Mr. Fishy must warn you Mr. Fishy has lost games to roleplayer's talking to every damn thing.
First, I <3 Mr. Fishy.
Second, How did you lose the roleplayer's game exactly?
Also, Conan has several good mechanics relevant to this thread, most notably something I'm doing which is eliminating death as the 0 hit point failure.
When you reach 0 Hit points you're 'knocked out' and receive some penalty. Conan has escalating consequences, I was considering some sort of experience point penalty.
Non-magical classes + no magic items = even more useless non-magical classes above level 10.
So Obviously the +1 AC compensates for AC loss due to magic items, in fact it probably takes it a good bit further. I think it depends on the character.I believe it's possible to push this into an edge case with the new armor values. In my campaign, I'm just probably going to limit heavy metal armors, for both flavor/fluff reasons and to avoid these edge cases.
But do you think doubling the stat boosts makes up for the loss of resistance items, stat items and magic weapons? (those are my assumptions of the other 3 of your 'four' please correct me if I am wrong). So at level 10 you would be able to add a total of 3 +1's that you would not normally get.I count 5. One at 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th. Oh. I see what you're saying. I was just assuming that these new additions stacked on normal advancement stuffs. Hm.
Perhaps make it every even level (and 2 points at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20) but make the points inherent bonuses? (to cap them at +5 per stat? Although I would probably make that +6)
A fighter could likely raise his strength by 2 that covers the primary stat item. Now you have 1 more which could cocievably raise a single save by 1 if your con wisdom or dex is odd. I think it is huge overstatement to say it addresses 4 of the big 6.Agreed. So under this new model, you have 7 new points by level 10. Also: I mentioned if it wasn't enough, perhaps a flat +1 to all bonus every 5 or 10 levels.
Ok so you are saying in addition to the usualy points every 4 levels, you would add an additional one at every even level?
So +1 to a single stat at 2,4,6,8 and 10, and an addition +1 as normal at 4 and 8?
In that cases lets look at Fred:
Ability Scores:
STR: 18 (+4) (15 base, +2 racial, +1 level)
DEX: 14 (+2) (13 base, +1 level)
CON: 14 (+2)
INT: 10 (+0)
WIS: 12 (+1)
CHA: 8 (-1)
+3 falchion
Belt of +4 str
+1 full plate
Cloak of Resistance +2
Handy Haversack
Amulet of Natural Armor +1
Masterwork composite longbow (+6 str mod)
Ring of Protection +1
1000 GP in miscellaneous consumables, gear, non-portable goods, etc.
AC you definately have covered. So what we are left looking at is the +4 belt of str, +2 cloak of resistance, and +3 weapon.
We can definately bring his strength to a 22 with 4 stat increases. That covers the belt. But that leaves 3 points left. Now if you gave a flat bonus of +1 at 5 and 10
His stats would look like this:
STR: 20 (+5)
DEX: 16 (+3)
CON: 16 (+3)
INT: 12 (+1)
WIS: 14 (+2)
CHA: 10 (0)
Now only 2 of the 7 points need be spent on str and the belt if covered, in addition all saves get a +1 (in addition to other obvious benefits), so now you have 5 +1's to play around with to give youself either direct benefits such as further increasing your primary stats, or suring up weaker saves.
There is one problem with this though. I dont think the same system can be applied to melee types as casters. Melee types need to put most of their stat boosts into their primary stat to cover the loss of a magic weapon in to hit and damage. Which requires a fairly high cap on how many pluses per stat or no cap at all. On the other hand, save dc's should not rise as fast, and if I have an inherant 28 int as a wizard at level 10 who the heck needs spell focus, my saves will be vicious. A fighter with a 28 str on the other hand is not much of an issue if he doesnt have a magic weapon (22str and a +3 weapon, vs 28 str, pretty even in my opinion). I am not certain how to approach that, which is one of the problems with all of the 'bonus' coming from a single stackable location.
Mr. Fishy must warn you Mr. Fishy has lost games to roleplayer's talking to every damn thing
Second, How did you lose the roleplayer's game exactly?.When half the party is talking to the "villian" instead of moving onto the next plot point, and the other half aren't roleplayers and are getting irritated. There were other factors but the point is that the roleplayers can bog down a game. So DM beware.
No, it's a math problem. Go ahead and solve it.
If you can't, there's a big problem because regardless of what the percentage chance is, you don't understand the underlying math behind why the PCs should win the vast majority of the time.
Man in black, unless your games involve the party having their feet nailed down to an encounter treadmill, there's absolutely nothing stopping a group in a low magic setting from just stopping after the third encounter. There's nothing sacred about four encounters per day, come hell or high water.
This is a false dichotomy. They could in fact fight weaker opponents. Then they would also not die and also not have magic items.That's one possible replacement for them. It's just difficult to do on the fly, obviates using published materials, and doesn't address the fact that different classes rely on magic items to different degrees.
Are there some concerns about running a game this way? Sure. Without some careful thought I agree that it might make spellcaster's a bit overpowered for example. But so far, no one has claimed that it wouldn't require work on the DM's part and they should just be able to immediately pick up a standard module and run with it, that seems to be an argument you've invented out of whole cloth. (And considering it's a fairly silly argument, that's what we like to call a "strawman")
What people have said is that the baseline level of performance for most characters isn't as bad as most people assume, so it's at least possible to run a game that way as long as the DM is willing to do a bit of extra work planning things out.
