You know who doesn't care about a lack of magical items? The Wizard. The Cleric. The Druid.I agree 100%, and if a DM wants to run a low magic campaign, but he can't convince of how he will balance it out or refuses to answer my questions then I will definitely be playing a caster of some sort.Personally, for our low magic campaign we don't let folks play wizards/sorcerers/clerics/witches/oracles/druids. They simply don't exist.
Bards, Inquisitors and Summoners become the main casters, followed by Paladins and Rangers.
Inquisitors hunting Summoners is a riot!
As long as you answered my questions in a satisfactory manner there would not be an issue. I don't really care about the items, but game balance is important. I think it takes a good DM, and one with a lot of time to run such a game well. Most people don't understand "balance" well enough to pull it off.
|
Stuff.You have it exactly backwards. The power of a Wizard is inversely proportional to the amount of magic in the world. The power of a Fighter is directly proportional to the amount of magic in the world.
High magic world = enemies have lots of magic defense, spells fizzle often etc. Fighters get nice things.
Low magic world = everything has a big target saying 'insert spell to win encounter'. Fighters are disposable mooks. You'll mow through them by the dozens. Even, and especially if they are yours.
The problem you make with most of your "low magic" assumptions is that in a low magic world, you tend to assume that the only lack is the amount of toys floating around. In a low magic world, there are less resources for spell research and less willingness to share the results.
In addition, regardless of the level of magic the Fighter and the Rogue are in no way capable of defending anyone else, and need high magic just to protect themselves.
In a low magic world, Wizards have very restricted access to spells and sorcerers may not even exist. Similarly item creation feats are more difficult and themselves may be of restricted access. Enemy wizards have their books well hidden and trapped to explode, and may have at most one or two spells you don't have already.
Heck, in a low magic world, Wizards may not even get the two free spells per level and may have to research or find (steal) or beg for every page of their books!
It's not a true low magic world when it's low magic for the noncasters only.
This is something I've seen in Mistah Greens posts myself LazarX. He has a one track mind on what low magic means.
Low magic might mean any of the following, and this is not exhaustive.
- Reduced levels of spellcasting available (caps at level 3 or 4 spells)
- Magic functions only through living creatures, and only for certain types of spells. No scrolls, wands etc, for chanelling magic through them.
- The lore required to create magic items has long since vanished and all items are rare. Magic itself is vanishing from the world and those who use it must research every spell. Sometimes they spend months trying to perfect a spell, only to find the magic of the world cannot support such spells. There are no magic item creation feats as a consequence either.
- Only one or two types of magic work (Necromancy and healing say).Or <shock> only evocation is available.
- There are no spells, all magic comes from scrolls left from the ages past. The spells are poweruful when used, but gone once used too, so using them becomes a very difficult choice.
- Only ritual magic works, and these take time to conduct. This allows for summoning, but mostly in the form of "do me a favor" type of things.
- Magic hurts when you cast it. You take damage when casting, the more powerful the more damage. As a consequence, casters are rare and rarely over a certain level. The really powerful ones killed themselves long ago.
- Magic is strictly controlled. There are no "free spells". Every spell must be taught from a master, including for those who cast spontaneously. This allows the DM some control over what spells get into their campaign world.
Combine any of those elements as you see fit. Those are the ones I came up with in the 5 minutes it took me to type this. I'm sure there are a miriad of ways to create a low magic game. It comes down to how much time the GM has to invest.
I guess the point is, a few people on these threads keep assuming that a low magic game is only going to take out magic gear, but leave their beloved casters all the same tricks they've always had. If this were the case then yes, that would create a major imbalance. However, I doubt that a GM would go through the trouble of making a world called low magic, without impacting on spell casters in some way or another.
The first question someone deciding to run one of these games should ask is "Why is magic so low in the game world?" Once they answer this, then they need to apply it to all aspects of the world, including the types of critters available and the challenges they pose, magic items and their availablilty, and finally magic and its effects. One universal law aplied across all aspects of the game will keep it in balance.
