Somewhat more dependent, yes, but the fighter in 1st edition wasn't crazily gimped with low magic---which is probably why Gygax didn't really bother much with a wealth by level benchmark or anything, simply saying to stay between the poles of 'killer dungeon' and 'Monty Haul'. Consider, for instance, the Conan setting (there was a series of adventure modules published using that setting in 1st edition). Magic items there were very rare---a 10th level character might have only one of them. It worked because the fighters there didn't need +5 cloaks of resistance and other items to have a fighting chance against magic. For one thing, all their iterative attacks through level or weapon specialization worked off their full BAB (we called it THACO in those days) and they could usually get a full attack :-)
I think you have a point with saving throws (the +5 cloak issue), but I would say that 1e/2e fighters were more dependent on magic weapons than their 3.5/PF counterparts. There were quite a few creatures that needed magic weapons to hit. Without them, fighter-types were in deep trouble. In a magic-less world, the DM had to strip out creatures only hit by magic weapons or ignore that power or the fighter was gimped in the extreme, far more than in 3.5/PF where the character can do some damage over the DR value.
I agree that 1e/2e didn't have very strong guidelines for 'appropriate' wealth by level. But I would also argue that too many people read too much into the fact that 3e has them. The WBL guidelines in 3e serve mainly as a barometer for an average game for which the CRs should approximately apply. Deviate and you can expect the CR values to be less directly useful. I don't believe at all that they define any sort of magic item dependence above and beyond what the game has always included.
|
Many of you most likely won't like how I do it but my players love it...
Essentially they all have a special item (legacy item, if you will) with this item they can bounce ideas for interesting properties it might gain and i'll upgrade the item over time according to their interests
Besides that.... I just give them gold pieces (we just skip the list of treasure, haul to vendor, sell to vendor)... they buy every other item they need.
I've always believed that, as long as you have a DM with an ounce of common sense and good judgement, things like the WPL should be simply guidelines, not hard rules.
Of course it's a guideline, but... I will say that even the best DMs I've seen have done some astoundingly stupid things. Everyone has different blind spots.
|
Somewhat more dependent, yes, but the fighter in 1st edition wasn't crazily gimped with low magic---which is probably why Gygax didn't really bother much with a wealth by level benchmark or anything, simply saying to stay between the poles of 'killer dungeon' and 'Monty Haul'. Consider, for instance, the Conan setting (there was a series of adventure modules published using that setting in 1st edition). Magic items there were very rare---a 10th level character might have only one of them. It worked because the fighters there didn't need +5 cloaks of resistance and other items to have a fighting chance against magic. For one thing, all their iterative attacks through level or weapon specialization worked off their full BAB (we called it THACO in those days) and they could usually get a full attack :-)
I was doing some looking a while back and found a very disturbing trend in class design for the Fighter, Ranger, Rogue and the more recent addition -the Cavalier.
They all have crappy saves.
Most if not all casters got two good saves - with the exception of the Wizard and Sorcerer. I wrote up a small and simple fix for these classes -bringing them more in line with their older edition level of power. I think by incorporating what I wrote some of the magic items issues would be fixed - at least the cloak of resistance issue/saving throw bonuses.
If you ran 1st or 2nd ed check it out, try not to panic and just look at it - if you still have access to the old books you will see that the Fighter had better saves than ALL the classes.
I didn't get any comments or feedback - what I proposed was nothing bizarre or exotic - but a very very minor tweak to what I think is a fundamental design flaw which was created in the transition from 2nd ed to 3.0 and transferred over to PFRPG. I don't like "up powering" PC classes, but I think this is a design flaw and is partially the cause for the need for some of the x-mass tree items. If anything I think it gives these classes a fair boost, and restores them to their older saving throw matrix.
Let me know what you guys think.
Also, if you feel spellcasters are too dominant (I don't, at least not until the somewhat ridiculous high levels, balanced by their vulnerability at low levels), easy enough to up spell resistance and/or increase the incidence of such creatures, or even make them immune/resistant to certain spells.I don't think what he's saying is exactly that casters are too dominant so much as that low-magic-item-availability disproportionately affects them, and if those are the conditions and they're not otherwise corrected-for, casters will be dominant because they have built-in answers to problems that non-casters rely on magic items to solve.
Easiest token example, flight. Past a certain level, a caster will never fall into a pit trap again. Past a certain level, neither will a fighter (in a campaign in which he has a pretty good pick of magic items). If you're setting up your game such that the first one of those statements is still the case and the second isn't, yeah that's going to skew the ability of those two kinds of characters to contribute.
I acknowledge your point, but would just add that, by the time a magic-user has the spell slots and duration to fly all day (assuming your DM doesn't allow the 15-minute adventuring day that wizards love), simple pit traps aren't likely to be the traps most likely to be encountered.
