I will not ban creation feats in my games.
I don't have magic marts, but in any city, there is always someone seeling something or looking for something, if you ask around. Rather than keep roleplaying the shopping trip, I make a few rolls, let the player know if they found what they were looking for, and if not, is there anyone who can be commissioned to make it (50% of the cost up front, the balance when completed).
I have seen players who do not want to make a cloak of resistance, instead they prefer something like a cloak of minor displacement with the powers of a cloak of elvenkind layered in. This is the type of item that only players will likely create.
Not all players will only go for the min/max magical item mix. Most will surprise you in what they want to make and what is important to them.
Count me amongst those whose first reaction to the 3.X/PF magic creation rules was (and is) highly negative. I think they make it ludicrously easy to create items, stealing wonder from the game and turning it into even more of an optimizer's playground, fueling a never-ending power creep that does nothing to produce a better gaming experience, but rather just recreates the same experience at higher power levels, while making it ever more and more difficult to maintain game balance and suspension of disbelief.
I've generally responded to it by just keeping PCs so busy they have little time to craft, but the PF core rules make even that almost impossible to do.
So, I'm currently running Kingmaker, and, despite my reservations, I'm allowing the magic item creation rules as written. They certainly have enough downtime to craft whatever they want, and they are just getting to the point where they intend to start cranking out items. I'm skeptical that this will make it a better game, but I intend to give it a fair go.
All that said, I have just a few reactiosn to this thread:
-- Limiting magic item creation, or Magic Mart assumption, is perfectly acceptable as a campaign option, provided your group is OK with it and you are willing to do the work to keep the adventure balanced challenge-wise.
-- I wish everyone would stop using misusing the WBL chart to support their arguments. It is (or at least should be) nothing more than a rough guideline for GMs to use as a reference to what could be expected in a standard campaign (whatever that is). The only practical use I make of it is as a tool for creating characters above first level.
-- Characters don't "need" any particular equipment to succeed unless you are either running an optimized campaign or a published AP or campaign that you have no intention of adjusting. DMs always have discretion to adjust the encounters to create the appropriate level of challenge for the party. Claims that certain levels of power are "needed" are completely campaign-specific, the resultant of a DM who does not wish to/won't/can't adjust encounters to provide the appropriate level of challenge.
DMs always have discretion to adjust the encounters to create the appropriate level of challenge for the party. Claims that certain levels of power are "needed" are completely campaign-specific, the resultant of a DM who does not wish to/won't/can't adjust encounters to provide the appropriate level of challenge.
Absolutely, but...
My experience is that GMs are, generally, significantly less good at eyeballing encounter difficulty or adjusting encounter difficulty than they think they are. (Myself included.)
As a result I'm really loathe to suggest going off the reservation without a lot of disclaimers. Not that you can't get it right, but I feel like for every game that does nail it, there's probably half a dozen games with surprise TPKs.
In the game I'm running, I banned magic item creation. All of the items in the world created themselves when their spirits woke up.
I feel like it has made a major improvement on the game. I tend to give out well over the wealth by level table in magical gear, so the players don't feel like they are being screwed. It does keep me from having to deal with any kind of cheap-o min / maxing that letting players pick their own bonuses encourages.
I guess I should point out that there aren't magic stores either. Occasionally they get a chance to make a trade with someone, or buy something from someone that is retiring.
I am assuming you are wanting opinions here. Giving wealth by level means nothing to me if everything I get is something I don't want or need. It is their characters so they should get to pick their bonuses. That does not mean they have to get everything they want. Do they at least get a wish list? It seems you don't trust your players also. Personally it I think it is better to not play with or DM for people you don't trust. More than likely one day someone is going to ask you why, and telling them you don't trust them might not go over well. I would deal with the potential problem players or at least try to so it is not an issue anymore.
A part of the issue for me is the flavor of the game worlds I enjoy running. In the end, the setting will reflect the system. If every rogue of note has a ring of invisibility, then everyone guarding something important will have glasses of see invisibility.
Why would every class all have item X? Actually any class can be built to do several things. It is internally logical for everybody to behave the exact same way because they have the same class.
I just wrote this a little bit ago. Any thoughts or feelings? Does it favor certain classes too much? Is it fair / unfair.
Keep in mind the GM could still include a few magic items, +1 swords with magical powers and the like, but they would be fewer and farther between. I'd imagine their main use would be overcoming damage reduction (though I don't worry about that too much, sense I feel like the cleric should be casting magic weapon or some such spell).
___________________________________________________The following chart grants bonuses to compensate for the loss of power experienced characters in a low magic world. These bonuses are not magical in nature, instead reflecting the increasing skill and ability of the adventurer as they go up in level.
Bonuses to AC reflect an improvement in skill and technique. They do not apply when flat-footed or unaware.
