyway.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
This means that characters will be a bit less optimized in their gear choices, which is probably a good thing (and it feels much more like the core assumption of the game). Item crafters are still an issue, but the creation time for some of these higher level items is truly immense anyway.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'm glad you mentioned the crafting angle.
My take is that Pathfinder crafting became a much, much more viable option than 3.5 since now the crafter don't have to fall behind in level.
I have a young wizard (3rd level now) who plans to craft extensively.
This has made me assume that magic will be even more accessible in Pathfinder than in 3.5.
In 3.5, if a DM didn't want me to have a headband of intellect, he simply didn't put them in any treasure hordes. If I went to town to browse the magic shops, none were for sale. I could make one, but I would lose XP and sooner or later my friends would be higher level than me - a dredful situation for a spellcaster.
Now in Pathfinder, I feel much more comfortable making the stuff that the DM doesn't provide.
Hence my fear that magic items will be even more accessible in Pathfinder.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
I think advice on exactly how a DM should run the buying and selling of magic items is a topic LOOOONG overdue. Perhaps making models of typical magic item merchants is necessary. How to place items, what's appropriate at what level, how much leeway should players get to look at the magic items books, etc.
- The Collector of Rarities, has an ecclectic display of oddities
- A Temple that sells healing magic
- A Wizards guild (i.e. Red Wizards) that sells potions, wands, scrolls and minor items like elixers, dusts, feather tokens, alarm stones
- The Master Craftsman who can forge the Sword of Giantslaying or Dragonhide armor(using the new item creation feats based on the Craft skill)
- The Bazaar of the Bizarre, a Planar merchant like a Mercane
- The Kings Armory, which might let heroes of the realm borrow a potent magic item for defense of the realm.
--Vrocket Scientist!
Hello Everybody,
<snip>
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
This sounds promising. As long as there is an option for low- to no-magic item gameplay in Pathfinder, I will be happy.
However, I would like to see an option that would allow the static bonuses many have been discussing, and in fact all static item bonuses, to be commuted into inherent bonuses that characters gain as they level up. That means changing item-dependent +X to level-dependent +X, across the board, optionally. (Yes, you Christmas-tree-loving gear-heads can still have your fun. (I mean the epithet affectionately, by the way.)) This would leave room for the more interesting items that everyone's been gushing about, but it would also mean that if a character lost access to a magic item, any magic item, or even ALL of their magic items, they wouldn't be completely SOL, which is the case in 3.5. I think games are made much more fun by having what your character can do be more important and more interesting than what your character has. I want to keep track of what my character is thinking, or feeling, or doing, not how many potions of cure light wounds he's carrying.
On a related but side note, anyone who says that magic items and the "Big Six" can't be completely and elegantly eliminated from 3e has never laid eyes on Iron Heroes by Mike Mearls, who I suspect was conscripted to work on 4e largely because of his work on the aforesaid.
I like the big 6. I like the Christmas tree effect. But giving PCs better abilities at higher levels isn't going to solve the problem (at least, not this particular one).
The easiest solution is to simply adjust CRs. For example, a pit fiend is CR 20 assuming a party with standard magic items for their level. If they have far more items than normal, or if they specialize in fighting devils and have specific magic items and class abilities for fighting them, the same pit fiend should be CR 18 or 19. If they have far fewer magic items than normal, it should be CR 21 or 22.
The DM should be able to look at a monster, know what his PCs have for abilities and items, and adjust the CR accordingly. I think a section on evaluating and adjusting CRs would go a lot further to solving the problem than adding class abilities or changing magic items.
I am happy that the question of magic is being addressed by Paizo including notes on high magic and low magic games.
Depending on the extent to which Pathfinder addresses this problem or not, I may or may not create some house-rules for myself for eliminating the big 6 along the lines of what I suggested for rings of protection. For other items, it is not as easy as transferring the bonuses from items to characters at appropriate levels, because of the interaction with spells/buffs, but it is doable - it is just a question of how much work I will want put into it and that will depend on how much work Paizo already does for me.
Also, I too don't want to get rid of all the big 6. I especially want to preserve the +X weapons and armor. For me, for example, a +1 longsword, although a boring item, is a D&D classic. But rings of protection, amulets of natural armor and cloaks of resistance I have no emotional attachment to.