Something of a balancing point for caster types: While they will suffer a much smaller reduction in offensive capability because their damage progressions/power growth are built into their spells, they will suffer a massive penalty to survivability using most of the house rules people have suggested so far (such as the BAB to AC). In straight Pathfinder there's not much keeping a high level caster from buying the same AC/HP boosting items as a melee type. Using the suggested houserules, they're going to be more of glass cannons (which might be fine, considering the whole extra power from spell progression bit from before.)
DM is willing to do extra work doesn't always DM has time to. Some of us work and have kids so extra isn't always an option. Some times you have to just play it and "fudge" to keep the game going.
DM is willing to do extra work doesn't always DM has time to. Some of us work and have kids so extra isn't always an option. Some times you have to just play it and "fudge" to keep the game going.
Oh definitely, I'm just saying "The DM will have to put some thought into encounters" isn't the same thing as "this idea is impossible and can never work." Which seems to be Man in Black's (rather vehement) position.
(Also, considering the original post was specifically about looking at designing house rules, I'd say the DM putting some thought into it is pretty much a given.)
Actually, no. A CR-appropriate encounter should use up 20% of their resources, so you don't kill them all stone dead during the fourth fight. The extremely boring and weak CR 10, based directly on the PF table, did half again that much.
Yes, and those assumptions are based around a party with several characters (4) filling a variety of roles, not just one. Because you're example included only fighters accounts for the 20% and half again. A stitch in time as it were for values of stitches that include spells.
No, it's a math problem. Go ahead and solve it.
If you can't, there's a big problem because regardless of what the percentage chance is, you don't understand the underlying math behind why the PCs should win the vast majority of the time. It's not because D&D players are entitled computer-game-playing scumbag kids who should get off your lawn, etc.
They *did* win and handily in your example. There wasn't any statistical edge case where a CR 10 could kill the whole party.
Why are you saying they need magic to win, when in the example you posted, an unbalanced party without any casters or magic items *did* win, within ~10% of the expected 'cost' of winning the battle?
Man in black, unless your games involve the party having their feet nailed down to an encounter treadmill, there's absolutely nothing stopping a group in a low magic setting from just stopping after the third encounter. There's nothing sacred about four encounters per day, come hell or high water.
While this is true, it is clear that alot of groups and DM's like a sense of urgency in their games. This came up alot in a discussion I started a while back regarding downtime within an adventure/campaign. So it is possible for the story to force the players on to that 4th encounter. This is something the DM should strongly consider in a low magic game. And since the system itself is balanced for a 4 encounter day, it requires consideration. If part of your compensation is to reduce the number of daily encounters, that is fine, but you cannot simply assume this without it being stated in a discussion of how to balance a low magic game.
Are there some concerns about running a game this way? Sure. Without some careful thought I agree that it might make spellcaster's a bit overpowered for example. But so far, no one has claimed that it wouldn't require work on the DM's part and they should just be able to immediately pick up a standard module and run with it, that seems to be an argument you've invented out of whole cloth. (And considering it's a fairly silly argument, that's what we like to call a "strawman")
What people have said is that the baseline level of performance for most characters isn't as bad as most people assume, so it's at least possible to run a game that way as long as the DM is willing to do a bit of extra work planning things out.
Published material does not just mean a module. It would include you know, the bestiary. Or the rules for creating an encounter. A dm would have to reconsider every npc, and every monster he uses. This is a fair amount of extra work. Simply droping the CR may not work, as there are lots of unique pieces of every monster that can become especially dangerous in a low magic game.
If you are willing to adjust things as a dm thats fine, but the original 'baseline of performance' was not presented with that bit of information. In general MIB is right that if you run level 10 characters with no magic gear through 4 CR 10 encounters you are very likely to have a party wipe. If you are going to drop the CR while keeping an eye on monster special abilities, and reduce the encounters per day to 2-3 that changes things, but you have to actually say you are going to change that.
Are there some concerns about running a game this way? Sure. Simply droping the CR may not work, as there are lots of unique pieces of every monster that can become especially dangerous in a low magic game.
Just a note that we're specifically talking about a low magic item game, not a magic spell free game. :-)
Mr. Fishy has a 9th level character with no magic weapons +1 armor and a +1 shield and Mr.Fishy is keeping a party on its feet. Mr. Fishy is a nervous twitching heal beast. Twitch, heal, but were alive. It is difficult but not impossible, low magic requires team work and skill. The party has other items but very few stat bump items I think maybe one.
The two alternative systems (VOP-style stat boosts, WBL in "invisible items") wouldn't empower spellcasters over other classes, involve less work on the part of the GM, and allow the use of published materials nearly as-is. Plus, the stated intentions of the OP were that he didn't want to make the characters weaker, just reduce the amount of junk they're carrying around.
You may want to go back and look at Nexusphere's original post on the first page where he made it clear that that sort of alternative system (Stat boosts, built in bonuses to replace items, etc.) was EXACTLY WHAT HE IS SUGGESTING all the stuff since then has just been going back and forth over some comments he made about the odds of naked/non-buffed standard characters not being as bad as it seems like at first glance.