Bonuses to Strike and Damage are also of non-magical origin and do not let the adventurer harm creatures only hurt by magic. If a fighter is attacking with two weapons, the bonus applies to both. If the fighter is attacking with only one weapon, wielded in two hands, the damage bonus is increased by 50%.
Bonuses to Attributes are separated into two groups. The first group can be used to raise any attribute, same as the normal bonus gained at every 4th level. The second bonus can be applied to any attribute other than the highest.
Skill bonuses, like attribute bonuses, come in two sets. The first can be applied to any skill. The second can be applied to any skill besides the one with the highest total bonus.
Game masters can be encouraged to use this chart while restricting magical items by weaken them or only including those with out of combat effects.
Level
1 Nothing
2 AC +1
3 Strike and Damage +1
4 Skill +5, AC+1
5 Attribute +2
6 AC +1
7 Strike and Damage +1
8 Low Skill +5, AC +1
9 Low Attribute +2
10 AC +1
11 Strike and Damage +1
12 Skill +5, AC +1
13...
You have to do a decent amount of math to make sure that chart matches up. I started on one because I want to use a combination of Iron Heroes and Pathfinder. There is a chart in the bestiary which shows average stats of creatures at certain CR's. I would use that.
I removed a post. Be civil.
-- Limiting magic item creation, or Magic Mart assumption, is perfectly acceptable as a campaign option, provided your group is OK with it and you are willing to do the work to keep the adventure balanced challenge-wise.
*Thats VERY hard to do. I don't think most people, especially dm's gung ho for pruning magic items from the players hands, realize how much of a characters power is in their magic items.
edit: making magic items hard to come by also tilts the disparity even further away from melee types and towards casters (who are less gear dependent)
-- I wish everyone would stop using misusing the WBL chart to support their arguments. It is (or at least should be) nothing more than a rough guideline for GMs to use as a reference to what could be expected in a standard campaign (whatever that is). The only practical use I make of it is as a tool for creating characters above first level.
We're all dealing with different experiences at different gaming tables, the wbl chart gives us common ground to compare notes to. For example, a ring of shooting stars might very well be a decent item if it's given out at 5th level, but according to the basic assumptions of the game it shouldn't be in the hands of a low level player.
Another example, i had a conversation with someone that thought wizards were underpowered compared to fighters. It turns out that the DM was having them fight things 6 CR's over party level and handing out magic items to make monty haul blush.
-- Characters don't "need" any particular equipment to succeed unless you are either running an optimized campaign or a published AP or campaign that you have no intention of adjusting. DMs always have discretion to adjust the encounters to create the appropriate level of challenge for the party. Claims that certain levels of power are "needed" are completely...
I do not want to play a gimped, wimpy character. I do not want to run a campaign where the orc mooks are handing my rear to me in order to let the DM know he needs to turn the encounters down a notch. I don't want to need DM babysitting. For that to happen people need decent and relevant gear. If you are a fighter yes, you NEED a magic weapon to be effective at a certain point. You will need cloaks of resistance if you want to survive, and your cleric will need wands of CLW if they want to do anything, at all, during combat encounters. (it frees up spells to be used offensively instead of having to conserve them)
DMs always have discretion to adjust the encounters to create the appropriate level of challenge for the party. Claims that certain levels of power are "needed" are completely campaign-specific, the resultant of a DM who does not wish to/won't/can't adjust encounters to provide the appropriate level of challenge.Absolutely, but...
My experience is that GMs are, generally, significantly less good at eyeballing encounter difficulty or adjusting encounter difficulty than they think they are. (Myself included.)
As a result I'm really loathe to suggest going off the reservation without a lot of disclaimers. Not that you can't get it right, but I feel like for every game that does nail it, there's probably half a dozen games with surprise TPKs.
Fair enough. I've certainly blown it more than a few times myself over the years.
I guess I'm so used to "going off the reservation" that this doesn't strike me as particularly daunting. I already have to adjust all encounters for the fact that my group has seven players, for the fact we roll for stats with a fairly generous mechanic resulting in some pretty powerful characters, and for the fact that more than half my group consists of very, very competent old school gamers with a lot of tactical acumen. Adjusting for the level of magic item availability is just one more thing.
Lots of stuff similar to discussions we've had before.
We've been over the same ground before regarding your belief that the way you play the game is the only way to play it. I know your opinion and you know mine, so no need to bore everyone else by rehashing it.
So I'll just pick a couple of selective points to expound upon.
Perhaps you feel no need for "wonder" in your fantasy role-playing game. I find it to be an essential compnent to an enjoyable game.
I don't "fear" my players, nor do I have to really "keep them in line" (Except Frank and Grace, for different reasons). We've gamed together for a long time and pretty much know how we want to play and what we find fun. We explored the super-powered optimization to the gills way of playing years ago and rejected it as not terribly fun, at least for us. YMMV.
