I was curious why it seems that as the game progresses its seems to become less magical as far as the number of items that once were craftable are now thrown into the artifact pile?
An example, why is the staff of magi forgoten? Anyone else ever ponder why this trend has been creaping slowly forward?
And while alot of there other classes have become more interesting over time and new ways of being a arcane caster have even come about ( ala Sorc. ) The wizard hasn't really changed much. It seems there is some fear of fiddling with magic or some such. I like the new flavor that has been given to mages they haven't really changed much really. Their Familars are not really worth investing in since its pretty static and growthless. Almost would be better to just tweek up a sorc's power level and chop of the Wiz from the list. No one else uses brains anymore for magic after all.
Anyone else notice or think something along these lines? I would like to know what others thought on the matter.
Well, nobody forces those +X items on you. I still loved to have the hand of the mage hanging among the fetishes on the neck of my barbarian, having a potion of love among my healing potions and a feather fall token hanging from my wrist ;)
+X items are directly linked to non-static statistics.
Familiars are awesome.
Wizards are probably the most powerful class in the game, and are far better then sorcerers.
Other then the items bit, I don't really see your complaint.
I'd rather play a wizard than a sorcerer. I suppose a sorcerer makes a decent walking artillery piece, but if you want to be an interesting spellcaster, play a wizard.
There has been a trend throughout D&D history to make high level wizards weaker. Many of the high level and some of the low lever spells were weakened in effect, or the rules changed so they could no longer do what they used to do.
On the other hand, low level wizards were made more powerful, by allowing them to cast more spells per day at low levels and giving them weapon proficiencies that let them be active even when their spells run out.
I think this is all part of balancing the game. They don't want a "Ala-kazam! the battle is over" game.
As for magic items, yesterday I was reading that most players use stat-boosting items and forgo the more interesting and quirky items. They never craft them, and if they find them they sell them. I prefer quirky items myself, but people want their stats boosted.
On the other hand, my sorceress/bard/druid is collecting quirky items. She currently has a swan boat feather token and a stone of alarm. She also has a cloak of resistance, +1 spear, and +1 crossbow, so she is not neglecting the stat boosting aspect. But she is also preparing to be prepared with whatever the party might need.
For both narrative and mechanical reasons, I think it's a matter of dividing up what should be unique and rare and what should be something relatively commonplace (for an adventurer with means and/or skill).
A skilled PC might be able to fairly easily, given time and materials, churn out a few Belts of Physical Might.
A PC, no matter how skilled, should not fairly and easily mass produce a Deck of Many Things. Especially since if he can do that, why not just make a Deck full of just the cards that give you XP? And if there's a billion Decks of Many things lying around, they're just not that cool anymore.
Same for a Staff of the Archmagi. This should be an item borne by that rarest of rare creatures: an extremely high level arcanist, as not just an item that gives you cool abilities, but a mark of social status and accomplishment. They shouldn't be something you can make to sell in a shop.
And let's not even think about crafting Spheres of Annihilation.
Now, if a player of mine really, really wanted a Staff of the Archmagi, I could work out a means where he could craft one--but it wouldn't be a matter of "dock so many GP off your sheet and consider two months have passed." It would be, "find the corrupt unicorn Derikath ((which is probably a unicorn with the fiendish template and class levels)) who is terrorizing the fey of the northern wood and slay him, and carefully harvest his horn, then properly and respectfully dispose of his remains. Then I need you to find one each of the following: a flawless diamond, emerald, ruby, sapphire, and topaz, each worth no less than 20,000 GP. It's said the ancient red dragon has such treasure in his horde in the volcano to the west. Harvest his blood while you're at it, and then...."
It basically would be a whole chapter of a campaign--as indeed, suggested by the rulebook.
Creative Director
|
There's actually quite a lot of unusual magic items in Pathfinder, but not as much in the core rules. We've included a HUGE amount of unusual and flavorful magic items in our Adventure Paths, companion lines, and campaign setting books, and will continue to do so.
And even in the rulebook line you'll see new types of magic items appear. The ones in the core rulebook may feel "standard" to those familiar with 3.5 because the whole point of the core rulebook was to not introduce new things but to keep the baseline rules and options of the game in print. Which included keeping all of those standard rules in print.