I would further posit that, if all wizards flew all day, those seeking to protect their lairs from adventuring parties would probably develop ways to counter it. After all, most of them are intelligent as well, and many have access to magic.
Save DC math is very suspect in the 3.x design. As such I've generally decided to scrap the division between the good and poor saves and just give all classes (and monsters) the equivalent of good saves (2+ 1/2 BAB). I'm even tempted to hard cap the caster stat modifier (something appropriately high but not so high that max stat caster get autowin Save DCs). This goes a long way towards shoring up the core weaknesses of the martial classes (and melee brute monsters). So while items boosting resistance saves would still be desirable they aren't "OMG I have to have them to survive an encounter vs a caster".
Another choice is to change the relative value of certain magic items. Most characters typically begin using permanent stat boosters instead of spell based stat boosters pretty early on. If the headband of intellect was twice as expensive access to that item would be delayed.
If amulets of natural armor were much more expensive going for max AC would be more of a end game strategy, etc.
The problem is deciding which magic items are absolutely critical (save boosters, DR negating weapons, wands of CLW) while making the nice but less critical items (tomes, stat boosters, deflection bonuses, natural armor bonuses) costly enough that the average character has to choose between shoring up a defense or boosting offensive production.
I'm generally lazy enough that I don't like to have to rejigger every little thing ;)
They all have crappy saves.
Most if not all casters got two good saves - with the exception of the Wizard and Sorcerer. I wrote up a small and simple fix for these classes -bringing them more in line with their older edition level of power. I think by incorporating what I wrote some of the magic items issues would be fixed - at least the cloak of resistance issue/saving throw bonuses.If you ran 1st or 2nd ed check it out, try not to panic and just look at it - if you still have access to the old books you will see that the Fighter had better saves than ALL the classes.
The fighter saves start out fairly poor in 1e/2e but, because their advancement is tied to advancement in the attack tables, they improve fairly quickly and there's a stretch in the high levels where the fighter's saves are the best across the board... then the cleric and wizard catch up again. So I'd be wary of saying that the fighter's saves were or were intended to be the best bar none.
I would say that there are things about the 3e saves I really like. Consolidating into 3 saves methods - pure stamina, quickness, mental strength - was a good idea. I also think that using the spell level to set DCs and setting the good save to be +3 above highest spell level while weak save was -3 below highest spell level has a certain elegance. I like the way it structures out. I also think that setting resistance bonuses as cheaper than statistic enhancement bonuses was good design. They are a cheap bonus.
But I do agree that there's something wrong with 3e saves.
Part of the problem comes from open-ended stat adjustments and open-ended HD adjust from monster DCs. HD adjustments tend to outstrip the CR of the monster and the level of the PCs and their save bonuses. And with open-ended stat adjustments, optimized casters can pretty easily overwhelm weak saves with more average stats. In the 1e/2e method, everything was pretty much constrained within the 20 points of a die roll. Very few saves were ever out of reach. Plus, the ability to save was nearly entirely dependent on the target's resistances. There were relatively few specific cases of the attack adjusting a save - Drow sleep poison being one of those few cases. In the end, as a PC advanced, there was no save out of reach and very few that required a natural 20.
Part of the problem lies with the magic item structure. It's too easy for offensive casters to cheaply make stat boosters, undermining the cost difference between cheaper resistance bonuses and stat bonuses. The importance of getting that resistance bonus also undermines the desire to get any other sort of cloak. And as easy as the items are to obtain, what PC would spend the cash needed to get a quirkly cloak when one that provides such important defense is so inexpensive? I'm working on fixing this in my PF campaign. I'm requiring all magic cloaks, amulets, and rings to have a base bonus like magic swords and armor. In order for someone to make an elven cloak, they must first give it a resistance bonus, rings a deflection bonus, amulets a natural armor bonus. This means all of the specialty magic cloaks will have a built-in resistance bonus. No PC will have to give up the elven cloak to see to his defenses (or ring, or amulet...). We'll see how this goes.
Another weakness is the catch-all category of the Will save. Previously, the bonus from Wisdom really only affected spells that overrode the will like charms, suggestions, dominations, and other compulsions. Now, it affects any spell that shouldn't more obviously defended by fortitude or reflex saves.
Finally, I'll toss in stat bonuses and balanced stats. Wisdom does clerics and druids great service as both a primary offense and defense stat. These characters get more powerful spellcasting while also getting more powerful defenses with the same investment. This is not true for most other classes. I like the idea of encouraging more multiple-attribute dependency, so I think the best design is to have 3 offensive stats and 3 different defensive stats. Strength and Constitution work very well in this regard for physical power. Srength is important for melee offense, constitution for durability and the Fort save. I'd propose putting all Wisdom casters on Charisma for their offense and taking Wisdom out of the offensive spellcasting picture. Wisdom then contributes to the Will save. The only real trouble I'm having with this is how exactly to balance off Dexterity and Intelligence. Both seem equally useful for offense, conceptually. And intelligence doesn't lend itself as well to defense. It's the only idea in the pairings, using legacy D&D stats, that don't really work.