We are tackling this problem from a number of angles. The first, and most important, is on the monster side of the equation. High level monsters have some statistics that scale out of control, making many of the "big 6" a basic necessity of survival (...)
Counterintuitive, and great! But what impact would those changes have on backward compatibility? Unless BC is not required for modules and AP?
We are going to change this assumption to a lower frequency (or at the very least suggest it.. as our published products have been doing for some time now).
This is going in the opposite direction of what has been provided in the Beta: no more XP for creating an item and rules for creation "on the road" will make items more available, not less.
Seems to me that the creation feats must also be part of the equation. Of course, backward compatibility would mean that we can hardly change the prerequisites. Only solution I see so far in this direction would be to change instead the CL to create any specific item.
DW
In a fantasy game that has dragons, wizards, clerics and countless other wondrous creatures running around people honestly are going to complain that their characters are dependant on magical gear? I think that it is quite fitting that high level characters have to choose between buying items that cost more than some kingdoms are worth or actually settling down to try to run a kingdom. Going after creatures that are the stuff of nightmares and legends should require the PCs to hunt out every possible advantage mundane or magical and that list should not be short.
While I understand that having a list of items that everyone must have in order to be effective is not ideal I also think that the big 6 are a bit blown out of proportion. I have played under many DMs and with many players and I can say with no reservations that the big 6 were present in every game most players did not have all of them. I did notice that the DMs that really thought out their encounters and put us in over our heads had every PC analyzing every pro and con of every item that they carried where as the other DMs that did not constantly put us between a rock and a hard place had PCs that were likely to have frivolously splurged on some fun items.
The various games that I run or have run range from ¼ to 8 times “recommended” PC wealth by level and the Christmas tree syndrome exists in each of them only as much as I want it to. The players know what the core rules are but also know about rule zero the DM has final say on all of what happens in the fantasy realm he is running but is also responsible to ensure that the majority if not all of their players are having fun.
When I want to run low magic I have to put in some extra work to be sure that the challenges that I lay out can be survived. When the middle ground is taken things can be more or less used out of the books but this still requires some effort in that a sound strategy and execution as to how to challenge the group of PCs within the rules. High magic games take an insane amount of time to prep but the payoff for me is well worth it.
My suggestion is to stay in the middle where it is at now with options on higher and lower magic games. From the middle either type of play can be adjusted to taste with a moderate amount of work.
Sorry for the rant but I felt it necessary.
|
The answer is probably going to be a little of everything mentioned here, not just one big change. I think that if the big 6 were increased in price, the remaining items (ie little 2500 or so) were jazzed up a bit and the monsters brought back down to earth a tad, you will find that the "problem" will dissolve somewhat, not to mention that the classes have been powered up some.
There will always be power munchkins who only see combat options as viable. To these player's DM's may I suggest more challenges that don't involve combat. Not just traps or poisons, but skill challenges and odd situations where all the stat bonuses in the world will only help you fail that much faster, but a good rope of climbing or a cloak of the bat would have helped out quite a bit.
|
Although it is not in the beta, the final book will contain a discussion about the assumed magic item level in the world. This default in 3.5 assumed a rather high level of frequency of "magic shops" and the like. We are going to change this assumption to a lower frequency (or at the very least suggest it.. as our published products have been doing for some time now). The final book will include rules for what this medium assumption is (some magic items, but not carte blanche access to everything in the book), as well as a low and a high level assumption (with advice on what that means to your game).
Very happy to hear this, especially if the discussion has solid in-game reasons why you can't just buy anything you want.
This one change will go a long way towards making magical items magical again, rather than a set of DOOM-style powerups to be grabbed and used without further thought or appreciation.
There is nothing particularly wrong with the 3ed smorgasboard approach to items - it just never felt right to me for the kind of world I wanted to run.
I'm also glad that you are going to re-balance the monster abilities. I've been ignoring CRs for years since they never matched up with party capabilities in the lower magic world I ran.
The final book will include rules for what this medium assumption is (some magic items, but not carte blanche access to everything in the book), as well as a low and a high level assumption (with advice on what that means to your game).
There is the other option, of giving characters ability enhancements, resistance bonuses and dodge AC bonuses at certain levels, adjusting then the money per level and the corresponding spells, and leaving the monsters untouched. I´d think that this would be much less work for you guys and the DMs, than to manually have to correct down monsters all the time.
