There has been a lot of discussions and arguments about "how available magic should be to player characters and to the world around them", but here seems like the best place to sum-up my thoughts.
There as been a definite increase in the availability of magic between 2ed AD&D and 3.5. This was only confirmed with the advent of Living Grayhawk and similar organized play. Magic seems not only more available in the way that magical items can be bought relatively easily as long as one can provide the gold, but in that so many prestige classes and bases classes allow PCs to cast spells to a certain extent.
Even strait, non-spellcasting characters seem to have a fair "in-game" knowledge of magic, such as knowing that fireball is 3rd level spell that is well within the capacity of a 5th level wizard...
I recall playing games in Forgotten Realms, which was often scorned for its high-magic setting, that would be considered skimpy to 3.5 standards.
In other words, magic seems to have become, for the lack of better words, rather banal, reliable and expected.
While I understand that this switch is mainly due to a change in the demographics; new players from a new generation having different tastes and interests than old grognards like me, I can only deplore that magic seems to have lost its magic, so to speak...
I would greatly appreciate if Pathfinder RPG could provide insights as how magic interacts with the world beyond providing powerful weapons to villains and adventurers, and how to adjust the "level" of magic for your campaign.
Obviously, experienced DM have an easier time to cope with this reality and to make the proper adjustments if they find the game not quite to their taste, but standard references facilitate the communication between DMs and players alike. It is always less "frightening" from a players point of view when the DM announces that he or she will implement the sidebar on page 53 than "hey guys, I had a weird thought for this campaign..."
This input could vary from totally different tables and list of restricted classes to a single sidebar, but any insights from the designers would be appreciated.
feel free to comment!
'findel
Magic items are the primary culprit here. Everything else is easy for the GM to control, although I think they should include advice on changing the level of magic in the campaign.
What is key is for PRPG to include three "tracks" of magic item availability like they have for experience. Mr. Bulmahn has already mentioned they're considering this, and that the 3.5 magic level will be considered closer to "high," the default for Pathfinder will be "Medium". This sounds like a big step toward a more sane magic policy.
So, it looks like you may be getting your wish, or at least an option for your wish.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
To Magic-mart or not to Magic-mart, that is the question!
This was exactly my comment in the "If You Could Change One Thing" thread. There really should be a baseline level of magic established and the tools for DM's to deviate from that baseline as their campaigns require (or not). Things like a table for common availability in a given sized city or restrcited items in cities with x alignment. Should a Side Trek be necessary to find the item in question, be it a skill check, an encounter site, or a full blown adventure?
Does the Vault of Abadar sell wands of cure light wounds to non-believers? Can I find a collector or merchant with a Figurine of Wonderous Power like the Warlord of Belken's Marble Elephant? Can I find a Dusty Rose Prism or will I have to steal one from a Local Pathfinder's Wayfinder?
--I wanna Vrock... VROCK!
Oh, yeah, and something like Shadowrun 3's old availability rule would make it reeeeeal simple to have different tracks of magic, BTW.
|
There's a thread around on the boards somewhere where James Jacobs said that Golarian wasn't going to be a high magic setting and they were going to include a section discussing how to handle this. I'm pretty sure Jason Bulmahn also chimed in with a statement that he was planning on including a bit about ways you can modify things for a more intense magical setting or a really low magical setting. Kind of a DM's almanac.
If I get time I'll track down the thread and link it.
Cheers
Yeah but even dialing it down there still needs to be decent guidelines for new DM's and some of older ones frankly on a good way to adjucate the buying and selling of magic items.
--Vrock Market Crash!
I really think a single number rating of availability is the way to go here. Something with the pure utility of CR (well at least CR in theory). There is so much you could do with that...
I'm going to throw my weight behind the OP. I would like to see some small indicator of approach individual magic items.
It has become apparent to me that in 3.5 a host of magical items were expected for any NPC or PC, much as you would expect James Bond to always have ten gadgets on hand.
The problem cannot be solved by a listing alone. Designers are going to be crucial to the mix. A lot of later 3.5 materials had NPCs loaded to bear with all manner of magical items; this was done both to counter-act magic heavy games and make the NPCs as effective as possible under the rules. I wouldn't mind seeing some adventures published with low-magic as an option.
If possible, I wouldn't mind some tweaking on items as well to make utilitarian items scale better. At high levels, the character with the items that are provide useful tricks usually give way to the combat-ready Wizard.
It'd be nice, as a DM, to give magic a classic place as a mysterious or awe-inspiring force and not just the purview of the rich or monsterous.
|
I really think a single number rating of availability is the way to go here. Something with the pure utility of CR (well at least CR in theory). There is so much you could do with that...