Anyway, that little tangent aside, I think the 3e saves can work better than they do with a little reform.
Santa Fishy?
I acknowledge your point, but would just add that, by the time a magic-user has the spell slots and duration to fly all day (assuming your DM doesn't allow the 15-minute adventuring day that wizards love), simple pit traps aren't likely to be the traps most likely to be encountered.
Sure, it's just an example. You definitely can pick it apart. If you like, make it a huge earth elemental or other tough but not-flying melee monster that fly causes real problems for. Or pick something that isn't fly at all.
Point being, the casters have non-pure-combat versatility built right in; to a degree, skill-heavy characters like the rogue have this in another direction. Characters like the fighter and barbarian hardly have it at all. Magic items can add versatility to all these characters, but the characters that inherently have the least without magic items tend to suffer the most if they're restricted.
I also think that most of the posters here aren't referring to a magic-less world, but rather one where you're likely to have in the neighborhood of half, perhaps a third, of the typical wealth by level in items, or perhaps one a la Conan, where items are really uncommon, but skew to the very powerful (e.g. Conan's Phoenix Sword in 'Against Darkness').
Well, I went by the OP and didn't talk about a world that has half or perhaps third of the WBL in items. Instead, I am talking about the methods of acquisition of these items not being magic shops/buying/market, but rather rewards/gifts/etc.
I don't allow magic shops and I don't follow the WBL guidelines, but it is entirely feasible that my player characters could even have more (rather than less) magic than specified by the WBL guidelines (as I said, I don't track it by WBL at all), but they have acquired it through rewards, finds, gifts, quests instead of purchases.
If your wizard likes to fly all the time, give him a magic item that only works when in contact with the ground for at least 6 consecutive hours. His internal minmaxing processor will melt down and he will either become a vegetable or kill everyone in the table.
|
I like the concept of a magical items that grow in power with their owner. I'm not talking about complicated rules for it like legacy weapons, I'm talking about maybe saying that there's only one type of magical sword in the game. If you find it at 1st level, it might only provide a +1 to hit. But the same sword in the hands of a 20th level fighter might function as a +4 sword. And maybe special abilities of magical weapons would be more a function of the wielder than of the weapon itself. Maybe in the hands of Torg the 1st level orcish barbarian, a magical sword functions as a +1 to hit sword that is sheathed in flames that add +1 fire damage for each successful hit. But in the hands of Roland, 20th level fighter, it might function as a +4 shocking burst sword.
If your wizard likes to fly all the time, give him a magic item that only works when in contact with the ground for at least 6 consecutive hours. His internal minmaxing processor will melt down and he will either become a vegetable or kill everyone in the table.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to houserule spells you don't like or think distort the flow of the game too much, as long as players know that going in -- I'm playing in a game right now, in fact, where the DM doesn't like what flight does to the game and has houseruled that the fly spell durations are much shorter than normal. I think that's great.
I can't get behind trying to punish a player for playing the game as it exists intelligently, though, and that's the spirit of what you're getting at.
I can't get behind trying to punish a player for playing the game as it exists intelligently, though, and that's the spirit of what you're getting at.
Or perhaps it was simply a joke.
I never reduce the access of players to mechanics they would otherwise be entitled to. I might drastically limit the amount of wealth and magic items distributed by dungeon inhabitants, but that is both because I think it helps make those things feel more valuable and because I prefer to give it through means that make more sense (most monsters in my campaigns never drop any loot at all, but players will always have my support when trying to set up inventive ways to get rich, even it if ends up with them far above the WPL, which is what happened with the rogue I previously mentioned starting a salt-extrating operation by taking advantage of an otherwise secondary dungeon encounter).
But unless there is a very specific campaign reason for me to disallow a particular mechanic (which in any case I would have previously asked the players if they felt comfortable about), I never rule out any part of the game (except Halflings. I never have Halflings or Halfling-equivalent things in my games. Bad experiences as a Dragonlance DM back in AD&D).
Never let players be dependent on magic items. Each magic item should fit into the theme for the adventure. I generally require at least a CR+3 for a magic item, other than a scroll or potion. Magic items also have many ways of being destroyed, and a DM should never look at a magic item as an entitlement. Let their equipment be destroyed by a dragons breathe weapon when appropriate. Remember to have powerful spellcasters use their spells that nullify or even destroy magic items. But most of all keep magic items (not neccessarily magic) rare.
Many magic items will not be for sale. Remember they may have to go on quests for magic items or even the rare components to make the magic item. Just because a component has a gp value does not mean that it is readily available. When was the last time you saw Conan, Fafrd and the Gray Mouser, or Elric completely decked out in magic items.
When was the last time you saw Conan, Fafrd and the Gray Mouser, or Elric completely decked out in magic items.