Was he suggesting this as a way of running a game. No. He was just pointing out that it's possible and that it isn't actually "Magic Items or Instant Death" (which seems to be what a lot of people assume.)
It's not a strawman to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the three systems he proposed, especially since that's what he asked in the OP.
It is a strawman when what you're arguing against isn't actually what he suggested, it's a hyperbolic extension of one of his points as if it were his entire argument. That's pretty much the textbook definition of a strawman argument.
Just a note that we're specifically talking about a low magic item game, not a magic spell free game. :-)
Are there some concerns about running a game this way? Sure. Simply droping the CR may not work, as there are lots of unique pieces of every monster that can become especially dangerous in a low magic game.
Certainly, but alot of those save the day kind of spells come out of scrolls, wands, staves etc. And I was thinking more along the lines of save dc's or monsters that have lots of attacks (but generally lower to hit). If the party is completely devoid of magic items, the save dc's of poisons, diseases, special abilities by monsters become very skewed. And there are some monsters that have lots of attacks at lower attack bonuses. If you lower AC considerably, no matter dropping the CR, that monster becomes very dangerous at any level. Having a spellcaster around wont fix this even if they have all buff spells prepared. Magic items are an inherant part of the assumption when monsters are created, you have to consider that carefully when removing them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, my suggestion is based upon A Man in Black's first suggestion.
Delete items you feel are no cool enough from the adventure, and keep a note of the value of deleted items. If you're not using a module or AP, just keep track of the total worth of items the players won't recover. Give this phantom gold to them as a special reward, "advancement points" or what have you.
Players can use the points to purchase inherent bonuses that you allow, although they are at a slight markup because improving your character is better than gear that can be stolen/lost/destroyed/dispelled. I suggest a 20% markup from the GP value.
These inherent bonuses represent selective advancement of the same kind as you find in most modern RPGs (not level based). Your GM permits you to spend your Karma Bank on an intelligence increase, which costs %120 of a headband of vast intellect — you pay the advancement points, your character gets smarter. Fried by one too many fireballs last session? Put a few points into a reflex save and your character is a little lighter on his feet than last week. Many, many RPGs allow this type of advancement. It is basically the same thing as Ye Olde Magick Shoppe, except we're seeing characters advance rather than collect gear.
Of course, like all rules, this will have unintended consequences, but I think it comes pretty close to maintaining the balance of all parts of the system while removing mandatory gear. Why, you even get to keep weird items!
A Man In Black:
I really like the idea of stats boosts on alternates levels and a bonus to AC in a progression to mitigate the abssence of magic itens.
I would suggest a +1 to two stats instead because some MAD classes will still suffer with only one attibutte covered.
And about SAD spellcasters being favored in this case I think it's not by to much, because the really OMG enemies aren't others fighters or wizard but monsters (IMO) and these guys have better saves than the players. And without itens to boost the caster main atribute the already not so good spells from lesser levels will be a no-no unless used for buff.
I know. And he was wrong.
Then prove it, preferably with some actual math of your own, instead of just being a jerk.
But I'm pretty sure he doesn't understand the underlying math and thus really needs to not comment on it, especially when he describes going from 20% to 30% as "within ~10% of the expected cost" or describes Power Attack as an "interesting choice" at any point.
30% is within 10% of the expected value (which I remember being 25% of party resources, not 20%, but my memory could be flawed on that, I'll have to check my 3.5 DMG later to be sure) and Power Attack can be an interesting choice, especially in situations where there is some chance of dropping a foe immediately vs. needing multiple attacks without power attack.
He starts from the flawed premise that the PCs don't need much to keep up
No, he started with the math (and fairly well backed up math if you check the source he mentioned, Trailblazer) showing the effects loss of magic items would have on most characters. And it turns out, that while they lose quite a bit of efficacy (duh) they don't just instantly fall over and die the first time they get in a fight.
he's demonstrated a lack of understanding of the math underlying D&D
If I had to pick one of you to trust on the math, my apologies, but I'm going with the guy that began his argument with "Here is where you can find a fully written out explanation of what went into my evaluation" and not the guy who's argument so far seems to be "You're wrong (but I'm not going to actually show any work about why) and shouldn't even talk."
In the absence of evidence I'm reasonably sure that his changes have no mathematical basis whatsoever, and are simply random gut calls based on experience at best or nothing at worst.
Then prove it. Either go read the source material he mentioned (Trailblazer) and find flaws in their analysis or take one of the suggestions he's made (+1 AC per BAB, for example) and show why, exactly, the math is incorrect.
If I am wrong, and the changes are based in some sort of mathematical analysis or understanding, I'd be happy to see it.
His original post included information on where such material can be found. Reading comprehension is occasionally a help in finding these things, I know.
It is a strawman when what you're arguing against isn't actually what he suggested, it's a hyperbolic extension of one of his points as if it were his entire argument. That's pretty much the textbook definition of a strawman argument.No, it's not. I'm game to argue with you about what that particular logical fallacy actually means, but perhaps we could do that in another thread.
Or we could discuss it here, since it's certainly relevant to whether or not your argument had any merit. Perhaps you could give a reason _why_ your argument wasn't a strawman? (and "No, it's not" doesn't count)
It certainly seems to fit the definition to my eye:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Nexusphere's original position:
Characters with no magic items whatsoever need some built in bonuses added to come completely up to par, but aren't entirely unworkable even without those bonuses, they just require a lot of work on the DMs part to keep balanced.