Ouch, I missed the fact that this has been happening. :( I would have wanted to participate for sure.
|
This is turning into "how can we keep our bonuses and get cool items" forum. We are tring to reduce dependency. Look, power gaming is a sickness, and those that have it, will keep getting the items, because lets face it, no one wants to fail a SoD check, so they will do what ever it takes to make themselves safer. As far as i am concerned, removing certain items is the only way to make the system work. Swords and armor will always be here, and hey, i am perfectly fine with them. They are iconic. certain other buff stats, oh well. keep item, but put them in the Adventurers vault or something. take them out of core. that way, Dm's have the option of 'nixing' them, and don't feel obligated to keep them because they are in the PHB. I'm all for an ubber powerful relic, but, it has to have a reason. RoP's are a dime a dozen.
But Jason is right. the Item creation feats make it possible, so unless you limit them from making stat boost items. the big 6 live on.
But Jason is right. the Item creation feats make it possible, so unless you limit them from making stat boost items. the big 6 live on.
Which takes but a paragraph or two for the respective feats, or making a general statement for "Item creation" feats. That´s much better than reworking all monster stats.
Some of us would like to keep using the Monster Manuals I - V, y'know...
I want to point out that it is not so simple to transfer bonuses that items normally give to characters automatically at a given level (unless we make them the same bonus type as they used to be, which would raise a host of other issues such as the effects of dispelling and antimagic). This is because of the way these bonuses can interact with spells. It can be done, but it would entail the rearrangement of spells providing bonuses in terms of bonus types and perhaps some bonus consolidation. Not that these are bad things - I think they would be very good changes, but it is a more complex change than simple transfer of bonuses from items to character level.
Hence, why jason is "coming at this problem from multiple angles." Im sure there is some guy at piazo who spends 3 hours of his day, every day, trying to fix this.:)
I hope so, but as much as I love 3.X edition, the amount of things that would be nice to have fixed exceed the number of waking hours in the day. ;) Still, I am really rooting for Pathfinder to manage the delicate balance of backward compatibility and fixes while also preserving and hopefully enchancing flavor and verisimilitude. The more Pathfinder succeeds in this, the less work I will need to do to adapt it to my tastes (I will surely need to adapt it at least somewhat - I do that with every game system - we all have different preferences, so it is inevitable).
|
|
to true. there is always going to be something wrong, but look at what PF has done so far with alpha and beta. Not to mention 6 months of testing! There are going to be alot of little changes. I think the biggest problem they have right now, is balancing out all the things they want to fix. changing one thing may unbalance another. It is a line i wouldn't want to cross.
I'm very glad to hear Jason's solution. The one issue I've always had with the Big 6 is that they're so common because characters need them. Yes, need. I have an issue with "need." If characters need them to the point the big 6 have become, then it seems more they become class features and not options taken for fun or enhancement of the PC.
So why not, as part of the balance, turn them into class features? Not the full extent as say, a full ring may be, but take part of the bonus and apply it to the characters.
And then the rest of the balance is applied to other areas. Even out monster attacks, and so on.
But, specific magic items shouldn't be so needed that they equate to class features. :) Not only does this discourage diversity, it also...well. It discourages diversity.
It reinforces the "play by number" aspect of DnD that really doesn't need a boost.
|
|
To true. that is why i was all for the previous idea for adding in abitiry mods at every level. and saying you couldn't add to the same stat twice in a row. over all it gives Less buffs than the items. but it gets rid of the 'bla bla bla of perfection' iitems, and stat boosters. and frees up those slots for cool items.
I did metion this in the max armor thread. the real reason why pcs need this stuf is because there is no standardization of monsters. at hi level they outpace all the pc classes/races by so much, we are forced to level the playing field. our AC maxes at about 35-45, while high level monsters are getting +35-40 to hit; with secondary attacks at +25. And these #'s are with all the boosters we can get our hands on. throw an anit magic field down, and PC's are doomed instantly.
The one issue I've always had with the Big 6 is that they're so common because characters need them. If characters need them, then it seems more they become class features and not options taken for fun or enhancement of the PC.
So why not, as part of the balance, turn them into class features? Not the full extent as say, a full ring may be, but take part of the bonus and apply it to the characters.
But, specific magic items shouldn't be so needed that they equate to class features. :) Not only does this discourage diversity, it also...well. It discourages diversity.
It reinforces the "play by number" aspect of DnD that really doesn't need a boost.
I hear what you're saying.