With that sword of his and the Actorios stone plus the magical potions and drugs that give him strength and health, Elric's not exactly mundanely equipped.
I also think that most of the posters here aren't referring to a magic-less world, but rather one where you're likely to have in the neighborhood of half, perhaps a third, of the typical wealth by level in items, or perhaps one a la Conan, where items are really uncommon, but skew to the very powerful (e.g. Conan's Phoenix Sword in 'Against Darkness').Well, I went by the OP and didn't talk about a world that has half or perhaps third of the WBL in items. Instead, I am talking about the methods of acquisition of these items not being magic shops/buying/market, but rather rewards/gifts/etc.
I don't allow magic shops and I don't follow the WBL guidelines, but it is entirely feasible that my player characters could even have more (rather than less) magic than specified by the WBL guidelines (as I said, I don't track it by WBL at all), but they have acquired it through rewards, finds, gifts, quests instead of purchases.
Roman,
Given that there are probably about as many items in your world as in a bog-standard one, why aren't there any magic shops? I.E., why don't some casters hang out their shingle to make items for gold? What happens if a PC tries to do this? If you want your players to be able to suspend disbelief, you really need to be able to answer these questions somehow. 1st and 2nd edition had an answer to this---making items was difficult and exceptionally dangerous...but you'll note that the items STILL had sale values, which implies that someone had to be selling them :-)
Indeed, as I said it is certainly possible that there is as much magic in my most recent world as in the baseline D&D/Pathfinder one if it were converted to the D&D/Pathfinder WBL, but since I don't even look at them I cannot be sure. That said, my players seem to have no problem suspending disbelief about being unable to purchase them. I think there are several reasons for that:
1) Although if converted to gp equivalents, the value of magic in my world might well meet or even exceed the WBL guidelines, there are few 'cheap' items like potions and scrolls or even +1 weapons. This means that items are still pretty rare overall, since an individual item is on average stronger than in the baseline D&D/Pathfinder world. Hence the absence of a 'market' is not too much of a stretch.
2) I don't use the baseline magic creation system. Making a permanent magic item is not easy and requires a personal sacrifice (part of a soul) beyond money and time, so few would waste their efforts on weak or expendable items - if somebody is going to make a magic item, he will probably chose to make something truly good (thus also supporting point 1).
3) I grew up for a part of my childhood in a socialist economic system in the Eastern Block. The system then collapsed, but maybe this it the reason that makes it is easier for me (and my players to whom this also applies) to imagine that not everything has to follow the rules of the market, even though this might be difficult to imagine to those who have lived in capitalist systems in the U.S. or Western Europe all their lives. It is certainly much easier to imagine than the existence of the magical items. ;)
With that background, I feel I can answer your questions:
"Given that there are probably about as many items in your world as in a bog-standard one, why aren't there any magic shops?"
I think this was pretty much answered through my introductory points 1-3. It is feasible that there is the equivalent gp value of magic in my world as in the standard D&D/Pathfinder world if it were to be converted (though I don't try to convert it, so I cannot be sure), the actual number of items is certainly significantly smaller.
"I.E., why don't some casters hang out their shingle to make items for gold?"
A combination of points 1-3 and the answer below.
"What happens if a PC tries to do this?"
The PCs in my game don't even try to create magic items, so this seems unlikely. If they acquire a magic item, they are pretty happy to have it and generally wouldn't dream of selling it (they have not tried yet). ;) If the PCs, however, did decide to sell magic items they acquired (or created, should they start doing so), they would be met with suspicion, since it would not be considered normal. It would probably be viewed as something somewhere in between selling organs and selling military medals would be viewed on Earth. Sure, they could probably probably find somebody to buy the items if they tried and persuade him that the items are real rather than fakes, but it would certainly not be a 'standard business'. Anyway, I wonder what they would do with the money thus acquired... since they couldn't just go to a magic shop to exchange it for other magic items... I guess they could retire rich. ;)
|
|
Now if you want to Ars Magica your game by saying only casters matter, then do whatever you want. It's your table. But if you don't make sure everyone knows that anyone who isn't a spellcaster is the servant of one, you're going to have a lot of hurt feelings once Mr. Incredibly Magic Item Dependent Fighter realizes he isn't getting any.
Unless you also limit the access to spells and the ease transferring them books or scrolls.
If you just cut items the non-casters would be hurt more -but many people have already advocated that you would have to do more, but it isn't impossible to pull off. People here understand that low magic does not just entail eliminating magic market, but you also have to curtail the availability of spells and tweak a few other things (DR, etc).One more trick would involve how items are made – should go back to and XP use or a harder system to create them. That plus magic/quest components for item creation would cut the volume of items. You could also make a distinction between low and high magic items – scrolls, potions, minor magic can be created with some difficulty and costs by PCs and NPCs, but the higher end stuff starts having harder and harder requirements – beyond just gold. It could be special components which cannot easily be purchased or wouldn't be readily be sold at market and yeah, maybe bring back xp as part of item creation.