I reject the idea that there is an "expected" power level for the game. Even if there were such a thing, that expected power level would not be a optimized party with 25 point buy. It would be like the sample characters provided in the APs, relatively balanced, fun characters that are created with 15-point buy and in no way optimized.
No one is talking about lowering the bar, although doing so is no more or less difficult then raising it, in my opinion. I find it harder to adjust power level up the more you have to do it. As is, I currently already adjust up significantly for the experience level of my players, the number of them and for their generous builds. Giving them unlimited access to whatever magic items they can make or afford to buy would just make it worse. Nonetheless, that is precisely what I am doing in Kingmaker now, and we'll see how it goes. I at least try to be open-minded, and would be delighted to find that it made for a more enjoyable experience. For now, I'm deeply skeptical.
As for the father comment, amusingly enough, I am the father of two of the players at my table, and the husband of another. I try to keep the parental and DM roles separate, but it does give me a little more authority when I can ground one of them for backtalking me (or worse, confiscate her all-important cell phone). :)
The other four players at my table are all hard-core, experienced gamers. We've played together for about 15 years now, and none of us needs a father figure at the DM end of the table. However, three of us DM regularly, and we all have a profound respect for the amount of work and effort that goes into running a good campaign. The goal is to have fun, and if your group is doing that, you're doing it right.
Easy magic item selection, whether via item creation or purchase at Ye Olde Magic Mart, is what leads to the Big 6 problem.I think that's a very common misconception. What leads to the big six problem is that 1) The big six are so incredibly useful 2) Wealth by level and the fact that anything outside the big six is exorbitantly expensive for the bonus it provides. Why would you spend 7.2 k on a folding boat instead of a +2 weapon? If you're at the level where 7.2k is a viable purchase then water is no longer a problem for you.
The solution isn't to beat players down for taking what is far and away the most optimal option, the solution is to make items outside of the big six viable options: currently they are not. Without re structuring the entire wbl system or the prices for everything, in a campaign you can
1) Ignore things outside the big six in terms of wbl
2) Make it so that there's no real market for most wonderous items, or that they are bought at 1/4 or 1/8th of the price instead of 1/2. This should encourage players to keep the ones the dm drops in their lap.
It's not really a misconception that allowing PCs near-absolute control over what items they have leads to them picking what's most efficient. Take that control away and they learn to make do with what they find regardless of the relative values of items.
That said, I can see that there are some positive arguments for revaluing certain items like the aforementioned ring of shooting stars (something that in 1e was only 15,000 gp instead of 50,000 gp). But even at 1/4 of its book value (or 1/10), who's going to keep it if they can buy something they can use all the time? Not that many. The fly in the ointment is the ease of getting exactly what they want.
-- Limiting magic item creation, or Magic Mart assumption, is perfectly acceptable as a campaign option, provided your group is OK with it and you are willing to do the work to keep the adventure balanced challenge-wise.*Thats VERY hard to do. I don't think most people, especially dm's gung ho for pruning magic items from the players hands, realize how much of a characters power is in their magic items.
edit: making magic items hard to come by also tilts the disparity even further away from melee types and towards casters (who are less gear dependent)
-- I wish everyone would stop using misusing the WBL chart to support their arguments. It is (or at least should be) nothing more than a rough guideline for GMs to use as a reference to what could be expected in a standard campaign (whatever that is). The only practical use I make of it is as a tool for creating characters above first level.We're all dealing with different experiences at different gaming tables, the wbl chart gives us common ground to compare notes to. For example, a ring of shooting stars might very well be a decent item if it's given out at 5th level, but according to the basic assumptions of the game it shouldn't be in the hands of a low level player.
Another example, i had a conversation with someone that thought wizards were underpowered compared to fighters. It turns out that the DM was having them fight things 6 CR's over party level and handing out magic items to make monty haul blush.
-- Characters don't "need" any particular equipment to succeed unless you are either running an optimized campaign or a published AP or campaign that you have no intention of adjusting. DMs always have discretion to adjust the encounters to create the appropriate level of challenge for the party. Claims that certain levels of power are "needed" are completely...I do not want to play a gimped, wimpy character. I do not want to run a campaign where the orc mooks are handing my...
I agree with you that eliminating magic item creation or even limiting magic item access to some degreee is not necessarily a simple task, and there is some work to do to rebalance the game. But it is hardly impossible.
I understand the common ground argumentwith regard to the WBL table, as a starting point for discussion, and don't really have an objection to that. I just hate when people start treating it as an absolute and a rule, or using it to "prove" their opinions. The WBL chart just represents guidelines for what the designers see of as an average campaign. It's a useful tool when applied correctly, but I see it applied incorrectly more often than not, either as an entitlement or a hard and fast rule.