The position you've presented him as having:
Characters with no magic items whatsoever are just as powerful as characters with magic items, and making any change whatsoever to accommodate them is an impossible burden on the DM.
I don't see how that could any more clearly be a strawman.
Could always pick up the old Iron Heroes campaign.
A little off of the topic, but still relevant:
Instead of running a 'low' magic game do two things:
1) Say that swords/armor/etc. can have levels of quality: They are not magical, they're just well made (like Axes from the Dwarven hold of Whoopes, or Hittori Honzo swords). This fits in well with having armorers that are renowned for the strength of their work. Maybe make an 'knowledge: weapons & armor' skill for appropriate classes to identify them.
Obviously, some of the more 'showy' ones should be magic and exceptional (Excalibur, Sting, etc.) (flaming, life stealing). But less showy enhancements (like speed, fortification, keen, etc.) could all be part of the weapon or armor's quality.
Now, one of the things I didn't like about 3.5 is that magic items could be bought and sold in some arch-mage powered wal mart. With this system, to keep the items interesting, the party may be able to SELL the items, but not buy anything but minor items (such as masterwork-level items, potions, etc.).
This allows you to keep attack/AC/damage rolls in line, without overwhelming the party. It also gives them more expendable resources (if you want them to have them). The weapons may or may not count as 'magical' for damage reduction. Personally, I'd say 'no' because then the heroes need to get the magic sword to slay the invulnerable dragon, etc.
2) The rarity of exceptional weapons and magic items means you can control what you give to the party. As for the super-duper magic items (boots of speed, heavy wands, flying items) make them rare or remove them. Just don't give the party an obstacle that needs a rare item to pass without that rare item.
Pathfinder does a great job of boosting individual power levels to minimize the need of 'required' magic items. That's why every class and race is stronger, and the monsters are just barely stronger. If you want to help compensate just a little bit more, then maybe grant earned bonuses. Make them literal feats that they have to accomplish, places they have to visit in order to gain the power (thing magic sites in 3.5 complete books). Maybe say that if you bathe in the blood of an evil dragon your skin hardens. Or that with the right ingredients, you can have an alchemist make a potion that grants you minor spell resistance, permanently.
I don't like the buy 'em per level rule because that makes all the characters martial artists or magicians. But going on quests for tools to help defeat the big bad? That's very in line.
One more thing to suggest: have magic items, especially powerful ones, but make them rare and make them HAVE CONSEQUENCES! (Frodo/The Ring) Sure, you can throw fireballs with the wand, but it does damage to you, or you can be invisible, but every minute does ability damage... The party will remember them and the choices they agonize over.
I also agree with a previous poster that suggested trimming the power level by 20 percent or so.
As for resting more often, if you want to keep the pressure on, make hit points come back more easily (think second winds or healing surges, or even the char level/hour rate that vitality points had in UA), spells regenerate at a set number of spell levels per hour, boost healing that they do have, or change 'per day' to 'every twelve or six hours' Or even 'every encounter' if you want to keep things moving fast. It's a wild suggestion, but it would certainly up the pace.
As for whether or not it's unfair for the party to be so much stronger a) you're taking away a ton of the advantages PCs have with magic items, and b) it's very much in the vein of fast moving, heroic fantasy to fight hordes of easily slain critters with only a few that were tougher, as well as to try to find 'other ways' such as hit and run, deception, sneaking, trap setting, ambushes, using the environment, etc.
Then, in the triumphant fight, don't just battle with attrition. Give the players a way to defeat the monster (the Goal) and make the enemies be a defensive line to stop it. Maybe you need to hit the big bad in the BACK with the Mcguffin +2, or maybe you need to break a power source. If the game is about characters it should also be about the actions. Make 'em think.
Just some suggestions. I don't have math to back them up, but any time you change a tenet, then you need to play it by ear.
stuff that gave me an idea for my campaign
The knowledge to craft magic items is completely lost to time, but items from times past can still be found occasionally in the scattered ruins of this ancient world. Legends speak of great beasts who's blood has the power to grant strength to those who slay it. These beasts are rare and you must go to great lengths to find and defeat them. To find these beasts, you must scour the lands in search of clues to where they reside. These ancient beasts, if awakened, will be a blight upon the world, etc...
Players will rarely find magic items- so they will really appreciate them, and I will use these beasts to impart the missing properties from the lack of items. The only problem is that my players love social-roleplay, so I will have to walk a fine line and not make it seem like an epic beast slaughter.
Ok so here is what I am thinking.
First,
Based on your class if you get Heavy Amrmor Proficiency from the class you get An Armor Bonus (that stacks with armor) equal to your class level.
If you get Medium Proficiency from your class you get 3/4 your class level in AC bonus (in the same way 3/4 bab progresses).
If you get light or no armor proficiency you get 1/2 class level worth of armor bonus. I am toying with the idea of making them dodge bonuses, but that is likely to heavily screw with touch vs flatfooted AC's.
In addition, in place of the +1 to an ability score every 4 levels you get the following:
+1 to All ability scores at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20.
+1 to 2 ability scores on all even levels (including 10 and 20).
At level 10 that boosts your AC by 10, 7, or 5 depending on your class (or possibly somewhere in between with multiclassing).