And, of course, the rules for creating new magic items in the book mean that there's no limit to the type of items a creative player or GM can invent.
I think you're selling the game short. What does happen is that as you become more familiar with the books and see more of them the variation is less unique. I think thats a function of exposure not publishing.
Don't forget that truly different items are going to be a reflection of the actual players in your game. They're better crafted or thought up on a case by case basis.
My favourite weird Item - from a website - was the
Necklace of Tuesday - inside this necklace it is always tuesday.
Less magical?
I'd say with 3e's addition of feats and PrCs, there was more magic being tossed around. The fact that items went to Diablo-style stat modifiers and moved away from interesting and powerful items is sad in a way, but the overall power level of spellcasters has only gotten better from 2e or 1e.
There is also a lot more magic items that modify magic like Rods of Empowering, and that makes for vastly more powerful casters.
The only real casualty of this change is the non-spellcasters. They used to own the battlefield with stuff like Vorpal Swords, and now they are stuck buying up their armor and weapons bonuses instead of being handed real magic power in item form.
I kinda still play 2nd edition style when it comes to magical items, meaning the players will rarely consider to sell or trade items.
It is fairly easy to balance the party somewhat by 'handing out' powerful unique items to those in need, I do not use the craft feats really. I am considering to rewrite the rules and up the minimum levels on crafting.
It's like Oprah would say 'More is less', less abundant magic items make for more flavor and excitement when the players get their hands on a shiny magical item. Oprah for president !
There's actually quite a lot of unusual magic items in Pathfinder, but not as much in the core rules. We've included a HUGE amount of unusual and flavorful magic items in our Adventure Paths, companion lines, and campaign setting books, and will continue to do so.
To be fair, not all users of the Pathfinder core rules use the Pathfinder campaign setting, in the minority though they may be. (However I think more flavorful, campaign specific items make a lot of sense.)
The OP seemed more concerned that core stuff that used to be in "magic items" way back in AD&D are now artifacts. But that's also when those items were in the DMG and to be distributed by the GM as they felt fit. I think magic item purchase/creation has become more common over time, and that means making sure that the more powerful/unusual stuff remains rare, which is probably a good trend.
The only real casualty of this change is the non-spellcasters. They used to own the battlefield with stuff like Vorpal Swords, and now they are stuck buying up their armor and weapons bonuses instead of being handed real magic power in item form.
I'm not sure what you mean. Getting something like a vorpal sword "back when" was usually at the whim of your GM, at least in my experience. There was certainly nothing that guaranteed it.
Actually, with the Mastercrafter Feat, a Fighter is more likely to be able to make his own Vorpal Sword (vorpal is not an artifact quality) than ever.
A common trope in fantasy is lost magic, and so I think it fits to have the secrets to certain items lost to the passage of time. In game terms, AD&D had very loose rules for magic item creation, which helped prevent players from crafting a staff of the magi or sphere of annihilation. Pathfinder, by comparison, has more unified rules for that, and keeping some stuff away from the PCs' crafting abilities is probably a good thing.
In terms of wacky magic items, I don't know if Pathfinder is all that bland compared to AD&D. There's still the apparatus of Kwalish (now the apparatus of the crab), the deck of many things, the wand of wonder, marvelous pigments, and so on. In terms of the core rules, I can't think of too many weird items that Pathfinder left out, except maybe the girdle of masculinity/femininity and certain IP-protected artifacts like the Hand of Vecna. How often these things find their way into a game is a matter of when the GM introduces them.
The one weird/fun thing from old editions that I have been missing for a while is the potion miscibility table. Fortunately, those are easily ported over via house rules if one wishes.
My GM still pulls out his old Magic Item Encyclopedia every once in a while, and we are all happy when he does. I think the problem is that the game assumes you will have a certain level of gear to increase your primary function when designing the monsters. Players therefore see those items as mandatory and buy the best ones that they can.
I think if you included the more flavorful magic items in your campaign more, you would see that players do not sell them. They just don't go out of their way to buy them unless you specifically make them available. Giving them to players and then not counting them against their WBL may be a good idea, depending on how much use they get out of it.