I detest the word "gimped", and in fact started a whole thread devoted to a rant on that months ago, but I won't go there again. Instead I'll just restate what I did before. No matter how powerful your character is, no matter what items your character does or does not have, it is completely within the DM's discretion and power to provide challenging and entertaining encounters for you. It's a matter of taste as to what relative power level those encounters take place at. That's not DM babysitting. That is the DM doing their job. As it happens, I actually have to ratchet up the difficulty of published adventures to challenge my group because the AP I am currently running is designed for 4 completely unoptimized characters played by casual gamers. My group consists of 7 players, with moderately optimized characters, some of whom are extremely experienced and canny tacticians. I'm already generally throwing APL+2 encounters at them regularly. If and when they get access to every magic item they can create and afford, I anticipate having to ratchet it up even more.
It's not really a misconception that allowing PCs near-absolute control over what items they have leads to them picking what's most efficient.
But there's an additional element here in that the big 6 are far, far FAR and away the most efficient items, to the point that if you're using wbl anything "cool" severely gimps your character. The PC choice is NOT happening in a vacuum, its happening in the context of a system where anything but the big 6 are horribly, horribly over priced and under powered.
The misconception is that its PC choice leading to the cookie cutter item selection, when in fact it is item pricing and usefulness that is leading to the problem.
Take that control away and they learn to make do with what they find regardless of the relative values of items.
Yeah I've had dm's try that. It sucks. No, i'm not doing it wrong, no i don't lack for creativity. Having your 10th level two handed fighter walking around with a folding boat (7.2k) , a rust colored bag of tricks (16k), a bottle of air (7.2k) , greater bracers of archery (25k), and a +3 dagger leads to an ineffective character and a frustrated player no matter how you slice it. (which in this case would be with great difficulty, because a particularly crusty piece of pumpernickle is probably out of your league)
That said, I can see that there are some positive arguments for revaluing certain items like the aforementioned ring of shooting stars (something that in 1e was only 15,000 gp instead of 50,000 gp). But even at 1/4 of its book value (or 1/10), who's going to keep it if they can buy something they can use all the time? Not that many. The fly in the ointment is the ease of getting exactly what they want.
But why do they all want the same thing? Its because for your money only one thing is actually worth having. The solution is not to beat players into submission its to make the wondrous items viable options either by decreasing their costs or increasing their effectiveness.
The other solution is to internalize the "gotta haves" into the stat block in some way. I keep coming back to it in thread after thread but if the math assumes that you have Item X by level Y in order to fight foes of CR Z then why have those items be external to the character?
Intrinsic bonuses that handle most of the effects currently handled by the "big six" solves that issue because a) the characters have the bonuses at level appropriate points b) because the big six don't have to be purchased made you can actually reduce the treasure given out to the party and c) because the random treasures they do find can be composed of a ton of special fx items like a folding boat that the party will actually use because they don't need to sell the loot to upgrade their big six.
Intrinsic bonuses tied to character level (instead of class level) enable you to skip over the tiring aspects of wealth discovery and crafting because crafting items is now about doing magical stuff rather than keeping pace with the jones's
The current modelin 3.x is either big six all the time which makes all the weird wondrous items that old school players used to love pointless, especially since many of the big six are boring as hell, or it means that you have to be really cautious about including high CR foes because the numbers boosters that are generally considered to be necessary simply aren't available at the proper time.
Looking at the game from the viewpoint of efficient, optimal play just isn't the type of experience a large sector of the gaming population wants to play. They find the big six upgrade process to be completely tedious and contrary to the types of stories they want to tell. Yes you could recost all the quirky items but even if they are a fraction of their current cost it's still more efficient to focus on the big six + a limited selection of consumables (wands), haversacks, etc. You are never going to have someone hold onto an Apparatus of Kwalish because another +1 is always going to be a superior "solution".
I agree with you that eliminating magic item creation or even limiting magic item access to some degreee is not necessarily a simple task, and there is some work to do to rebalance the game. But it is hardly impossible.
I don't see the pro's taking a stab at it. Magic mart can be eliminated without a problem, its usually fairly easy to give players what they'd want anyway, but if a character is on WBL and is forced to have more than 1 or 2 big miscalenous items they're going to be less effective than we should be. We had this problem with a party who had a large magic carpet: the carpet was enough to drag down the entire parties wbl which had us getting out rears kicked by CR appropriate encounters.
I understand the common ground argumentwith regard to the WBL table, as a starting point for discussion, and don't really have an objection to that. I just hate when people start treating it as an absolute and a rule, or using it to "prove" their opinions. The WBL chart just represents guidelines for what the designers see of as an average campaign. It's a useful tool when applied correctly, but I see it applied incorrectly more often than not, either as an entitlement or a hard and fast rule.
Could you give an example of it being misapplied?
I detest the word "gimped", and in fact started a whole thread devoted to a rant on that months ago, but I won't go there again.