It would be a lot of work, but quite doable. I think it would alienate many players though, particularly those who feel casters are the be all to end all.
Cheers
I think Mista Green's reaction is based on the propensity of "low magic" campaigns to, in fact, only hone in on magic gear and not on magic usage. I know I've seen a lot of people who claim their campaigns are "low magic" because the PCs are level 10 and only have one +1 Longsword between them, but there's a fully 10th level wizard and cleric running around without restriction. It's a fair assumption when discussing "low magic" campaigns without any additional information, since it's a very common approach, from what I've seen.
|
I think Mista Green's reaction is based on the propensity of "low magic" campaigns to, in fact, only hone in on magic gear and not on magic usage. I know I've seen a lot of people who claim their campaigns are "low magic" because the PCs are level 10 and only have one +1 Longsword between them, but there's a fully 10th level wizard and cleric running around without restriction. It's a fair assumption when discussing "low magic" campaigns without any additional information, since it's a very common approach, from what I've seen.
I'd call that a "Low Wealth" game, not "Low Magic". It just so happens that in 3.x, wealth usually means magic items.
Part of the problem is that GMs feel like availability of treasure is something they have control over, while the availability of core classes and spells is something that shouldn't be messed with. Yes, every now and then you get a Cass player who insists on playing an elven kung-fu master in your human-only, strictly European style fantasy game, but for the most part GMs need to be willing to talk with their players about ideas for a game, and that includes the (relatively) simple option of limiting the available options, even within the core rules.
I made up a heroic, lower-magic, world for D&D once upon a time, and specifically wanted to avoid having a large number of magic items floating around. I think it's much more interesting for characters to have a few very special items than a laundry list. Excalibur wouldn't be so fascinating if King Arthur had also been carrying around four magic knives, three magic clothes, two magic rings, and a blasted magic partridge in a blasted magic pear tree!
I gave out monetary rewards in two categories.
- loot that the characters physically acquire made up about 10-50% of each haul.
- I tracked the monetary value characters could be expected to have in the RAW, divided it among the characters, and gave it to them as a fund when they leveled up. That fund was off-screen, like feat selections, hit point gains, etc.
"Advancement Money" could be used to shop for magic items from the DMG, but the enhancements had to be explained in character. The standard way for this to happen was the enhancement of an existing magic item. I also reversed a couple magic item rules from the RAW:
- Instead of costing more to add multiple effects to a single item, I gave a 20% discount if added to one iconic item of the player's choosing, and a 10% discount if added to any other item.
- "No Slot" and "Different Slot" penalties were eliminated.
- For +20% cost, a character could have the ability naturally, without the need for an item.
The overall effects of these changes were just what I had hoped for! The characters kept up with expected threats, but only had 1-3 magical items each.
- The Barbarian had a magic greatsword, and belt of trophies taken from his fallen enemies. We later expanded his belt to cover more and more of his body in bits and pieces of dead monster, but it was just one "item" by the rules, and very important to his character! He would refuse to add bits of any enemy he didn't deem worthy, and relish the opportunity to add parts from powerful enemies, "I will defeat you in body and in spirit, and add your power to my own!"
- The Bard had a magic lute that was always getting wand effects added to it. Play the right chord, and anything might happen!
- The Sorcerer added all of his powers to his staff, and guarded it jealously.
- The Ranger was of the small-mounted-archer type and "bought" enhancements for his Animal Companion/mount as well as a magic bow.
|
I've also seen where the characters themselves have the magic properties of magic weapons imbued within themselves, and only require a magic weapon for those properties to make themselves known. In this case, the magic weapon itself wouldn't have any specific properties associated, as it would simply channel the properties that the wielder was embed with. One man holding a magic sword might treat it as a +1 flaming sword, while another might find it functions as a +4 vorpal sword.