Personally I think that casters got way too much of a bump in 3.0 and PF - any nerfing should go from the top down. Spell selection, greater cost (non-gold) in item creation, stat boosters should all be much more expensive
If you just cut items the non-casters would be hurt more -but many people have already advocated that you would have to do more, but it isn't impossible to pull off. People here understand that low magic does not just entail eliminating magic market, but you also have to curtail the availability of spells and tweak a few other things (DR, etc).
In terms of how it could/should be done I completely agree with you, but in practice, I've seen a lot of DMs across several editions attempt to run low magic item campaigns, and every one of them got this wrong. That is to say, they cut down the amount/availability of magic items but didn't fully think through the implications of what that means.
That doesn't mean a smart DM can't avoid the pitfalls, but I don't think it's useless to discuss what they are and why, either.
Personally I am of the opinion that if you are not giving your players a way to get useful magical gear you are not doing your job as a dm. I HATE random magic item tables because they are so arbitrary but if you are going to use them, you cant just leave it as is. There are items useful to many different kinds of characters and there are those that are extremely specific. Like others say the wealth by level chart is a guideline and so is CR. If you are willing to make adjustments then it is just a matter of finding the right kind of game for you and your group.
But if you load up your players with gear they cant use and then assume they are at 'normal' wealth, you being a jerk. Mind you I don't mean you have to tailor all your gear or have a magic mart available, you just have to provide some way for them to get useful items. That can be any combination of tailored gear, buying and selling items, hiring casters to make items, or quests to get specific items of need or anything else you can come up with to get them things they need. But in some way they need to be able to get useful magic items, or the CR system goes straight out the window at mid to high levels.
When was the last time you saw Conan, Fafrd and the Gray Mouser, or Elric completely decked out in magic items.With that sword of his and the Actorios stone plus the magical potions and drugs that give him strength and health, Elric's not exactly mundanely equipped.
Elric is the extreme of magic with those examples. But I like to give potions and other one shot magic items. Even when you center a story around a magic item like Lord of the Rings, you still don't have a huge dependency on the items. In fact many times you are trying to overcome magic with wits and persistance. Magic is just an easy way out and can become a crutch. But that all depends on how your adventures are designed.
Low Magic can definitely be done while also avoiding the caster + henchmen effect. However it does require monkeying about in the guts of the system.
Saves- Everyone has good progression (2 + 1/2 HD) on their base saves modified by stats.
At level 4 and every 4 levels after that characters get +1 resistance bonus to saves if they can use an immediate action (this avoids needing cloaks of resistance but allows a bonus from another source in this case bracing for impact, summoning your inner reserves, etc). Because it's not always on unconscious, incapcitated and mindless creature can't use it.
Thus at level 10 everyone has a +7 to saves/ +9 when focusing. +11 if they've invested a feat.
Stat Boosters- At 4th level everyone gets +1 to 2 abilities (this benefits MAD classes more than SAD casters). Permanent stat boosters (inherent and enhancement) are either removed are much more expensive. Sure the fighter does less damage than he did if he had 20 base strength + 4 enhancement but more importantly the caster's spell DC is much lower unless he spends a turn boosting with a mental stat booster.
Magic Weapons- At 4th level and every level afterwords the martial characters get a +1 to attack and damage with a weapon type (or maybe a weapon group). 3/4 BAB get a slower progression and 1/2 get a minimal progression. Instead of needing a +3 weapon at level X everyone is assumed to have weapon mastery that simulates that effect.
Introduce limited duration spells that give one or more weapons the flaming weapon function.
Suddenly if the level 10 party is beset with a pack or trolls or frost giants the sorceror says abracadabra and the party has x number of flaming (or even flaming burst weapons).
Enhancement and Deflection Bonuses to AC- Rip off the UA class defense feature, everyone gets a periodic dodge bonus to AC base upon level. Introduce Armor as DR but have the ablative quality be more impressive. That way the high level warrior can shake off blows that would slay an ox.
Healing- Make healing potions cheaper, they are genre appropriate and/ or ripoff the 4e healing surge mechanic (it's actually pretty good). This makes healing less of a concern in games. You no longer need healing batteries in the form of Wands of CLW.
Arnwolf---Elric was the only pc in his party. He had cohorts occasionally, and the DMPC or two, but the notion of interparty balance/spotlight time wasn't an issue.
You also have to figure that Elric is pretty much a sorcerer. I mean, he solves most of his problems by calling on supernatural entities that are beholden to him because of his bloodline -- if that's not a sorcerer I'm not sure what, if anything, in mainstream fantasy would be. Thus, pointing out that Elric doesn't need to be decked out with a ton of magic items to succeed reinforces, rather than disproves, the idea that your non-caster types tends to need the magic items more.
|
|
Now if you want to play a game where anyone who isn't a full spellcaster is a servant to one by all means, go ahead. Just make sure everyone knows what they signed up for.