And the 2 at a time method of giving out the ability scores means there is only so much you can pump into a single ability score. Any thoughts?
I would argue against fiddling with the attack system, the stat boosts, adding random stats, and so forth is because you're creating a whole new set of mechanics which may imbalance your game if not well-designed. You're basically taking a crapshoot that you understand how magic items affect every class and that you fairly replace them with an alternate system that works entirely differently. Plus, that is a lot of work, plus even more work if you actually playtest it.
Because clearly, nothing hard is worth doing. In a thread about writing houserules "Houserules are hard to write/balance, so you shouldn't bother" is not a reasonable position.
Interesting post Makarnak, but you run into many of the same problems the magic item system does.
A: Heroes NEED these special quality equipment to function level-appropriately.
B: Heroes are still dependent on magic and crap to become heroes.
As far as I can tell, the OP is looking for the same thing I am in his game. A game where the heroes become heroic, where it is the PC's who become stronger or smarter or faster, where they can pick up any sword and slip into any fullplate and compete with a level-appropriate decked out PF normal fighter.
I don't like the buy 'em per level rule because that makes all the characters martial artists or magicians. But going on quests for tools to help defeat the big bad? That's very in line.Mind telling me what they are, if not martial artists or magicians?
Figher, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Rogue- practitioners of various MARTIAL (militant, combat) arts.
Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid: Magicians (practicioners of magic in it's various forms, including shapeshifting into beasts for combat)
Cleric, Bard: Hybrids who practice magic and some degree of Martial combat.
Last points first, I meant Martial Artists in the specific sense of Asian-styled martial artist/kung fu/ninja/Jedi movies. I don't want my knights of the Round Table to run along walls or have battles on willow tree branches.
Yes, wizards, etc. are magicians. Rogues with 'inherent' flaming sword bonuses would be as well, and that doesn't really fit the style. If Aragorn could cause any weapon he picked up to supernaturally burst into flame, then he wouldn't really feel the same. It's about the tone. If you want to make wire-fu movies with these abilities, then by all means, wire-fu away. But Western-Style European fantasy? Or even most Samurai movies, the characters aren't supernatural, just exceptional. Aragorn couldn't cleave mountains and fly. He might have been able to run faster, fight faster or hit more often, though.
The other problem with buy 'em per level is that you CAN NEVER TAKE THEM AWAY. A fighter with 'make anything light on fire' and I can fly like mad is very hard to imprison for story reasons (well, harder anyways).
A) If the DM really wants to fiddle with the existing mechanics then he's going to need to do some work, either figuring out ways for the party to fight the monsters that need special abilities (that couldn't be found with spells that the party has or can get), or to avoid those encounters.
B) A valid point, and one that I agree with. If you watch the movie "Willow" Madmartigan rarely uses the same sword twice. He picks 'em up and drops them like crazy. If you're looking for ways to simulate that, and I'm assuming you might want to, then the 'buy 'em per level' works, but I would really restrict what's available. Limit by class, or by style. i.e. no flying fighters (unless that's the style of the game). Wizards, clerics, etc. may have some of the flashier abilities, because 'it's sorcery, etc.'
Actually, you may look at the Star Wars Saga edition for inspiration here. It's a relatively 'pick up a blaster and go' style, where the abilities are intrinsic.
Another suggestion would be to modify the 'buy it as you go' method, and give menus of choices, or 'talents' per Star Wars SE. Say, on every even level (to go opposite of feats) they can choose an ability that mimics level-appropriate magic. If the DM keeps the list tight and maybe stackable, or use prerequisites (i.e. enhancement bonuses, etc.), then he can keep control of the feel, as well as keeping control of what's available to use. To make up for damage difference, you add 1/2 your level to damage and maybe add the same to defense (or you could make those BAB dependent).
Just brainstorming. Also, remember to create big-monster puzzle fights rather than just hack 'em till they drop. Luke didn't have his magic weapon when he fought the Rancor, but he did have a skull and a heavy portcullis.
Place the House Rule with a pull clause. If the rule is more trouble than flavor then pull it. Give out a map to a lost vault or cache of weapons and gear. Rule works and you get the heroic flavor or it doesn't and you have an escape plan that doesn't break the flow of the game.
Just remember to tell you group that this rule is under probation, and listen to their feed back good and bad. If every one is happy great but if there is a lot of problems maybe the Blood of Beast idea or elixirs that improve stats, or magic weapons that improve stats like in the Diablo games.
Interesting post Makarnak, but you run into many of the same problems the magic item system does.
A: Heroes NEED these special quality equipment to function level-appropriately.
B: Heroes are still dependent on magic and crap to become heroes.
In all fairness, that depends on your interpretation of what's "appropriate".
In answer to A: well, that depends on the setting really. In order to function level-appropriately in adventure paths and modules; probably. But low magic setting usually don't use those, or at least, not the same ones.
And while there might be issues between martial classes and spellcaster classes but then again, low magic setting may assume that spellcaster are more powerful in the first place (or else they don't exist as we know them).
As for B; heroes need magic crap to shine in a world were every adventurer and NPCs is armed to the teeth with magical stuff. But when magical items are not available (or are restricted) for everybody, it evens itself out. True, the balor will be a fiercer adversary, but again that's what low magic setting go after...