I made up a heroic, lower-magic, world for D&D once upon a time, and specifically wanted to avoid having a large number of magic items floating around. I think it's much more interesting for characters to have a few very special items than a laundry list. Excalibur wouldn't be so fascinating if King Arthur had also been carrying around four magic knives, three magic clothes, two magic rings, and a blasted magic partridge in a blasted magic pear tree!
I gave out monetary rewards in two categories.
- loot that the characters physically acquire made up about 10-50% of each haul.
- I tracked the monetary value characters could be expected to have in the RAW, divided it among the characters, and gave it to them as a fund when they leveled up. That fund was off-screen, like feat selections, hit point gains, etc.
"Advancement Money" could be used to shop for magic items from the DMG, but the enhancements had to be explained in character. The standard way for this to happen was the enhancement of an existing magic item. I also reversed a couple magic item rules from the RAW:
- Instead of costing more to add multiple effects to a single item, I gave a 20% discount if added to one iconic item of the player's choosing, and a 10% discount if added to any other item.
- "No Slot" and "Different Slot" penalties were eliminated.
- For +20% cost, a character could have the ability naturally, without the need for an item.
The overall effects of these changes were just what I had hoped for! The characters kept up with expected threats, but only had 1-3 magical items each.
Do you have more specific information on this set up - it sounds pretty sweet from the summary. I'm very much interested in how you broke down the two partitions of loot.
That sounds quite interesting Blueluck. I may have to steal it.
+1. That does sound awesome, flavorful, and balanced, hitting all three important house rule notes.
Name something Conan did that requires being level 10.
Wait . . . you're saying I'm the only one that had a copy of "The Phoenix on the Sword" that mentioned Conan using Improved Vital Strike? ;)
Aw, c'mon. Hearing someone wailing is like a -5 DC. :P
I've never seen the movie nor read the books, so I'm really curious what epic feats he accomplished that require he be in the double-digit levels.
He soloed two frost giants. Trying to tap their sister.
So that's at least a CR 11, and he did it like it was a joke.
Aw, c'mon. Hearing someone wailing is like a -5 DC. :P
I've never seen the movie nor read the books, so I'm really curious what epic feats he accomplished that require he be in the double-digit levels.
On a slightly more serious note, he started pounding on a construct without any noticeable magical weapons in the books, and in the movies he fought an awakening demi-god with his bare hands . . . I'm sure there are other notable things from the short stories, but I'm drawing a blank right now.
None of those do anything but suggest "higher than low level," but REH forgot to put the d20 footnotes in his books. ;)
He soloed two frost giants. Trying to tap their sister.
So that's at least a CR 11, and he did it like it was a joke.
Yeah, and that was actually an "earlier" adventure, rather than the post "king" era. I knew some other people would be better at rubbing two brain cells together than I am right now.
Aw, c'mon. Hearing someone wailing is like a -5 DC. :P
I've never seen the movie nor read the books, so I'm really curious what epic feats he accomplished that require he be in the double-digit levels.
He soloed two frost giants. Trying to tap their sister.
So that's at least a CR 11, and he did it like it was a joke.
Yeah, and that was actually an "earlier" adventure, rather than the post "king" era. I knew some other people would be better at rubbing two brain cells together than I am right now.He soloed two frost giants. Trying to tap their sister.
So that's at least a CR 11, and he did it like it was a joke.
He solos demons. All the time.
That aren't dretches.WITHOUT a magic sword.
He thinks magic is jacked up. Doesn't like it.
Thoth Amon.
Summons Demons, like planar binds their ass;
You gotta be like 11th level to do that at least.
And Conan kicked his ass.
He drives a chariot into battle . . . without horses.
He has a harem in every city . . . but not his own.
He discovers lost magical cities filled with undead . . . but only at night.
He negotiates with his fellow kings . . . after he slaughters their armies.
He is . . . the most Interesting Man in the Hyborian Age.
Oh, and serpent people, illusioned up to look like babes and seduce his men......
Conan mows through them like kobolds.
With......whatever sword/axe/barstool is laying around.