Easy on the hyperbole there.
If you limit the availability of spells you limit the power of the casters. It's farcical to compare the controlling power of casters vs. all the other casters in any given world - the only factor which controls the caster are his spells, how many, how powerful (impact) and how much selection (type of impact) he has on the game. So it isn't any other factor but the spells, you change the spells and thus you change their power and impact on the game.
Everything else is just a game of non-casters trying to "catch up" with casters. Power creep, new feats, etc - all an effort to bring non-casters up to the level of power of classes which can change reality via spells.
The power up of spells which occurred from 2nd to 3rd was the most devastating thing to balance in D&D.
In addition to what I already offered for a low magic game I am suggested controlling the variety/availability of spells - and thus the power of individual casters.
In my personal game I have reverted to some 2nd ed versions of spells which also has helped tremendously - risk vs. reward paradigm instead of 100% controlled/no risk effects.
For a quick fix 3.5/PF application the best bet would be for the DM to rein in the choices of casters -and that is spell selection. Since most people here would complain if you actually changed the spells to their more balanced earlier counterparts the next best thing would be for the DM to control choice and /or availability. That coupled with limiting what type of magic can and cannot be bought/created with gold, item requirements (DR, etc) and you have a working low-magic game.
All minor and most medium magic items are not too hard to get. The major ones will be though, since I am in Eberron, and there are not a lot of high level NPC's to make such items.
Now if you're saying remove all the good spells, so they don't have at least one
Pathfinder actually kind of does this -- very few of the best spells of any level in 3.5 aren't weaker in PF. I think this is a good change, for the record.
Then there's a longer list of spells that worked about the same. Not so many that got buffed from 2nd to 3rd.
You're missing the good spells, many of which didn't exist at all in 2E or didn't look a lot alike.
Why is a 3.0/3.5 fighter utterly unable to hold a candle to a 3.0/3.5 melee cleric? Spells like greater magic weapon, magic vestment, divine favor, divine power, righteous might, spikes, etc.
The power of spells in 3E dwarfs that of 2E, even if some of the spells you shouldn't want anyway (from a pure power perspective) like fireball sort of got worse.
|
|
Nope. A caster who has 10 different save or loses has real ultimate power, and one who has only 1 save or lose, but uses it 10 times still does have real ultimate power. And no less of it, at that. Meanwhile since it's a low magic world, everyone has weaker saves, by up to 8 points or more across the board. So his single spammed save or lose is now much better.
No, narrow selection means a better prepared defense for the targets. That also means an easier choice for defense an less resources used to cover on defense (need less items)
Meanwhile their opposition is a strong balancing factor. A foe that can do anything they can is not something they can shrug off, and the more often it happens, the less likely they are to get any ideas about taking over the world. Not to mention more casters in the world means more magic items being made. And since you need magic to play D&D (either innate, or from items) this allows more classes to do so.
Now if you're saying remove all the good spells, so they don't have at least one then that brings us back to 'no one can deal with encounters, so everyone dies, game over'.
It isn't a question of needing magic, it's a question of how much, i.e. how many magic items, wbl, should gold be allowed to buy all types of items, should items be easy or harder to create, should casters be able to get any spell they want from any source, etc, etc.
And I don't buy the "need good spells", you just need spells that work - they don't have to break reality and they don't need to wholly negate other classes -there is a fine balance somewhere in there and 3.5/PF isn't it.
Many spells were actually stronger in 2nd edition than in 3rd edition.
Fireball did the same damage, but enemy HP was at least 3 times lower. So you flung one, and stuff in the area actually keeled over and died.
Color Spray was even more amazing.
And there's at least a few dozen more examples.
Saves were much easier in the older versions - flat out.
They didn't care about the caster, they cared about the target. No one cared if the FB was from a 5th level caster or a 20th level one, and the saves - coupled with all the rings and cloaks which added to saves, were much, much easier than in 3.5/PF.
So yeah, creatures had less hit points and the SoDs where very powerful, but in the end saves were easier. Also, casters had TREMENDOUS limitations - The "can't be hit or risk of being hit or lose your spell" factor and super low hit points were some of the most obvious ones, but also the limitations of overall defense and AC. They were just more vulnerable and thus balanced for the power they afforded.
The real reason why non casters fell behind? They got a huge nerf, and at the same time enemies got a huge buff. Suddenly Fighters don't have amazing saves across the board, can't full attack without iterative penalties, and don't really do much more damage... but enemies do a lot more damage and have a lot more HP. Things like 3rd edition Haste didn't help, but even after that got fixed in 3.5 they were still way behind par. The 2nd edition melee Fighter could also pick up a bow to shoot something out of the sky without embarrassing himself, which his more modern counterpart cannot do.
I agree with this last part and add no initiative control (WS) and their horrible saves in 3.5/PF.