'findel
Just remember to tell you group that this rule is under probation, and listen to their feed back good and bad.
That's a golden rule in itself...
Mr. Fishy accepts pie.
As for B; heroes need magic crap to shine in a world were every adventurer and NPCs is armed to the teeth with magical stuff. But when magical items are not available (or are restricted) for everybody, it evens itself out. True, the balor will be a fiercer adversary, but again that's what low magic setting go after...
'findel
If by shine you mean die horribly then sure. Low magic does not mean low power, and personally I dont think any setting is meant to make a particular iconic enemy unbeatable, without adjustment a level 20 party cannot take on a balor with an expectation of survival. Not exactly the big climax most campaigns go for.
And it isnt about shining vs other adventurers, that isnt even an issue. Sure other adventurers 'exist' but the PC's are the stars of the show. It is however important that the party shine against the monster they face. If you remove magic items, that means either adjusting the monsters down, or the players inate abilities up. No one shines in a party wipe, except perhaps the balor.
I just got off an 18 hour work day and should go to bed. I AM glad this topic is going strong. People keep references the "intentions of the OP" and since I AM the OP, I should probably chime in.
Here's what I want. I want low-magic PCs to be mechanically balanced with what "normal" PCs "should" be at various levels. People have been using level 10 as a baseline for examples and such. However, magic items and the ability to purchase them scale significantly the higher your levels. So ... if level 1 low-magic and normal characters are identical to each other, then what does the opposite extreme look like? The only way a new "system" will work is at ALL levels. So why not jump straight to level 20 where the numbers are the most extreme? If a scalable, low-magic system is book-balanced at level 20, then you've got yourself a good case.
Although I AM curious to see opinions on non-stat items (flight, invisibility), I'm far more interested in pure math. My primary goal is to completely get rid of the enhancement items. Anything that defines itself with "+X" needs to go. And it needs to be replaced with "intended game balance", whatever you interpret THAT to be.
Right now I'm not liking the idea of mucking around with monster stats. I don't mind doing some extra work up front, but I REALLY don't want to rewrite the Beastiary and modules. Nor do I want extra "on the fly" work to do. GMing is hard enough without extra, unneeded work.
nexusphere, I've read most of your posts and I'm still not completely sure what you're proposing. You suggest that I don't need magic items at all. I'm not sure if this is true or not, but let me clarify. I want a homebrew system that makes PCs "equal" to what they're "supposed" to be. You do, of course, mention "adding stats at every other level" and other "fixes" This IS what I'm looking for, but you don't mention how many stats. Are they're caps? What type of AC bonus are you suggesting? Does it work against touch or flatfooted? Would it depend on your class or worn armor?
So ... I can't alter the power of the PCs because that would unbalance the game (which already seems a bit wobbly). I can't mess with the monsters because they have so many abilities and powers that any blanket fix would severely break something. For this to be D&D, the numbers need to be correct. So far Man in Black's "invisible items" idea seems the most true to my original idea. I just ... don't like it. Characters go from shopping for gear with money to shopping for spiritual add-ons with "points". I want to have fun WITH the mechanics, I just don't want them in my face all the time.
+1 to All ability scores at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20.
Kolokotroni, I've been very much appreciating all of your insights. I'm pointing out this one example just to say that I don't want to give "all stat" increases. Many characters' identities are BASED on low or "dump" stats. This is also a reason that the VoP idea loses some merit. you force characters to advance in a strict way that they might not want. So maybe ... a more flexible version? I'm too tired to math anything out myself right now, though.
Many people are suggesting that I replace magical items with other items. I don't think I follow the logic as it relates to my topic, really. Although I don't mind having SOME awesome things, I'm trying to devise a "thing-less" system. Or at least eliminate a need for a reliance.
I'm pretty sure I have more to say, but I've been awake for 25 hours so my words might not be coherent. Hopefully I said something that causes some kind of revelation or something. I'll be back in about 15 hours to see the fallout!
@Makarnak: First off, of course they are more difficult to take away, that's the whole point of being a hero!
Were Conan or Achilles or Beowulf any lesser heroes when they were without weapons? Nope, either A: They got weapons or B: they kicked ass and took names without weapons.
THAT is what I think of when I think of heroic fantasy. Men and women who are great by virtue of their own abilities, who aren't dependent on magic or gods or any other crap (Yes I admit Achilles had magical aid but if you want to use that as a crutch I'm naming his rival in Troy who didn't have any magical aid and almost kicked his ass)
The key here, at least in my mind, is I don't want settings where magic is all powerful and lesser men kneel to wizards.
I want a setting where heroes are truly heroes like those in greek and roman mythology, like those in eastern legend, like those written of by the Celts and the Goths.
I'm reposting this for the sole reason that it's now an OP post. Basically, when you're thinking up houerules to help me out, keep this stuff in mind, please.
I want GREAT HEROS. And I want them to be Pathfinder compatible ... because that's the book we all spent money on. :)
Kolokotroni have you learned nothing from The Fellowship of the Rings,
when in combat with a Balor the "tier one" wizard slams down his staff and yells "YOU SHALL NOT PASS" then dies horribly while the rest of the party runs like hell. Mr. Fish's mama didn't raise no fool. Then Mr. Fishy laughs at the wizard for believing that "we'll hold off the goblins" crap.
Mr. Fishy is tier fishy.