He was 5th level when he was nine years old.
.
..
...
....
.....
I agree that magic items need some "restructuring" or the like, precisely to avoid the pitfall of players seeing their character as a set of magic items.
However, magic items are of different types. for permanent items, I would divide them into rule-based and others. Rule-based items are the things that merely provide a numeric bonus somewhere for the user. Stuff like cloaks of charisma, longswords +1, rings of resistance and so on. They do not provide any new abilities, merely enhance the existing ones. Others are the stuff that give a character new options: Ropes of climbing, wondrous figurines, helms of brilliance. The way the game is set up, all the "others" magic items are far more costly than the rule-based ones, leading to the first magic items ALWAYS being rule-based, and generally, this sticks for the characters' entire career.
So what would happen if you removed them?
Strangely, I think this would have very little impact. Partly, what's bad for the goose would be bad for the gander. Enemy wizards wouldn't have any headbands of intellect +4 either, and armours and weapons would to some degree cancel each other out. Also, I see no problem with replacing these items to some degree with things like more detailed masterwork items and perhaps different materials, however, since these would be far less costly, the problem of accumulating wealth would lessen. Otherwise put: The DM doesn't need to give enemies massively valuable equipment in order to threaten the PCs, equipment that the PCs will then claim. What remains is likely to adapt the CR of encounters to match the new paradigm.
Instead of using anonymous +X items, the PCs will use colourful and strange magic items, things that let them do things they couldn't otherwise do. I would say to keep the specific weapons and armours, intelligent items, perhaps legacy items, and so on. With more wondrous items, the heroes will be more versatile and different, instead of every character having a streamlined stat and save boost harness.
Next up is the concept of charged items. Yes, scrolls are a fine way to give wizards access to new spells, if they are rare enough. Divine scrolls do feel somewhat different. However, scrolls and wands are mainly just an excuse for expanding the PCs' numericals (spells per day). Far better to use staves and rods instead, and to let wizards take other wizards' spellbooks instead of scrolls.
Finally, potions: These are bottled spells, see the above. They provide healing capability, and this can be replaced by herbalism/alchemy and similar stuff, which needs some love anyway. Other potions can probably be dropped without too much consequence, since they mostly just remain in the PCs backpacks through the campaign.
So, after dramatically slashing low-level magic items, we have a clearly lower-magic setting. Magic is impressive and a bit more wondrous again. Spellcasters have far less ability to "outsource" their spellcasting to others through potions, and far less spell capacity at low-level spells through scrolls and wands. This forces them to work with their available resources, and as they also cannot shore up the basic weaknesses of their classes through +x save items and the like, they will need to use more spells to protect themselves. This should reduce the power disparity between spellcasters and non-spellcasters, something many have sought for a long while. Finally, once you do start getting your hands on the real magic items, you can honestly feel you are someone impressive, which was kind of the point, wasn't it? Oh, and item creation feats will not need to clutter up the sheets of characters, which some will consider a bonus.
Only in the minds of some..
..
...
....
.....
|
I think it's much more interesting for characters to have a few very special items than a laundry list. Excalibur wouldn't be so fascinating if King Arthur had also been carrying around four magic knives, three magic clothes, two magic rings, and a blasted magic partridge in a blasted magic pear tree!
This. I tend towards this approach myself, for precisely the same reasons; I just think the "here is my shopping list, and I must have this list of things in order to be effective" approach just takes me out of the story and reduces the immersive fun I could be having. A character should not be his gear, and if he does at all define himself through it, it should be 1-2 items that really take on a life of their own.
I like your ideas on how to mechanically make this work too. I tend to integrate similar "power ups" on items myself, explaining that as characters level they naturally meld better with the magics within their items and learn new ways to utilize them.
One of the best recent memories I have in gaming was when my paladin got his fourth or fifth x4 crit while smiting with the +1 Pick I found in one of our first modules (and that I just seemed to crit with all the darn time, so it seemed "lucky" to me). My GM decreed that my goddess smiled upon me, and as I hit the creature with the massive (100+ damage) killing blow, lightning from the sky crashed into my weapon and made it... +2!