I still think the "fixed" spell functions of 3.5/PF are the ultimate in imbalance. In older editions it made more sense to cast Strength on the Fighter since he got the best benefit out of the spell -what does 3.5 do? Fixed STR boost for EVERYONE (RE: The caster selfish Buff, RE: CoDzilla), so now you can make stupid things like melee mages and clerics who ramp up and fight better than fighters.Also the risk factor which changed from 2nd to 3.0 - there was just more risk in casting spells. Teleport could leave you dead, Gate, Wish and Haste had horrible and permanent side effects.
With all the bad stuff for non-casters the biggest issue for me is the spells and their power they offer with no-negative trade-offs. I don't mind powerful spells and great abilities but they should exist with some form of risk –and that isn't the 3.0 paradigm.
I don’t even mind reality bending power – again at a trade-off with some associated risks.
Just a note from 2e, being hit did disrupt your spellcasting, right up until you could cast stoneskin, at which point you pretty much no longer required any teammates at all. 2e Stoneskin wasn't DR, it was literally invincibility.
Then you add mirror image and other defensive spells that completely bypassed AC, and yeah, not AS big of a worry.
That's the problem. People always say "Well, they have low AC, so that's balanced." Except spellcasters didn't need to care about low AC when they're flying, invisible, and have a full mirror image up. They could have the worst AC in the world and they're still better defensively then any full plate decked fighter.
Add to that, AC topped out at -10 in 2E, and that wasn't all that hard to come by in the midlevels, even for a wizard. For a cleric, it was trivial.
The other side of that is, by the midlevels it's also getting trivial for your 2E clerics to hit AC -10 reliably, so there goes another argument for the usefulness of the fighter.
I'll be the first to say that casters got stronger in 3E, but let's not pretend they didn't completely dominate 2E in the hands of a semi-competent player, either. (Make it a human dual-class who transitioned fighter or priest or both into wizard and it gets extra-stupid -- I don't think I saw a PC that wasn't one of those in the last several 2E campaigns I played in.)
|
Just a note from 2e, being hit did disrupt your spellcasting, right up until you could cast stoneskin, at which point you pretty much no longer required any teammates at all. 2e Stoneskin wasn't DR, it was literally invincibility
From what I remember it was being hit not being damaged that counted for spell loss. Stoneskin negated the damage (unless magical sourced) but no where did the spell description say you weren't contacted if a roll indicated a hit.
S.
|
|
Just a note from 2e, being hit did disrupt your spellcasting, right up until you could cast stoneskin, at which point you pretty much no longer required any teammates at all. 2e Stoneskin wasn't DR, it was literally invincibility.
Then you add mirror image and other defensive spells that completely bypassed AC, and yeah, not AS big of a worry.
That's the problem. People always say "Well, they have low AC, so that's balanced." Except spellcasters didn't need to care about low AC when they're flying, invisible, and have a full mirror image up. They could have the worst AC in the world and they're still better defensively then any full plate decked fighter.
No on all levels
I would give the ability of Flight/Fly a bit more weight on power, but we still have that ability in PF - it's just better. In 2nd ed Fly spell duration was 1 turn (10 min) per level + 1d6 turns. That number was secretly kept by the DM and when it was used up the caster fell like a brick. In PF the caster gets his hand held by the devs as you Mary Poppins down to the ground when it gets dispelled.
On Invisibility Int13 or 10 HD gave you a save vs spells to detect the invisible mage. Again, crap if you are counting on it other than to get away from a fight.
And no, wizards needed AC - which they didn't have. Stoneskin blocked 1d4 attacks +1 attack per two levels. So you have a variable (1d4) and you still needed AC - since even slapping someone with stoneskin took off one of the blocks. Not very good in a game where the cheapest weapon (dart) got 3 attacks in per round.
Mirror Image created a random number of Images -again no guarantee that one attack wouldn't hit you - it was random (MI in 2nd doesn't state that the Images go first). So random defense with a random (1d4 +1/3 levels max 8) number of Images. By the time he can pull off the SS and MI combo he is getting 1d4 + 3 SS blocks, and 1d4 +2 Images. Crap if you are counting on that to live.
So we got variables, random defense (MI) and just not very good as a defense strategy.
You could max use those spells and they were highly limited. Multiple attacks (all at no negs) with bows, daggers, darts, swords and all they had to do was connect for both spells to start to break down the defense. Super weak-ass defense which can be dispelled by a few 0 level Men-at-arms.
Low AC just means the mage just sped up the rate at which he would get destroyed by a fighter or any other attacker - since the same crappy AC applies to the MI and being hit while under Stoneskin.
So your AC argument fails.
Note: Of course all this could be wrong since I am directly getting this info from the 2nd ed PHB instead using the the PF forum standard of citing it from memory or conjecture.
|
|
Good stuff
+1, in many ways 2e was more balanced than the current 3e based system I have found. My 2e campaigns survived into far higher levels while retaining interest from both players and myself as DM than any 3.5e I have run.