What specifically don't you like? Is there another term you use for characters that are far less effective than they should be by the game's assumptions, or do you not like the fact that its being applied to "anything that's not min maxed to death" ?
Instead I'll just restate what I did before. No matter how powerful your character is, no matter what items your character does or does not have, it is completely within the DM's discretion and power to provide challenging and entertaining encounters for you.
But is it within their ability? Do DM's skimping the party on magic items even know/beleive what they're doing to the party? I think the problem is even harder for DM's handing out expensive wondrous items... the party has their wbl, they SHOULD be ok, shouldn't they?
If and when they get access to every magic item they can create and afford, I anticipate having to ratchet it up even more.
By all means, ratchet it up if you have to. I just don't like having it ratcheted down. That's like the game moving to easy mode for me, which i find somewhat insulting. APL +2 isn't even that challanging, shouldn't the big fight at the end be +4 or so?
Yeah I've had dm's try that. It sucks. No, i'm not doing it wrong, no i don't lack for creativity. Having your 10th level two handed fighter walking around with a folding boat (7.2k) , a rust colored bag of tricks (16k), a bottle of air (7.2k) , greater bracers of archery (25k), and a +3 dagger leads to an ineffective character and a frustrated player no matter how you slice it. (which in this case would be with great difficulty, because a particularly crusty piece of pumpernickle is probably out of your league)
Totally calling shenanigans on that one. There's no WAY that a +3 dagger isn't optimized for taking on a crusty pumpernickle.
(By the way, I think that character would be awesome and reasonably well-suited in a game featuring piracy on the high seas.)You've got your take on it, but I don't agree with it. I think that no matter what you set the miscellaneous items at for utility and value, given the choice of miscellaneous items that aren't constantly useful or items that are constantly (or near constantly) useful, players will go for constant, even if they're paying through the nose for the priviledge.
And if you combat that by raising the utility of miscellaneous items to being constantly useful, you've just replaced the supplemented items in the Big 6 with more leading to the Big 7 or 8.
Totally calling shenanigans on that one. There's no WAY that a +3 dagger isn't optimized for taking on a crusty pumpernickle.
huh. Just noticed daggers now do slashing damage as well as piercing. Fine fine... you can take out the pumpernickel but just wait until desert...
(By the way, I think that character would be awesome and reasonably well-suited in a game featuring piracy on the high seas.)
Sure, until he needed to make a will save (no cloak) , hit something with damage reduction, deal a reasonable amount of damage in a round for his level, or avoid being hit by the giant octopus (since he has nothing in the way of magical protection)
You've got your take on it, but I don't agree with it. I think that no matter what you set the miscellaneous items at for utility and value, given the choice of miscellaneous items that aren't constantly useful or items that are constantly (or near constantly) useful, players will go for constant, even if they're paying through the nose for the priviledge.
Well, what if you set the prices so low that , at higher levels, you can afford 7 or 8 situational items vs 1 +1 to a stat?
And if you combat that by raising the utility of miscellaneous items to being constantly useful, you've just replaced the supplemented items in the Big 6 with more leading to the Big 7 or 8.
Progress! If people have to pick 6 out of 8 or 6 out of 10 then we're getting out of the hegemony that seems to be the problem.
Lots of interesting stuff I just don't want to force people to read again.
Professional designers have to write for a specific audience, hopefully what they see as the largest sector of the gaming community, but sometimes for the lowest common denominator. I would bet they houserule like crazy in their home campaigns, and I wouldn't bet against some of them going non-Magic Mart or banning magic creation entirely, as PFS, created by those pros, does. I know from reading these boards that decreasing the ready availability of magic items is a very common houserule.
Please forgive me for being direct, but I'll use your own quote as an example of how I don't think the WBL chart should be used:
"if a character is on WBL and is forced to have more than 1 or 2 big miscalenous items they're going to be less effective than we should be. We had this problem with a party who had a large magic carpet: the carpet was enough to drag down the entire parties wbl which had us getting out rears kicked by CR appropriate encounters."
The WBL chart should never be used to force anybody to have or not have anything. It's a general guideline, not a ceiling or a floor. It is not a rule. I don't think WBL is appropriate at all for determining if the players can/should be getting more loot. Instead, I would say the DM should look at how the party is doing in the campaign. If they are skating along easily and blowing away the opposition, he should either scale back on the treasure given out, or increase the difficulty of encounters. If they are struggling and getting their butts kicked regularly, maybe the encounters should be tamed a bit or a little more wealth and magic should be coming their way. Using WBL to gauge whether a party has the right power level is way over-simplistic in my book. Every campaign is different, and factors like player skill and DM harshness are more important than WBL in determining approproiate challenge and level.
As for why I don't like the word "gimped", you are on the right track as to why I dislike it so much. To expand briefly, IMHO how a character is played and the decisions they make have far more to do with the effectiveness of that character than their stats or the items they have. I realize this is heresy for those who focus heavily on the mechanical aspects of the game, but that's my experience. So I cringe to hear people refer to any character they don't think meets their subjective standards of potential effectiveness as "gimped".