But I think this is a "grass is greener on the other side" issue and you may not be considering the consequences of making such a change.
Consider:
1. Never knowing when you will get your bonus. Now, as it is, these items are found (randomly, as far as your character knows) in treasure hoards. Your fighter might need to upgrade his +2 ring of protection for a +3 version. Sure, it's boring. But you never know when you'll find it. A DM might not let you find it for some times after you "need" it, making you a little more vulnerable - maybe he has a plan and wants you to feel a little more vulnerable for a while.
So even though you need that ring, and it's boring to get replace a generic "big 6" +2 item with a +3 item, you will still be glad when you find the ring in the treasure hoard.
Your DM might also want to distribute that +3 ring of protection early. Maybe your low-AC barbarian is always dying, or nearly dying, in every fight because your only healer, a druid, doesn't have enough healing to keep him on his feet. What a lucky find at 5th level to get that ring of +3 protection so the barbarian might live longer.
On the other hand, if you just get +3 AC at 12th level because you're 12th level, it takes out the suspense, the vulnerability, the anticipation, and the gratification that you finally have it, as well as the opportunity to be grateful to get it earlier than expected.
2. Earning your bonus. Currently, one fun tactic as a DM is to roll (or assign) the monster's treasure before the fight, then let them strap on the magic items, making them much harder to defeat during the encounter.
Want a +3 magic sword an a +3 ring of protectino and a +3 cloak of resistance, well, you might have to take it from a demon wearing all three, hitting you more often and harder, avoiding more of your attacks, and saving against more of your magic during the encounter.
But if everyone is automagically +3 in all this stuff when they reach 12th level, then the DM loses the option I just described.
Isn't it much more rewarding to harvest a bloody sword (covered in your own blood) from the monster that almost killed you with that very sword, than to simply reach a certain level and change the number on your character sheet automatically?
3. Verisimilitude. Not every item you find is something you want. That magic hoard might have something that a former owner wanted that you don't. Or that you already have.
It's a little more believable that you find another +3 sword when your fighter already has one, than that you find another "Fred's Amazingly Wicked Sword of Doom" when your fighter already has one.
Trying to make every magic item unique and interesting limits the options for DMs to add this layer of verisimilitude to their world - that just maybe the trolls in this cave killed someone last month who had a magic item just like one you already have.
Which then allows for some RP opportunities as the players try to find a way to trade off their unneeded stuff to NPCs in favor of stuff they need.
Sure, not every DM wants to do this in every campaign, but if you take out the "Big 6" you also limit this option for DMs who want it.
In summary, I think changing the "Big 6" to static character features takes out the fun, the suspense, and the campaign options that DMs have to introduce these bonuses at their own pace, fast or slow or normal or none, as they see fit.
Too much is lost by doing it this way, when it's not really broken at all (just uninteresting).
Nifty stuff
Not at all. :) I think the points work together: they are not mutually exclusive. Yes, a DM may limit such, but the main point is, if a item is as 'needed' as these seem to be across games (not just yours or mine personally), then it becomes similar to a class feature, which is what's happened.
That eliminates suspense /also/. It is very boring, to me. :)
I'm suggesting agreeing with small changes overall to make these core staples less 'required'. If something is less 'required,' that also opens up opportunities and creativity. The Big 6 to me are just too /predictable/. But, during gameplay, most players will end up needing them.
Buyable class features. :)
May I have my crown of winged bugles, instead? Or some other fun thing?
Now, before you tell me, 'but you're saying take them out of the game!' the answer there is no. I have no idea what Jason will or will not do. He's mentioned tackling it from a variety of angles, which probably means a number of small changes across the board, not an outright nerf.
I /do/ believe that if something or a set of items become the Big 6, there is a damn good reason, and that it can point to a flaw in design. Let's take those armor posts who point out the sad difference with monster BAB and warrior AC. 'But you can get 45 AC! ...if you buy a Ring +5, an Amulet +5, have a +6 Dex item and a Magic Happy Mithril Chain Shirt...'
*snores*
I believe that 'items as required class features' are boring, and also are caused from a need (or several needs) in the game. Now, a DM can 'solve' this issue any number of ways with some homebrew creativity. We're not talking about individual campaigns, though.
We're talking about a multitude of games and a community which plays these games, who seem to have come together and created these 'purchasable class features.'