Mechanically, big deal -- another +1. But circumstantially? My character will never ever trade this thing in. We gave it a name, and my character is now devoting his spare time to writing an epic treatise on the pick as both a weapon and a means of spiritual insight. Details matter way more than maxing out game bonuses.
So what would happen if you removed them?
Strangely, I think this would have very little impact. Partly, what's bad for the goose would be bad for the gander. Enemy wizards wouldn't have any headbands of intellect +4 either, and armours and weapons would to some degree cancel each other out.
No, they wouldn't. Or rather, they would, but only for things that USE armor and weapons and stat boosters. A very large percentage of the Bestiary does not -- basically just humanoids and (some) monstrous humanoids. Everything else has those bonuses built in.
|
You would have to cap bonuses creatures get to DCs (or cap bonuses to DC in general for PCs and NPCs/Monsters) and maybe dump some of that stat power into other areas that actual increase survivability for the creature (more HP and/or DR, Saves or SR where weak or uneven) beyond one or two rounds.
Once you eliminate the need, i.e. adjust creatures so that appropriate level PCs get an appropriate level challenge without the stat inflating gear – then the major focus of the issue is solved.
Stat boosters and inflatable DCs are the bane of 3.5/PF and a huge source of the need to "add another +1". If DCs cap at appropriate levels then the PCs will not find the need to race for the boosters, nor would there be a need for them if the system was locked at level appropriate power.
You would have to cap bonuses creatures get to DCs (or cap bonuses to DC in general for PCs and NPCs/Monsters) and maybe dump some of that stat power into other areas that actual increase survivability for the creature (more HP and/or DR, Saves or SR where weak or uneven) beyond one or two rounds.
Once you eliminate the need, i.e. adjust creatures so that appropriate level PCs get an appropriate level challenge without the stat inflating gear – then the major focus of the issue is solved.
Stat boosters and inflatable DCs are the bane of 3.5/PF and a huge source of the need to "add another +1". If DCs cap at appropriate levels then the PCs will not find the need to race for the boosters, nor would there be a need for them if the system was locked at level appropriate power.
And if the system were truly locked at level appropriate power, you'd remove a huge degree of customization from the game. Not to mention that you've done a complete rewrite of a huge section of not only the Core Rulebook but the Bestiary as well.
This is almost Rube Goldberg-like in its over-complication to fix a fairly easily fixed problem.
Oh, and serpent people, illusioned up to look like babes and seduce his men......
Conan mows through them like kobolds.
With......whatever sword/axe/barstool is laying around.
He was 5th level when he was nine years old.
Sorry Spanky you are mistaken. Conan kicked free of his mother at level two. By nine he was an easy 6th.
>grabs hickory axe handle< Anybody want to swim outside and "talk" about it.
Mr. Fishy and Crom had a talk, Mr. Fishy taught him the riddle of hickory axe.
Could always count on you to be both dismissive while not actually addressing the problem with a fix Zurai - thanks!
The easiest way to do this is to just move the bonuses from the gear to the character. Give them automatic enhancement bonuses to attack/damage/AC/saves/two stats every so often. This involves by far the least amount of re-designing the game. Like it or not, the game DOES assume that characters have bonuses to hit, damage, AC, saves, and stats; thus, your only solutions lie in giving them those bonuses in a new way or completely re-designing the system.
I covered the simplest, easiest, most direct way to solve the problem three days ago. It pays to read the thread instead of throwing around personal attacks.
Zurai - you're not understanding the underlying question/concern. Really, no one is.
The OP has a problem with his players wanting toys. It's that simple. He realizes that they need the toys, he just doesn't like the focus his players put on said equipment.
There is no cure or magic (heh) solution for this problem. The game assumes the characters will have toys. Some players never get past the numbers.