One final point. Neither low-powered games nor high-powered games are inherently "easy mode". "Easy mode" games are those, no matter what the overall power level, in which the characters are so much more powerful than their challenges that there is virtually no chance of their failure. In my experience, however, noone believes they are in an "easy mode" game. They just think they are so darn good at character optimization, strategy and tactics that the poor hapless DM, with his godlike control over all reality in the gameworld, just can't challenge them.
Sample characters, in the APs or anywhere else could not survive a single remotely level appropriate encounter, even against generic stock opponents without blatant cheating. Kindly stick to valid examples, those being characters who can survive actual games. In other words, those that are at least par. And all 15 PB does is shaft the already weak. Higher PBs in no way mean more power. You are also invoking Stormwind quite strongly.
Interesting theory, which I've heard you expound before. Unfortunately, I've never seen that theory play out in actual practice. Perhaps sometime in my next 33 years of gaming I will.
And as for your later point about raising or lowering the bar, you are missing the point of why many people, including me, play the game. We play to have fun. It is the DM's responsibility to do his best to make sure the challenges are appropriate to make it possible for people to have fun. There is no real difference between having the same level of challenge at a lower level of power and having them at a higher level of power. Maybe it wouldn't be fun for you at anything other than the highest possible power levels. But that's you.
To understand a little better where you are coming from, maybe you can tell me what it is you like about gaming? What keeps you coming back? Is it the tactical challenge? The roleplaying? The satisfaction of a well-fought victory? The chance to live out heroic (or not so heroic) fantasies? The challenge to create the most powerful and effective character possible? Or just hanging out with friends and having a good time?
Professional designers have to write for a specific audience, hopefully what they see as the largest sector of the gaming community, but sometimes for the lowest common denominator. I would bet they houserule like crazy in their home campaigns, and I wouldn't bet against some of them going non-Magic Mart or banning magic creation entirely, as PFS, created by those pros, does.
You've created a hypothetical, without evidence, to support your position here.
I know from reading these boards that decreasing the ready availability of magic items is a very common houserule.
And like most house rules a proper examination of the effects isn't usually done.
The WBL chart should never be used to force anybody to have or not have anything.
in the case of the magic carpet, that's effectively what happened. The DM might have been misusing the chart, but he was doing so along the same lines as what leads to the big six: assuming that all gp values are equal and ignoring that items other than that are overpriced.
The chart isn't random, it falls out of the average value for encounter treasure.
-edit: But isn't that what you're trying to do? Force players to have certain items and not the ones that they want?
It's a general guideline, not a ceiling or a floor. It is not a rule. I don't think WBL is appropriate at all for determining if the players can/should be getting more loot. Instead, I would say the DM should look at how the party is doing in the campaign. If they are skating along easily and blowing away the opposition, he should either scale back on the treasure given out, or increase the difficulty of encounters.
There are a myriad of reasons as to WHY a party could be doing very well or having their rear ends kicked.
-Party has amazing/poor strategy
-The real fighting ability of the encounters is higher/lower than the cr would suggest
-Party has optimized/unoptomized builds
-Party is/is not working together
-Characters have higher/lower than average stats
-DM is using good/poor tactics.
-Characters are optimized/unoptimized
-encounters (intentionally or not) play to a parties strength/weakness (for example something immune to crits vs two rogues or golems vs wizards)
-And last but not least: Party is under/over geared for their level
Before telling your party that they're doing something wrong, the easiest and most objective thing to check, and the easiest to fix, is to see if they are under geared. The wbl table is a good guideline for checking this.
If they are struggling and getting their butts kicked regularly, maybe the encounters should be tamed a bit or a little more wealth and magic should be coming their way. Using WBL to gauge whether a party has the right power level is way over-simplistic in my book.
Right, but much harder, more involved, and more subjective. If a car won't run the first thing you check to see is if there;s gas in the tank.
Every campaign is different, and factors like player skill and DM harshness are more important than WBL in determining approproiate challenge and level.
For martial classes, skill is not going to overcome gear. You can do everything right, but if your to hit + is 4 points lower than it should be you're still going to blow chunks.
To expand briefly, IMHO how a character is played and the decisions they make have far more to do with the effectiveness of that character than their stats or the items they have. I realize this is heresy for those who focus heavily on the mechanical aspects of the game, but that's my experience
I really, really don't buy that. It smacks of elitism and a pretense to skill that simply doesn't exist. Casters, yes, can do this sometimes. For all the people I've seen SAY similar things, I've never had one of them SHOW exactly how it was done.
As for why I don't like the word...