So we want to replace the big six because they are must haves? If they are indeed that great and paizo is actually able to remove them and fix the related problems I have only one question. What will we do with the next big six?
So we want to replace the big six because they are must haves? If they are indeed that great and paizo is actually able to remove them and fix the related problems I have only one question. What will we do with the next big six?
Other than the Big 6, there are not a lot of items that give only and purely enhancement modifiers.
The criticism they face is not so much that they are popular, but that they give "flavourless" modifier to your attacks, AC, spell DC and Saves, rather than giving you creative tools to make better attacks, avoid blows, affect creatures with your spells and resist magic.
'findel
I want to point out that it is not so simple to transfer bonuses that items normally give to characters automatically at a given level (unless we make them the same bonus type as they used to be, which would raise a host of other issues such as the effects of dispelling and antimagic). This is because of the way these bonuses can interact with spells. It can be done, but it would entail the rearrangement of spells providing bonuses in terms of bonus types and perhaps some bonus consolidation. Not that these are bad things - I think they would be very good changes, but it is a more complex change than simple transfer of bonuses from items to character level.
Fair enough. Still, it´s better to try to keep characters at the same level of power than to re-calculate every monster in existance.
Keep the stat boosts as enhancement bonuses, the save boosts as a resistance bonus and make the deflection bonuses and natural armor bonuses a dodge bonus. Say they are not magical, but a part of gaining experience, you become hardier, etc. After all, hit points are an abstract concept, too.
The only problem I´d see with that would be that Uncanny Dodge becomes much more desirable than before.
@DM_Blake: You are equivocating the "Big Six" with other magic items.
Nobody wants to take away finding a cool magic weapon or armor in a pile of treasure. Those would still be in the game, and are iconic. But instead of finding Gloves of Dexterity +4, you can find a Glove of Storing or something like that.
After all, it´s much better to find magic items which have unusual and interesting effects, than just finding a stat booster.
Something I intend on trying out in my next game is extrapolating the Vow of Poverty chart from the Book of Exalted Deeds to every PC, gaining them enhancement bonuses to their weapons, armor, stats, and saves. Adjusting down wealth by level accordingly, and seeing where it goes from there. It uses the existing mechanic well enough while still giving them some customizability - they've effectively got the abilities they were going to get, but they now get to focus on other items.
The Magic Item Compendium, I think, fixed the issue of the "Big Six" problem much better than the PFRPG so far, however. Making the big six effectively slotless (you could pay the price of a headband of INT +2 to have the property added to any other head item without paying additional gold for doubling up) was a very elegant solution that I've found makes characters use rarer and more fun items while still gaining the benefits of items the game assumes them to have. Depending on how the PFRPG's magic item fixes go, I may just ignore them in favor of this solution, as I'm opposed to the idea that someone is limited to just two stat boosters if there's a legitimate reason for them to have more (such as favored souls, who have two casting stats, perhaps wanting something to increase both stats).
I have to chime in here.
As a DM I have had some recent high level campaigns and I must say that with the various options available from all the supplements in 3.5 that dependency on magic items at high level is NOT a foregone conclusion.
What is a problem is not the items themselves or the stat blocks. The so-called Big Six is a fallacy, as there are literally hordes of feats and spells that cover for the bonuses they give. What is a problem, is the magic shop mentality that was created with 3.0 and 3.5. I'll explain a bit further.
The most significant campaign in question that helps illustrate what I speak is one that I ran originally in 2nd Ed and later converted and ran again in 3rd Ed. The campaign was a modified Night Below module (adjusted to go levels 3-20). While 2nd Ed literally had supplements that offered the opportunity to buy items from a chain of magic shops (Encyclopedia of Magic), we never used that option and played primarily in the spirit of old school "Use what you find". This was perfectly fine, especially considering the variety of really useful or unique magical items that are seeded in the mod. No one ever felt like they didn't have a good selection of interesting gear, and if I as a DM felt maybe someone needed a special reward, I'd randomly roll or seed it as part of the encounters. Things like the Helm of Underwater Action were greatly valued by the PC's, in addition to other miscellaneous items such as Leomund's Cottage and Boots of Levitation. Even with spellcasters that eventually created enchanting laboratories and sacred altars to make occasional magical items, the rules as written back then left a great deal of discretion to me as the DM for the opportunities of creating.