As a DM, you just have to get used to that. Try and have fun anyway.
Edit: one way my party gets around this issue is to just put on the item and forget about it. Just imagine whatever it is, melting into the character's skin... Forget it's there and move on.
|
|
Could always count on you to be both dismissive while not actually addressing the problem with a fix Zurai - thanks!The easiest way to do this is to just move the bonuses from the gear to the character. Give them automatic enhancement bonuses to attack/damage/AC/saves/two stats every so often. This involves by far the least amount of re-designing the game. Like it or not, the game DOES assume that characters have bonuses to hit, damage, AC, saves, and stats; thus, your only solutions lie in giving them those bonuses in a new way or completely re-designing the system.I covered the simplest, easiest, most direct way to solve the problem three days ago. It pays to read the thread instead of throwing around personal attacks.
I saw your solution - garbage.
Instead of wearing their bonuses and not having the courage to address the problem you rather give the same bonuses sans equipment.Like I said, "not actually addressing the problem with a fix"
From the title it should be clear: I HAAAAAAATE the Christmas Tree effect. I recognize it’s part of the game’s heritage and I like a cool magic item as much as the next guy. People love to hold up the One Ring, Sting, Elric’s Sword, and other examples from fiction as justification for their availability. Yet most of the time, magic items don’t work in-game like their fictional counterparts.
My prefered method is the No Magic Item method. That is, make magic items impossible to create (remove all magic item feats) by mortal means.
Then arrange for the PCs to eventually land a few artifacts. They don't even have to be real artifacts, but rather really good magic items. Think about it like this - instead of handing out little magic items along the way, every so often hand out 5 or more levels worth of loot in a single item (or a single item per character).
Legacy items work well too, if you have the Weapons of Legacy book. Just remove the "costs" and feat requirements to upgrade them (because the PCs won't be getting any other magic items, so they're already 'paying' for it).
When you only have one magic item, but it's really powerful, the sense of wonder is magnified.
Plus, you get the added benefit of making all those buff spells no one ever uses useful again. Magic Weapon at first level becomes a great spell, and a necessary spell for beating low level DR. Magic Vestment and Greater Magic Weapon will keep most PCs fairly well protected even at higher levels (since they both last 1 hour per level, they last the whole adventuring day by the time you get them at 5th, 6th, or 7th level).
Bonded Items and Spirit Companion items become more desirable and special too.
I don't like this method for every game (sometimes a little Christmas Tree is fun) but it is a great way to add some flavor and make the "quest for the magical sword" a viable adventure option.
I should note, while I mentioned "one artifact per character" above, it wouldn't necessarily hurt in you gave out a little more than that. I like the method of each character having one VERY powerful item (to compensate for having no other items at all) because I can really go crazy with giving each item a unique history, backstory, mission, NPCs/enemies who are looking for the item, specific plot relevance (the Plot Muguffin can also be the PC's main piece of equipment), etc. If you're comfortable with 2-4 items each (which eliminates Christmas Tree, but still grants variety) then that could work too, so long as each item is less powerful respectively.
I also like one item each because I can make it very clear which PC gets which item (by custom tailoring it exactly to that character). If characters have more than one, then they might try trading items to get results I could not predict. (Oh, one note - two weapon fighters should get Two items, but as a matched set that function together. The swords of law in Age of Worms are a good example. Alone, each is a ho-hum magical sword, but together they produce a number of magical effects including sonic blasts and flight).
Anyway, I think I've reached the point or rambling, and the wall of text is getting pretty huge, so I'll stop talking now. I talked about this idea some in the "Low Magic" thread, since the two concepts are related. Just thought my experiences might help you create a game to your liking. But I'll stop now. Really.
Shutting up now.
I saw your solution - garbage.