Sure, until he needed to make a will save (no cloak) , hit something with damage reduction, deal a reasonable amount of damage in a round for his level, or avoid being hit by the giant octopus (since he has nothing in the way of magical protection)
But if your ship sinks or you need to do a little adventuring underwater, you will be saving the crew's (and party's) bacon. The fighter who sold all that and spent his cash on optimization stuff will just be treading water with everyone else. And the DM who planted those items in treasure hoards over the last few adventures knowing that there was a high probability of storms, difficult boarding actions, adventures underwater, and whatever will have seen his efforts to give the party the tools that will improve their chances of success go to waste.
Depending on how you allow magic abilities to stack, I think a combination of cheapening certain effects (situational, unused ones) WITH allowing crafting time would lead to much more interesting equipment. For instance, if it costs as much to slap a +2 AC onto a Ring of Shooting Stars as it would to sell the ring and buy a ring of protection, you'll end up with a cool, unique item. (Still slightly above WBL, but remember DMs, that's only a guideline, and you should reward your players for being cool by not punishing them for being cool.)
My arcane trickster is commissioning a Bloodstone (spellstoring for only Vampiric Touch, on any melee weapon) added to her Amulet of Mighty Fists. Personally, I find it more *wonder*ful to design and create cool things than to suggest such a very specific item and then find it "randomly" in a treasure hoard.
The other solution is to internalize the "gotta haves" into the stat block in some way. I keep coming back to it in thread after thread but if the math assumes that you have Item X by level Y in order to fight foes of CR Z then why have those items be external to the character?
I've seen this suggested before and I like it a lot, but as someone who tends to make highly multiclassed characters, or characters whose roles may not be typical of their classes, I'd still want some input as to what those bonuses would be. (In other words, my sorceress may prefer a plus to hit than a plus to her spell DCs.) A menu of various bonuses to choose as a character leveled up -- sort of like specific, homebrew feats -- could be nifty.
But if your ship sinks or you need to do a little adventuring underwater, you will be saving the crew's (and party's) bacon. The fighter who sold all that and spent his cash on optimization stuff will just be treading water with everyone else. And the DM who planted those items in treasure hoards over the last few adventures knowing that there was a high probability of storms, difficult boarding actions, adventures underwater, and whatever will have seen his efforts to give the party the tools that will improve their chances of success go to waste.
No, the cleric will be casting water walk on the party, or the druid will be turning into a killer whale, or the optimized fighter with the high strength score will be swimming laps easily in his platemail.
The fighter i presented is simply NOT a viable character for 99.9999 percent of all level appropriate encounters.
The fighter i presented is simply NOT a viable character for 99.9999 percent of all level appropriate encounters.
Well, that certainly qualifies as the most egregious bit of hyperbole in this thread so far. I guess there's not much point in furthering this discussion...
2) Make it so that there's no real market for most wonderous items, or that they are bought at 1/4 or 1/8th of the price instead of 1/2. This should encourage players to keep the ones the dm drops in their lap.
This is what I do in my campaing. Well, this is almost what I do. PCs can sell their magical items at half the base price, but they have to buy them (or create them) at twice the base price, so it's roughly like selling them at 1/4th of the base price. Of course, I throw at them encounters with lower CRs because they are under the suggested WBL. In addition, PCs can't buy everything they want: they can only buy what's avaible in the city they're in.
Well, that certainly qualifies as the most egregious bit of hyperbole in this thread so far.The fighter i presented is simply NOT a viable character for 99.9999 percent of all level appropriate encounters.
Worse than the pumpernickel?
I guess there's not much point in furthering this discussion...
Can you show me how to make a fighter viable at level 10 with no protective equipment, no cloak of resistance, and their only magic weapon is outside of their archetype and specialization?
I know it isn't a fighter, but I did roll up a 6th level (I think) barbarian with a +12 willpower saving throw while raging.
I think the tools are their to make a good, more well rounded fighter. Put a decent stat in Wisdom, Iron Will, Improved Iron Will, things like that.
Ok, now that you've covered up for your lack of a will save from the cloak, can you make up for
your weaker fort and reflex saves?
Lower HP
MUCH lower AC
lower to hit
lower damage
I don't know it is necessary to unless you are going to a Pathfinder show to death match or something.
Thats.. what.. at least 70% of adventuring? Killing things before they kill you?
The high will save is nice because it keeps you from turning around butchering your friends. After that, the wizard and the cleric are going to haste and magic weapon you up like normal, dispel your enemy's defenses, and let you have a good old time chopping.
Those are some considerate spell casters there. I would still like to see the level 10 fighter build that would be worth it if they were carrying the hypothetical gear list i (jokingly) came up with above.
I think a well rounded fighter with his party's support is better than an optimized killing machine.
I don't think that having gear to do your job makes you not well rounded, or that acquiring material that makes sense for your job is somehow a bad thing.