@Makarnak: First off, of course they are more difficult to take away, that's the whole point of being a hero!
Were Conan or Achilles or Beowulf any lesser heroes when they were without weapons? Nope, either A: They got weapons or B: they kicked ass and took names without weapons.
THAT is what I think of when I think of heroic fantasy. Men and women who are great by virtue of their own abilities, who aren't dependent on magic or gods or any other crap (Yes I admit Achilles had magical aid but if you want to use that as a crutch I'm naming his rival in Troy who didn't have any magical aid and almost kicked his ass)
The key here, at least in my mind, is I don't want settings where magic is all powerful and lesser men kneel to wizards.
I want a setting where heroes are truly heroes like those in greek and roman mythology, like those in eastern legend, like those written of by the Celts and the Goths.
I'm not going to restrain my warriors by what is 'realistically possible' or some crap, and I'm not going to try to capture and imprison them just because I want to.
Tell me something my friend, how difficult is it to imprison a sorcerer? Or a Barbarian even (*cough*strength surge*cough*)
Why should it be any different for any hero?
I agree completely. Remember there are different tones, though. Conan couldn't light his sword on fire or fly on a whim. Even Perseus needed Pegasus to fly, and Theseus couldn't teleport out of the Labyrinth of Minos.
I still firmly believe that you could run an as written in the rulebook story of the same order. After all, the characters DO get exceptional, even fantastic abilities at higher levels. (You named a few yourself). Especially in PF. For most of the 'effects' that might be needed, a sorcerer or wizard or cleric can provide almost all of them. You need to pick your monsters and your fights carefully. If you need to up the pace, give the characters exceptional recuperative abilities (lvl. in hp/hour, or the like).
At higher levels, fighter's weapon specialization would really tell, especially with critical feats and improved critical (don't house-rule away the multiplying of extra damage, either). The vital strike abilities would work too. Just slip the power of the monsters down a notch. If they have damage reduction, don't remove it, just reduce it (or provide another option to defeat the monster).
Yes, high level characters are hard to imprison. But USUALLY a blindfold, gag and a decent set of manacles will hold a sorceror of any level. Throw a Barbarian in a pit with rounded, sheer, polished, inclined walls, and they can't climb out without help. Unless they can fly for some strange reason, then a locked and barred foot-thick steel plug would do the trick.
Oh, another idea: make surrender a viable option. If the party is outgunned, they may be able to surrender to find a more vulnerable moment to escape (even if they face certain imprisonment and or death). This is a logical, real-world choice, and also provides plenty of exciting opportunities to use the heroic abilities. As Rorschach paraphrased: "You're trapped in here with me!" (And getting captured and taken to the secret base is a common plan to FIND the secret base in fiction."
If the system doesn't work the way you think it should at first, fake it until you make it. Monsters don't have to kill the party, they can CAPTURE them, then many heroic events happen as they use their skill to escape (even non-intelligent creatures can do this, think of the Wampa and Luke). I think that happened to Conan once or twice. And Theseus. And Luke. Hell, the player that played Han missed a whole year of sessions while he was captured, but rescuing him was worth big XP. Or think of the last minute execution block saves of Robin Hood and similar settings.
If you want them to fight critters of the same level and in the same adventures, be prepared to fudge around until you hit the feel you want. Play for a while and figure out where characters are falling behind a normal party, then try to find a way to patch the hole.
Another suggestion? Simply add a feat every level. This creates the uber-skilled and talented characters without creating magical beings (unless you want that).
I'm just curious, did you want the super-fantastic, supernatural flying, flaming, fighters and godlike wizards (at least at high level like Dragonball Z, the Matrix, Jedi (in the prequel trilogy), or some of the more extreme myths) or something more about like Conan, Lord of the Rings, Willow, Lankhmar, Jedi (in the original trilogy) and the like?
Really, the result is that you need to identify your style, and how you get the characters to that result. You could do it as a buy 'em, and then limit what the characters can choose from (no flying, flaming, staff of power, etc.) to fit your style, which, come to think of it, might just be what you need.
Really, I think I'm just warning against carte blanche choices. With limited (for tone) choices, the characters could be just as exceptional but still controlled to fit your style of campaign.
Here's what I want. I want low-magic PCs to be mechanically balanced with what "normal" PCs "should" be at various levels. People have been using level 10 as a baseline for examples and such. However, magic items and the ability to purchase them scale significantly the higher your levels. So ... if level 1 low-magic and normal characters are identical to each other, then what does the opposite extreme look like? The only way a new "system" will work is at ALL levels. So why not jump straight to level 20 where the numbers are the most extreme? If a scalable, low-magic system is book-balanced at level 20, then you've got yourself a good case.
Although I AM curious to see opinions on non-stat items (flight, invisibility), I'm far more interested in pure math. My primary goal is to completely get rid of the enhancement items. Anything that defines itself with "+X" needs to go. And it needs to be replaced with "intended game balance", whatever you interpret THAT to be.
I'll reiterate my suggestion to check out the Star Wars Saga Edition Core book to see an example of this. The defenses/saves go up per level, the damage a PC/heroic character does increases with level, and the biggest bonus you ever get from equipment is usually a +2. It's a different system, sure, but it's got a ton of merits and is similar to PF.