Instead of wearing their bonuses and not having the courage to address the problem you rather give the same bonuses sans equipment.Like I said, "not actually addressing the problem with a fix"
Considering that "the problem" was "I don't want my players to be defined by their gear", yes, my solution does indeed actually fix the problem. By moving the bonuses from the gear to the character, you open the window for characters to define their gear instead of the other way around. Players can now pick fun, flavorful, but mechanically weak items instead of being forced to pick the boring, mechanical must-haves.
Zurai - you're not understanding the underlying question/concern. Really, no one is.
The OP has a problem with his players wanting toys. It's that simple. He realizes that they need the toys, he just doesn't like the focus his players put on said equipment.
This is the question/problem presented in the original post:
So, how do you help your players avoid the “My Character is his Gear” trap?
I addressed that.
Could always count on you to be both dismissive while not actually addressing the problem with a fix Zurai - thanks!The easiest way to do this is to just move the bonuses from the gear to the character. Give them automatic enhancement bonuses to attack/damage/AC/saves/two stats every so often. This involves by far the least amount of re-designing the game. Like it or not, the game DOES assume that characters have bonuses to hit, damage, AC, saves, and stats; thus, your only solutions lie in giving them those bonuses in a new way or completely re-designing the system.I covered the simplest, easiest, most direct way to solve the problem three days ago. It pays to read the thread instead of throwing around personal attacks.I saw your solution - garbage.
Instead of wearing their bonuses and not having the courage to address the problem you rather give the same bonuses sans equipment.Like I said, "not actually addressing the problem with a fix"
So you want to remove the bonuses completely instead of move them from the equipment to the PC?
edit:changed the word "player" to "PC"
|
|
So you want to remove the bonuses completely instead of move them from the equipment to the PC?edit:changed the word "player" to "PC"
I think it makes more sense then having a system which requires the player to fight to get +X bonus to keep up with the curve. Eliminate the need for the mechanical "must haves".
What are the reasons:
a) Scaling Spell, SLA or effect (trick, class ability, etc) DCs
b) Ability bonuses increase and can be modified faster than save progression and item bonuses.
c) Invisible war - unless the player stays on top of his game, he is going to fall behind the curve, he needs to up his saves just to survive. This forces optimization at middle or higher levels.
Does it make sense that they cap the damage a 3rd level spell can put out and left the DC "to save" against it open?
For example - Level 3 spells should stay in that realm; Level 3. They should have a low DC which should be a 50%-50% challenge for level 5-6 PCs (or NPCs). A low spell/effect and save should not get higher with stat boosts. At least not as laid out in the game.
The tie of scaling DC to attribute scores is bad design and lopsided towards casters and spells.
I don't mind a +1 to +2 for very specialized characters - but spells and effects should be beatable and run at a pretty even pace with base the base classes saves at appropriate level - and they don't.
Think about a 5th level wizard (Int 20, ) cast Suggestion on a 5th level fighter (say wis 10). The save DC is 18. The Fighter has a Wil save of +1, we'll even give him a cloak of resistance +2 for a total of +3. He has to roll a nat 15 or higher to beat the Suggestion.
If you add in Spell focus and greater spell focus the DC rises to 20, meaning the fighter needs a nat 17 just to beat it.
Spells are powerful, spell effects are powerful and the things which modify a sword strike (STR) and AC (DEX) have considerably less impact on the overall game vs. anything that boosts the DC +X.
All of which are provided by temp buffs, stat boosters, feats, etc.
They just don't weigh the same.
The only reason why players need stat boost items so heavily is that the game (by assigning DC tied to stats) forces them to.
Only in the minds of some..
..
...
....
.....
It's worse than the rest of the thread?
The OP has a problem with his players wanting toys. It's that simple. He realizes that they need the toys, he just doesn't like the focus his players put on said equipment.
Ban non-magic-using classes. Problem solved.
snip
There's a whole lot more you'd have to change than just the DC system. Check out the Bestiary monster generation numbers and compare them to BAB and AC for non-magically-enhanced characters.