Good idea! You could work it like random treasure tables for monsters/NPCs. You assign the "town" (or whatever source for magic you are dealing with) a TR (Treasure Rating). You would then be able to determine what each town has available. You would treat the entire town like a single monsters treasure hoard.
The trick would be to seamlessly integrate it into the existing treasure tables without the need for massive rewrites/changes.
Hold on. New thought. How about using a d20 subsystem? Keep it fairly simple. Assign "towns" a TR check modifier, which works like a modifier to attack roles. Typically the larger the town the higher the modifier. Assign magic items a TR that works like AC. Again the more powerful the magic item the higher the TR. Players wishing to purchase magic items would make "attack" roles versus the TR of any magic items they wished to find. Success means the item is available, failure means it is not (one check per "town" and re-tries are not allowed for a period of time).
You could add and subtract modifiers based on all sorts of things. Low magic/high magic campaign, player skill ranks in Knowledge (local) or Diplomacy, Temple has base TR modifier of +5 (with +8 for divine scrolls and potion, -5 for wands and magic arms, nothing of evil alignment etc) and many more.
This could work in reverse as well, for selling magic items. Have a magic item to sell. The "town" rolls versus the TR of the item in question to see if there is a buyer available.
Maybe a combo of both ideas?
This is of course only applies to random magic items. The GM would still retain the ability to make modifications based on the campaign needs and goals, as well as restrict access when needed.
This is totally off the cuff. Anything here interesting?
Cheers
Shadowrun had two numbers: the difficulty of obtaining an item (a number you had to roll for it to even be for sale somewhere) and the time it takes to obtain it. Not necessarily the best way to go here, but still... I think an availability system has great potential.
The problem really cropped up because GMs lost control when players found out certain things were "necessary". Because there was no real indication of rarity beyond simple expense, players began to feel entitled, and GMs failed to put a stop to that entitlement. Then WotC basically sided with the players in 3e, and the low magic GM lost his ability to change things altogether.
Suggestion-type solutions are good, but unless there's a number there to play watchdog when a PC gets his hands on the magic item list (all PCs for the Pathfinder RPG it would seem), then a suggestion isn't going to do much to combat the sense of entitlement. A number that the GM can ignore if desired, or leverage to justify denying a player a certain item, well, that's "official."
Let's look at it this way: if every item has a number that reflects it's availability, then it's easy to make the magic level grainy. If a Potion of Cure Light Wounds has an availability of, say, 3... then you have to hit a DC 3 to find a seller. If you want a medium magic campaign, you could add +10 to all availability DCs. Low Magic? +20. Obviously, a real availability system must be more nuanced than that, but this gives the GM a crunchy cudgel with which to shatter the sense of PC entitlement.
All you really need for magic item availability are two rules:
1) A table with gp-limits by population size: in order to buy an item with a cost of X, you would normally need to be in a city with a population of at least Y. (Though exceptions may exist.)
2) A sidebar about magic item prices: If magic is common, use the normal magic item prices. If magic is uncommon, double the magic item prices and increase monster CRs by [whatever]. If magic is rare, triple all magic item prices and increase monster CRs by [whatever].
That should pretty much cover magic item availability and rarity. You just need to playtest monster CRs against parties paying different magic item prices to determine the formula for [whatever] CR adjustment.
Sounds good eric!
Tightening the availability to magic items would be a good start, but I would love to see a text (a sidebar maybe) on how magic is perceived as a "default setting".
I admit that is hard to draw the line between what the player knows and what his character knows, but blatant metagaming should be discouraged.
Should a fighter (or barabarian, rogue, ranger etc) know that fireball is a 3rd level wizard spell and thus expect to pay [so much] for a scroll of fireball? In my opinion, if the fighter invested in spellcraft; probably.
Without any Spellcraft training, he should know that fireball is a wizard spell that takes about as much practice to master than his weapon specialization, but his knowledge on the matter should be rather vague. At the very least, I wouldn't expect a character to know the spells (in the right order) needed to break-down a prismatic wall without some appropriate knowledge skill check or first-hand experience.
While these are two extreme examples, I've seen a lot of "in-game knowledge" used simply because it was in the PHB, and hence player characters had "the right to know".
This is a complex issue to address, and I am not sure how I'd deal with it if I was in Jason's pants. Yet somehow, I wish it would come form some "official source".
'findel
...and I am not sure how I'd deal with it if I was in Jason's pants.
'findel
ROFL!
Sorry, you just struck my juvenile mind with a critical hit!
I knew somebody would comment on that! That happened quicker than I thought...