Now, another suggestion of books that have done the work for you, is the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana. It has a ton of ideas about getting rid of armor, magic, etc. The 3.5 Arms & Equipment guide had low-magic suggestions as well.
I'm curious, do you work up your own adventures, or use published ones?
Well Makarnak, for starters, I enjoy every source you listed, clear from lord of the rings through to dragonball z.
Infact, if your familiar with Dragonball, that's about the power level I like to see my heroes, the end of Dragonball/the beggining of Dragonball Z. (About the level of the battle of Goku and Piccolo vs Radditz.
As for tone, I'm flexible, I'm happy to play with any tone my players decide to bring to the table.
If they want to play a monk that's DBZ inspired and flies and throws energy, awesome, let them.
If they want to play Beowulf, wrestle with trolls and rip their arms off and beat them with it, let them.
The only things that I don't want, are for my players to be unhappy, for my PC's to be the christmas trees that are lit up with powers that they wear instead of powers that they are, and for casters to not outperform non-casters.
That is all I want.
Aside from the movie (I know, I know, but what I don't know is why I went to it) I'm not that familiar with DBZ, but I have a fair idea of it. If that's the type of story you want, then go for it!
Personally, I'd want a more LotR or Willow style (or more definitely, Lankhmar with a little more magic). For an Asian-themed, I'd be more about Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
I think by limiting or not limiting the lists, you can achieve whatever style you want (and perhaps what the OP wants). Now I'm not so wary of 'invisible items.' They might just be a great way to go about it, and probably the least intrusive and easiest to pull off (and give the players more choice).
I ran a game in 3.5 where there were no items available for purchase, and only a few very special items that had abilities the party couldn't otherwise access.
The characters were gestalted and gained a feat at odd levels and an ability point at all even levels. It was fabulous.
With Pathfinder rules I might just go with giving them a feat at every level and an ability point at all even levels. A feat at every level would let them boost most things that magic would.
Was it intellectually stimulating, or was it a physical challenge? Because D&D works only on an intellectual level. I wouldn't want to play a game that simulated rugby plays if one person gets a whole complicated ruleset to play hooker, while the rest of the front row rolled one die to hit an easy target to give the rest of the team a minor bonus. Nevermind that +2 to hit on one attack is less making sure the hooker is in best position for the scrum and more cheering really hard from the sidelines.In my youth, i played rugby. I was actually fairly good. I played three positions well. Hooker, Prop and Winger.
One of those positions, the Prop, is entire based around the real world equivilant of providing that +2 to the Hooker. While it didn't have the personal glory of winger or Hooker, it was anything but Dull.
Well, while it was primarially about the physicality, as all sports are, it is not about personal glory, it is about allowing someone else to forfil their purpose in the team. Being part of a team, does sometimes involve making sacrifice so others can achieve. While all other comparions of Rugby and D&D are pretty much useless, this is a constant.
Oh by the way, its a +14, as the entire scrum is made up of seven lus the hooker. ;)
It should be pointed out that a +2 is not a negligable contribution. It is a 10% increase in chance of hitting, on occations when your fighting something with high AC it is a major change in chance to hit.
What you see as, "I spend my turn giving him +2. Your go.", i see as
'Right, Valra Isran dances forwards, ducking under the ogres arm. She twists lithely, flicking her weighted scarf around its arm, entangling it's arm for a moment. So move to set up flanking for my brother, continue my bardic performance and perform an aid another."Then my partner goes with. "Manra Isran slips in, dodging the ogres blows and thrusts his Steletto up into the monsters arm pit with all his weight, inspired by his sisters nimble steps.. So thats move, sneak attack with a total bonus of +5 to my normal attack."
I have to say, I don't consider that boring.
That's nice, but you're already resigned to not having a large personal contribution since you're playing a bard, and you're spending your time playing an entertaining game called Describe a Battle and My Character's Role because the die-rolling game you are playing is super boring.
Most players want to feel like they are making a large contribution to combat each round. This is why every class has a way to make a large contribution to combat each round. By removing several classes' way to bypass DR,...
For me all Combat mechanics in DnD are boring. Sorry gotta break it to you, but the mechanics of DnD are dull as dish water. 4e is a major improvement, in that they are actually mildly fun.
I don't play 'Describe a Battle and My Character's Role in it' because the dice rolling game i am playing in it is boring, i play it because the entire dice rolling game is boring. Well designed encounters and interesting mechanical tricks in a character can improve things a little, but all we are really doing is using risks to add drama. Frankly in the narrative of a combat, the action i described, is more interesting than most of the more 'optimal' choices on might make. If the narrative of the combat is dull, the combat is dull, like go to sleep and let some one else run your character until something important happens dull.
At level one, a +5 to one persons chance to hit, enablement of sneak attack, a +1 top every one elses chance to hit and a +1 to every ones damage is a huge contribution. Hell, against most of the most dangerous enemies one might face at that level, your contributing more to success as that bard than the party wizard is likely to be able to achieve.
Lastly, sure i am not a member of the original posters group, but i think he is very likely far more intune with his groups likes and dislikes than you are. He does not share your point of view on the DR issue, so i this it isn't entirely unreasonable to think that his players are more likely to share his view that there are other ways to deal with the monster, than yours that they should be able to. After all, like minded gamers do tend to come togther into groups over time. It isn't a perfect rule, but it works more often than not in my experience.