I'm not saying you are totally wrong. I've struggled with the problem of the 3.x fighter for quite a while. I just think that the problem is exacerbated by the way people play the game.I think its exacerbated by people that say gear doesn't matter, its all about the skill. It is not. Fighters are more gear dependent than anyone else. The game assumes they have relevant gear. When they do not they become even LESS optimal than they already are.
Building the fighter with a low will save and having casters that aren't team players is basically begging for a b*@!-kicking in my opinion.Depends on the level. Once you start with regular save or dies spending your action to buff the fighter instead of ending the fight looks less and less optimal.
A non-optimized fighter has plenty of hit points if the cleric has his back, and does plenty of damage if the wizard has it to... and in my opinion they should.ANYONE that can survive a hit has plenty of hp if the cleric has his back. if the fighter isn't getting hit less than anyone else because his AC is lower than the wizards then there's no point in him being there.
So, the arguments for banning item creation is
- "Everything will work fine as long as 2 of the casters are the fighter's personal servants."
- "The player characters can overcome their poor defenses if they spend all their feats on it."
- "Oooh, mystery, because magic is rare."
- "I get more control as a GM, because allowing players to have control scares me and makes it hard."
My single retort: Why don't you play another game that is more in tune with this? Grab the Conan d20 game, it is pretty much what is being described, with the same approach to magic and loot, and BALANCED thereafter.
The first Pathfinder game I ran lasted about a year. This one has been going for about six months. I've seen about three times as many support casters as battlefield gods sense we have been playing this. Normally by the end of the second round of combat, the barbarian in the group has from 2-4 buffs cast on him, dependent on if he needed healing already.
I'm not saying you are totally wrong. I've struggled with the problem of the 3.x fighter for quite a while. I just think that the problem is exacerbated by the way people play the game. Building the fighter with a low will save and having casters that aren't team players is basically begging for a b!@&-kicking in my opinion.
A non-optimized fighter has plenty of hit points if the cleric has his back, and does plenty of damage if the wizard has it to... and in my opinion they should.
Depending on another character to save you is a bad strategy. What if nobody wants to play the caster or what if the RP of the caster is a jerk who does just enough to stay in the party's good graces. I don't think I should have to waste my resources because someone has a sub-par character. I do believe in teamwork, but banning magic item brings a level of dependency that is unfair to the fighter and the caster. Many DM's do not have the design skills to run a such a limited campaign without heavily inconveniencing someone.
Lots of interesting stuff I don't have time to go over in detail.
I think we're not that far off from each other as it might first appear. Just a couple of points.
I disagree that a DM, by limiting the ready availability of magic items, is forcing the players to only get the items he wants them to have, rather than what they really want. I think players should be able to get what they want ... eventually. I just don't think it should be as trivially easy as the current magic crafting rules and Magic Mart assumptions make it. Want that Headband of Intellect +5? OK, there is a legend that one was lost in the Dread Ruins of Bad Karma buried deep in the Don't Go There if You Want to Live Mountains. Or, there is a rumor that the great wizard Doofus is willing to sell one, but he lives a few cities over and has a reputation for wanting services performed rather than cash for his magic items. That kind of thing, in my opinion, is a hell of a lot more fun than just creating or buying whatever you want. I think the items will end up being appreciated more, too, because of the trouble to obtain it.
Finally, I'm sorry if my assertion that, in my opinion the decisions a player makes and the way the character is played have far more to do with a character's success than the character's stats or equipment do comes off as elitist to you. It is my firmly held opinion, based on my own not inconsiderable experience. It's a subjective opinion, and you are certainly welcome to diagree with it, and your experience may be entirely different. Or it could be that we just define successful character differently. For me a successful character is one who makes a contribution to a successful party, and is fun and memorable to play. It has little to do with how powerful the character is, or if he is the star of the party. He does have to make a contribution, but that contribution doesn't have to be in combat. It might be in strategizing, in social interactions, in puzzle-solving, etc. If this were purely a numbers-driven tactical combat game, I'd agree with you fully, but it's not.
Ban Magic Item Creation:
YAAAAAAAA Spell caster are now greatly needed :) need a sword enchanted, have to have a wizard to enchant it on the spot. Need to fly, were our wizard. Need fire resistance, were that cleric.]
........
Let players create magic item:
YAAAAAA Spell caster can now make Scrolls, wands, and potions. We can turn that extra gold, into buff for latter on. Oh ya the fighter, paladin, rogue, gets to have magic two, throw magic items, so they will not bug the snalls out of us, wanting fly, weapon enchant, armor enchant, etc all the time.
.......
Lets Ban all spells
YAAAA Fighter, barbarian, rogues, Ranger, Monks now rule the World !!!
No need for caster class any more
.......
Lets ban all Fighter, Barbarian, rogues
YAAAAAAA do not have to listen to there B..Ah Grumbling all the time. :)
.......
Lets ..... NEXT !!!