When we ran again in 3rd Ed and 3.5, the most problematic assumption given was the "every recipe and item is available" mentality. Players began to go through the various choices of items and enchantment traits like they were buying from a Sears catalogue. It quickly became out of control. With the ability to cherry-pick their own gear, the PC's became more focused on optimizing their gear than on the adventure and story. Each session became about wringing what they wanted from the game world's regions and settlements, seeking out the perfect combo, rather than in pursuing the actual path to adventure. After discussing this problem with the gaming group, everyone agreed that something important had been lost along the way, and decided to do an inventory purge and replacement with campaign items only.
I reset the magic items gained, established new guidelines as to crafting and "recipes known", made the availability of tailored items found for sale extremely rare, and emphasized the positive social contact with new allies and communities as being beneficial to crafters who wished to learn new "secrets and recipes" of enchantment. People began to enjoy the game again, and playing with what they found or earned as rewards they found that they did not suffer at all in lacking the cherry-picking of magic items, as they had more than enough spells, feats, and class abilities that covered them as they progressed. Sure, it meant that there were some harder choices as to what spell or feat to select, but that actually increased the fun and challenge for the group as they now had to budget their overall resources a bit more efficiently and not rely solely on magic items as a crutch. Interestingly enough, when Magic Item Compendium came out, the most popular of interest amongst the players were the smaller "low cost, limited use per day" items from the book, as well as the introduction of augment crystals for flexibility. None of these things were game breaking, but rather allowed the PC's to operate as a classic sword and sorcery game pursuing a quest with what they had rather than for the sake of "cash and carry" item slot stacking.
On the DM side, I found I was able to concentrate on giving a good story again, rather than worrying about treasure drops. I found that most stat blocks still worked just fine, and that PC's rarely if ever had to worry about being outclassed. They came close to TPK a few times, but that emphasized the fun and challenge for them, and they asked that I never softball the opposition. Each victory became meaningful not only for the challenge and need for them to be clever and resourceful, but also because now the treasure they found actually felt more meaningful, having earned each item with blood and sweat.
I guess what I am saying is that pat of the fun and enjoyment of D&D, especially for old school players, was the weirdness and cool factor of treasure you could find and learn to utilize. At all levels, but even at high level play with minor artifacts/relics, the items themselves were neat tools in a toolbox, but never overshadowed the game once the decision to let go of the tailored/cherry-picking attitude was made. Perhaps the best way to emphasize this is to print a sidebar or notation in PF about how the lists of items available in the DMG is just that, a list for the DM and not for the players. While enchanting is certainly easier now in many ways, the DC check for creating is actually a control I appreciate as a DM. Maybe it's possible to add a mechanic or notation for DM adjudication in regards to learning recipes or what might be considered universal items (such as generic pluses) and what are specialty recipes?
@DM_Blake: You are equivocating the "Big Six" with other magic items.
Nobody wants to take away finding a cool magic weapon or armor in a pile of treasure. Those would still be in the game, and are iconic. But instead of finding Gloves of Dexterity +4, you can find a Glove of Storing or something like that.
After all, it´s much better to find magic items which have unusual and interesting effects, than just finding a stat booster.
Nope.
It's my understanding that "Big 6" includes things like +3 Longsword and +2 Chainmail.
A really cool sword might be a Sword of Sharpness, Vorpal Sword, Holy Avenger, Life Stealer, etc.
A fairly cool sword might be +2 Flaming, +3 Holy, +4 Keen, etc.
But a "Big 6" sword is one with just a flat enhancement bonus to hit and damage, such as a +3 Longsword.
I keep seeing the magic item shop mentality brought up repeatedly as a significant problem that 3e exacerbated. There is only one place in the main books that was the assumed backing for the "everything thing is available" asumption.
See the rules for developing communities and their Item-GP/Total-Gold limit. This little DM quick assist was taken as an excuse for the PCs to window shop for magic items. While the rules don't explicitly condone the 'magic item shop' it has rather weak guidelines on how such items exist within the context of the community. For example it never really suggested the degree of markup trying to buy a 'familiarly heirloom' would cost the PCs, it just assumed that the PCs could buy it. This was quickly taken to mean can buy any item at value.
Currently this community 'general pool' does not exist in Pathfinder since the community rules were not open for use, and would have to be reinvented. So in Pathfinder the magic item shop is closed indefinitely.... although the magic item workshop has opened across the street. This would be a good point for extended rules discussion for creating tools to help GMs run their games.