First, the wizard hasn't changed much? Every time a new arcane spell was/is added/changed/altered/dreamed up/homebrewed/written on a napkin the wizard has changed. Every new spell makes the wizard new and interesting. Over the life of the game this has happened literally countless times. Want something new for your wizard? Dig up a few spells from 3.5, look at the already significant amount of 3rd party magic material for pathfinder, or just come up with some of your own. There was a thread a while back where people just threw out ideas for new and interesting spells. And there were some real gems in there. It just takes one casting of otto's inconceivably big stick to revitalize the fun and wonder of playing a wizard. As long as you keep power and balance in mind your dm should have little problem in working with you on this. I wouldnt add in whole books and sources wholesale, but adding a few choice interesting spells should not be a problem.
As for moving items into the artifact pool where is the problem with that exactly? Those were all already powerful items, and were supposed to be rare, I think putting them in the artifact pool is putting where they belonged all alone. And not only was the staff and other treasures not forgotten, but many of them got a fresh coat of paint in paizo's classic treasures revisited product.
The only real casualty of this change is the non-spellcasters. They used to own the battlefield with stuff like Vorpal Swords, and now they are stuck buying up their armor and weapons bonuses instead of being handed real magic power in item form.I'm not sure what you mean. Getting something like a vorpal sword "back when" was usually at the whim of your GM, at least in my experience. There was certainly nothing that guaranteed it.
Actually, with the Mastercrafter Feat, a Fighter is more likely to be able to make his own Vorpal Sword (vorpal is not an artifact quality) than ever.
Oh, everyone in my gaming circles used to use the random treasure charts back in 2e. Crazy crap always turned up. Sometimes it was crazy effective (Wild Mage gets a Wand of Wonder), and sometimes the dice gods were fickle and strange (I was the only 7th level Wiz on the block with a +4 Dagger).
In 3e, magic items kinda suck.
Vorpal Swords used to execute people like all of the time in 2e with all of a Fighter's attacks (nat 17-20, then assume a large number of attacks for near insta-gib). They made Fighters gods of the battlefield.
In 3e, Vorpal swords need to crit on a Nat 20 and confirm crits which makes them much less deadly, and they cost so much that you really just want a set of maxed armor and shield and some natty armor amulets and a ring of protection and just get the Wizard or Cleric to cast Greater Magic Weapon on some off-the-shelf adamantine, silver, or cold iron weapons.
I was curious why it seems that as the game progresses its seems to become less magical as far as the number of items that once were craftable are now thrown into the artifact pile?
An example, why is the staff of magi forgoten? Anyone else ever ponder why this trend has been creaping slowly forward?
And while alot of there other classes have become more interesting over time and new ways of being a arcane caster have even come about ( ala Sorc. ) The wizard hasn't really changed much. It seems there is some fear of fiddling with magic or some such. I like the new flavor that has been given to mages they haven't really changed much really. Their Familars are not really worth investing in since its pretty static and growthless. Almost would be better to just tweek up a sorc's power level and chop of the Wiz from the list. No one else uses brains anymore for magic after all.
Anyone else notice or think something along these lines? I would like to know what others thought on the matter.
I have been wondering where the SoM went since I first picked up 3.0. Though I hoped it was fixed in 3.5, alas I was sadly mistaken. I have always been a huge fan of the wizard/mage class and was at first exstatic about the sorc class, but then I got past the first paragraph in the description and was sorrley dissapointed.
What I thought was an awesome addition to the 'arcane brotherhood' turned out to be the wizards idiot savant, younger brother (I am not intending on insulting people with "limitations" or whatever the PC term is). People can argue all they want about how awesome it is to sling spells more often per level than the wizard, but the fact is that they still require words, components, and gestures to 'cast'. NOT the intuitive casting that is first described in the PHB. Now that I have said all that, I still play sorcerer's as they can be fun as long as you plan their carrier build from day one and that includes carefully chosing spells. Sorry, i got off track here. In conclusion I agree with you VRDragon in that they seemed very skittish about 'adjusting' the wizard class. I have been playing D&D for over 18 years and started with basic D&D. The wizard has stayed essentially the same in all that time.