For example, a CR 10 monster hits at +17. A level 10 Fighter with 14 Dex in full plate and with a heavy shield only has an AC of 23. That gives the monster a 75% chance to hit the character with the absolute best AC in the party. Similarly, it has a 24 AC; the Fighter's OK to hit that (because it's the class that specializes in to-hit bonuses), but any 3/4 BAB class is going to struggle to hit that -- Rogues, for example, are going to have around a +13 to hit on their first attack, which is only a 50% chance, and that's only if they aren't using Two Weapon Fighting.
The gap widens in both respects as CR increases. A CR 20 monster has a +30 to hit versus the absolute max of a 23 AC, while it has a 36 AC against the Rogue's +22 or so to hit.
So you want to remove the bonuses completely instead of move them from the equipment to the PC?edit:changed the word "player" to "PC"
I think it makes more sense then having a system which requires the player to fight to get +X bonus to keep up with the curve. Eliminate the need for the mechanical "must haves".
What are the reasons:
a) Scaling Spell, SLA or effect (trick, class ability, etc) DCs
b) Ability bonuses increase and can be modified faster than save progression and item bonuses.
c) Invisible war - unless the player stays on top of his game, he is going to fall behind the curve, he needs to up his saves just to survive. This forces optimization at middle or higher levels.Does it make sense that they cap the damage a 3rd level spell can put out and left the DC "to save" against it open?
For example - Level 3 spells should stay in that realm; Level 3. They should have a low DC which should be a 50%-50% challenge for level 5-6 PCs (or NPCs). A low spell/effect and save should not get higher with stat boosts. At least not as laid out in the game.The tie of scaling DC to attribute scores is bad design and lopsided towards casters and spells.
I don't mind a +1 to +2 for very specialized characters - but spells and effects should be beatable and run at a pretty even pace with base the base classes saves at appropriate level - and they don't.
Think about a 5th level wizard (Int 20, ) cast Suggestion on a 5th level fighter (say wis 10). The save DC is 18. The Fighter has a Wil save of +1, we'll even give him a cloak of resistance +2 for a total of +3. He has to roll a nat 15 or higher to beat the Suggestion.
If you add in Spell focus and greater spell focus the DC rises to 20, meaning the fighter needs a nat 17 just to beat it.
Spells are powerful, spell effects are powerful and the things which modify a sword strike (STR) and AC (DEX) have considerably less impact on the overall game vs. anything that boosts the DC +X.
All of which are...
The issue is that you have to change a lot of things with the system, and caps take away a lot of versatility that the system has in place. It is really hard to place caps on the offensive or defensive side without one side having a definite advantage. What I mean is either saves will be failed, or they will be made. The game will have to be played differently. I think it is better done with a rewrite from the group up than trying to tinker here or there.
The fighter should also have iron will, and will most likely have buffs from the party casters. I know you have the occasional odd party, but we should look at the normal party when doing the comparison. Pathfinder also has traits, and that is another possible +1 to saves. Now that I am thinking about it if saves are an issue then maybe the base saves need to be redone.
snipThere's a whole lot more you'd have to change than just the DC system. Check out the Bestiary monster generation numbers and compare them to BAB and AC for non-magically-enhanced characters.
For example, a CR 10 monster hits at +17. A level 10 Fighter with 14 Dex in full plate and with a heavy shield only has an AC of 23. That gives the monster a 75% chance to hit the character with the absolute best AC in the party. Similarly, it has a 24 AC; the Fighter's OK to hit that (because it's the class that specializes in to-hit bonuses), but any 3/4 BAB class is going to struggle to hit that -- Rogues, for example, are going to have around a +13 to hit on their first attack, which is only a 50% chance, and that's only if they aren't using Two Weapon Fighting.
The gap widens in both respects as CR increases. A CR 20 monster has a +30 to hit versus the absolute max of a 23 AC, while it has a 36 AC against the Rogue's +22 or so to hit.
Absolute maximum of 23 AC? I don't think so ...
Without stat boosters.
Absolute maximum of 23 AC? I don't think so ...
Ah - without enchanted gear you mean?