But a "Big 6" sword is one with just a flat enhancement bonus to hit and damage, such as a +3 Longsword.
Actually, I believe the Big 6 includes any kind of increasingly powerful magical weapon or armor, not just an increasing bonus to hit and damage. With 3.5 and the de-emphasis on higher bonus magic weapons for getting through DR, the pursuit of more powerful weapons never ceased. It just got absorbed by adding more powers to the weapons you've got rather than raw bonuses. That +1 flaming burst giant bane long sword was still part of the Big 6 and still sucked up your money to get it to that level of coolness. It may have been, mechanically, cooler and more interesting. But it was still a more powerful magic weapon and part of the Big 6.
I keep seeing the magic item shop mentality brought up repeatedly as a significant problem that 3e exacerbated. There is only one place in the main books that was the assumed backing for the "everything thing is available" asumption.
See the rules for developing communities and their Item-GP/Total-Gold limit. This little DM quick assist was taken as an excuse for the PCs to window shop for magic items. While the rules don't explicitly condone the 'magic item shop' it has rather weak guidelines on how such items exist within the context of the community. For example it never really suggested the degree of markup trying to buy a 'familiarly heirloom' would cost the PCs, it just assumed that the PCs could buy it. This was quickly taken to mean can buy any item at value.
Currently this community 'general pool' does not exist in Pathfinder since the community rules were not open for use, and would have to be reinvented. So in Pathfinder the magic item shop is closed indefinitely.... although the magic item workshop has opened across the street. This would be a good point for extended rules discussion for creating tools to help GMs run their games.
It's not just the magic shop, per se. It's the mentality that "any magic item I want, I can get". And that could be implemented with a shop or with the magic item creation feats. In fact, the latter option is even more efficient since the items are that much cheaper, making the Big 6 strategy even more achievable.
Nope.
It's my understanding that "Big 6" includes things like +3 Longsword and +2 Chainmail.
A really cool sword might be a Sword of Sharpness, Vorpal Sword, Holy Avenger, Life Stealer, etc.
A fairly cool sword might be +2 Flaming, +3 Holy, +4 Keen, etc.
But a "Big 6" sword is one with just a flat enhancement bonus to hit and damage, such as a +3 Longsword.
Then bring it down the the "Big Four". Magic arms and armor are iconic and should be a part of treasure hordes.
Stat, AC and Resistance boosters... not so much.
Someone else has mentioned using the rules from the Magic Item Compendium, which make it possible to integrate those big four into other items at no additional cost beyond the base one.
The problem is, people will still go for those items first, because statistically, they are the most beneficial ones, instead of other items with quirkier effects. That is the main problem we are facing here.
Nope.
It's my understanding that "Big 6" includes things like +3 Longsword and +2 Chainmail.
A really cool sword might be a Sword of Sharpness, Vorpal Sword, Holy Avenger, Life Stealer, etc.
A fairly cool sword might be +2 Flaming, +3 Holy, +4 Keen, etc.
But a "Big 6" sword is one with just a flat enhancement bonus to hit and damage, such as a +3 Longsword.
Then bring it down the the "Big Four". Magic arms and armor are iconic and should be a part of treasure hordes.
Stat, AC and Resistance boosters... not so much.
Someone else has mentioned using the rules from the Magic Item Compendium, which make it possible to integrate those big four into other items at no additional cost beyond the base one.
The problem is, people will still go for those items first, because statistically, they are the most beneficial ones, instead of other items with quirkier effects. That is the main problem we are facing here.
Uh, I guess you forgot your response? ^^
Uh, I guess you forgot your response? ^^
Lol, yeah, that's strange.
I had typed up something about Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Girdles of Giant Strength having been iconic items in treasure hoards for 3 1/2 decades now.
And I had typed some other stuff that mainly repeated what I said earlier in this thread about how I don't realy mind the "Big 6" items and I would prefer to let each individual hand out these yummy little nuggets at his or her own pace - much more flexible and dynamic than converting it to static bonuses, and much easier than removing all these items, retooling all the monsters, and forcing DMs to edit them out of any pregenerated adventure they want to run that includes these items as standard gear in monster hoards.
I dunno where all that stuff went.
I have to say that I would love to see the NEED for magic items to be cool to (mostly) go away. It would be nice if the character themselves had cool powers/abilities due to special training - and whatever. Not that I want magic-items to go away completely, just to limit their necessity.