Magic items seemed more interesting due to rarity in 2e rather than the corner shop approach 3e introduced. Because I come from the 1e/2e area I am incredible stingy with magic items in PF - this causes some issues as many canned adventures assume you as a DM bothered to read the section on character wealth by level. Hard to break old habits.
I really had no issues with the original saving throw matrix idea. It seemed to work fine and it wasn't that much of a mental strain to work out with column to use.
2 cents,
S.
Well... Interesting... Mmmh let's see...
I'd never said that I play a low magic campaign or a low magic item campaign, just that "magic mart" was not available...
I had to say that my players and me are new to Golarion, we are used to play in a homebrew world and believe it or not it's a very high magic world, where the nobility of the biggest empire were all half-dragon and being a draconic character was "normal".
But it's also a world were there's only one (very) big wizard guild, in fact there's a magiocracy on some islands (ruled by dragons) it's a magic college size of a realm... If you adhere you have access to a lot of things but you have to "obey" the rules and make som missions for your superior... Out of the guild accessing to new spell is difficult. It's a bit like being a wizard in Warhammer... You are powerful but you have big restreint on what you can do.
Also : in a high magic environment don't forget that people are very aware of magical spell and power and when protecting themselves they are going to dedicate a large part of their protection to magical attack. Maybe they will underestimate the conventionnal attack as such attack are so "out of fashion" ;)
For Golarion we are begining the first AP : "Rise of the Runelord"... And intend to give them the items in the books but if they want something else they already know that they'll have to play it differently than : "let's go to the mall I heard there's some special offer on the +3 falcata this week, yeah a 20% return !!!" :p
Oh and just a thing : How does the players know that a weapon is a +2 or a +3 Falcata precisely ?
2nd edition spells didn't have more 'risk' as any kind of balancing factor. They had it because 2nd edition was the embodiment of DM vs player adversarial play.
That's not really the main reason 2e spells (or 1e) were risky. Only a few spells had those issues built in. If you were using the initiative systems laid out, getting a spell off depended a bit on the luck of the initiative roll. Getting hit in a round before your initiative in 2e not only prevented the spell from being cast, it actually wasted it.
Another balancing factor was the saving throw. Save or die spells were a very dicey affair since a negating save wasted the entire action. And these spells were only going to get less likely to work the higher level the target. The spellcaster had no way to make the saves harder.
Even in 2nd edition the Fighter's class feature was 'Can get percentile Strength'. Not will get percentile Strength, can get it. If you had any Strength but an 18, there was no reason not to be a Cleric.
That was a class feature. Multiple attacks were a more important class feature and fighter classes were the only ones who got them. If you didn't have an 18 strength, cleric was not usually a suitable alternative.
That's not really the main reason 2e spells (or 1e) were risky. Only a few spells had those issues built in. If you were using the initiative systems laid out, getting a spell off depended a bit on the luck of the initiative roll. Getting hit in a round before your initiative in 2e not only prevented the spell from being cast, it actually wasted it.
In practice, weapon speeds are hefty enough that casters almost always go first. Add in their various special defenses (via spells) and I can remember numerous campaigns stretching hundreds of hours of play each in which casters I or others were playing lost less spells total than could be counted on one hand.
It's a nice drawback in theory, but it didn't really shake out in play.
The spellcaster had no way to make the saves harder.
Sure they did. Prayer and recitation, off the top of my head.
That was a class feature. Multiple attacks were a more important class feature and fighter classes were the only ones who got them.
In core 2E that's true, if we're ignoring two-weapon fighting. I concede that even with two weapons, a fighter can get more attacks.
Ultimately, it (and weapon specialization, for that matter) were given away all over the place.
Of course, the greatest brokenness of all in 2E is dual-classing. For less than the ultimate XP cost of a single level of cleric, you could sneak in a quick 7 levels of fighter first. Now your cleric has the fighter strength bonus (not that he needs it, with draw upon holy might), the fighter con bonus, fighter weapon proficiencies, fighter extra attacks, fighter hit points for 7 of the 9 levels you got to roll, and everything that's awesome about a cleric.
For everyone else who wants some variety in their gameplay, don't try and do any sort of 'low magic' game. It won't end well for anyone.Unless of course you change the game appropriately. Monte Cook's Iron Heroes ruleset might be the way to go.
Hu ?!?! When have I said that ??? Guess you got the wrong quote :p
The spellcaster had no way to make the saves harder.
Sure they did. Prayer and recitation, off the top of my head.
Prayer and Chant did work, and work together, but for durations limited to rounds and Chant kept the cleric out of action as he did so. There wasn't anything close to what 3e includes with open-ended stat modifiers, stat boosters, and feats.
Recitation only applied if you used the PO books where, I believe, it appeared.