It looks like the current strategy regarding magical items is make things cheap and easy for people to buy up everything they want, and then maybe - just maybe - they will use their gold to buy other things.
Ultimately, it looks like Pathfinder RPG will be balanced around people glowing like X-Mas Trees covered in bling icicles.
|
|
I don't think that is fair to right off PF just like that. Jason has said multiple times that they are working on these problems. They are even conducting a 6 month trial run. And You are contributing to it.
What you just said was that your oppinion doesn't matter. well if tht is your beleif, then you are making your own proficy come true.
I have faith that 70% of everything brought up will bring about change. the other 30% will be mad up of 1, not important enough to worry about. 2, other changes chance out the need for sertian things to chnge. 3, no matter wha something can be broken. And 4, a good enough fix wasn't brought up on the baord.
Other then that, i say tens of thousands of play-testers are bound to have an impact for the positive.
...........a bunch of stuff.............. in bling icicles.
hehe bling bling
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 perfect topic/question. I was just about to post something similiar to this myself, but luckily you already have.
I need to read more of the posts but in general I agree with the sentiment several people have already stated.
I think raw power needs to be emphasized more for some classes. I have not playtested this, but I think a rule of thumb should be something like: A character should be able to defeat a CR -10 without the need for exertior magic/gear. This obviously works for 11th characters vs. CR1, but breaks down at higher levels for some classes.
I think some classes already have this ability (sorcerer and druid would be my vote) but it seem everyone else would need a little something or even others to help out with this.
Just a quick idea (don't be too harsh on me people :( )
Well, I´d be just happy if Jason and the others took my ( and your ) ideas into account.
Unless they present a ( for me ) viable solution in their final product, I´ll probably implement my own idea into my next campaign... but it´d be really nice to see a solution which involves less magic items being necessary, *without* screwing over melee fighting characters. Which the current implementation of "no more than one stat enhanced for the physical and mental attributes" does. Fiercely.
Generally I like giving out "special magical items" to my group. Named items like "Esheneshras Human Flaying Dagger", which is a simple +1 dagger with humanbane. But thats the DM in me.
The way I would like to see the magical item system evolve, is more akin to that of Ars Magica. I, and my players, love to build unique (min/max if you will) items for their heroes during downtime. But the DMG are full of items that do not follow the rules for item-building (like Helm of Many Gems).
Then revamp the building a magical item, to fit more in the "building a unique magical item" from ars magica. Meaning, you would need a specific "slot" on your body for an item (head for +int), and a specifc type of item (circlet for +int), and maybe even a specific type of material (celestial ivory for +int). But these should probably be "affinities" making the item cheaper.
The best thing about magical items in Ars Magica, is that you can only infuse an item with so much magic. Based on size, material and quality. Once that space is used up, no more magic can go into it. So a +4 sword made out of poor materials, cannot be enhanced to become vorpal and flaming (and not without a chance of misfire).
Basically Im suggesting to make a system that limits magical items to being "built" with the same system (like making a wand or a potion). Even by players. Get rid of all the random stuff that defies the rules. Then make a list advising DMs which abilities and materials they should "keep for themselves" to make things more special whenever they are doled out.
Im not saying get rid of artifacts or special magical items, but Im saying I dont want the players to think they can make a magical item based on a template that doesnt follow the rules for simple magical item creation.
---
Here is an example of an item that one of my players made recently:
Silver Wheel of the High Note
This beautiful silver amulet hangs by a fine cold steel chain grants the wearer spell resistance 20. In addition the wearer gains a +2 bonus to his constitution and can cast protection from energy at caster lvl 5 once per day.
Crafted by the mighty Starym mage it's insignia suggests that this item was crafted for his Bard companion, Darion Meroch and can only be used by a Bard with the perform (singing) skill.
Moderate abjuration; CL 9th; Craft Wondrous Item, spell resistance, Bear's Endurance, Protection from Enegery; Price 56,460 gp. MP: 28230
// Value Cost gp Cost xp
Mantle of spell res 12 + bonus 80,000 40000 3200
Con + bonus 6,000
Protection fm Energy 8,100 4050 324
Reduced costs - Bard lmt -28,230 -14115 -1129.2
Reduced costs - Skill lmt. -9,410 -4705 -376.4
Total 56,460 28,230 2,258
Time to create 57 days