Translation:One player, to the other players, in front of the DM: Well, we would really like to advance the plot and do something interesting. But unfortunately the DM is making us jump through a bunch of hoops to get our numbers where they need to be. So instead of being able to focus on something that's actually interesting, we have to drag out the chore of getting ourselves ready to do interesting things.
*players sigh*
Another player: Hey, didn't we already do this?
First player: Well yeah. He made us jump through a bunch of hoops the last time too. But it's been a little while since then, and we need better gear to keep doing our jobs. So unfortunately we have to put up with this because someone *meaningful look at DM* enjoys wasting our time.
Wow, didn't know you were a translator from English into ridiculously distorted sarcasm. Does that pay well?
Just a couple of points. The plotline in a D&D/PF campaign is a joint creation of the DM and players, but the DM plays the leading role in creating and advancing it. If I had a dime for every time players in a campaign I've run or played in needed some plot hook from the DM to move things along I'd be, well, richer than I am now.
In case the possibility escaped you, the quests to obtain this equipment probably are a part of the overall storyline. Or they could just be enjoyable sidequests to take a break from the overall plot. Either way, if the players don't want to go on them, they don't have to. They could just sit at home and craft or go shopping at the Magic Mart. That's much more fun.
Or is advancing the numbers the goal of your campaign in and of itself?
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.
Well, Conan d20 is basically the same thing as Pathfinder. It is still d20. I use rules from it pretty often.
Secondly, other than your scathing attitude, I don't see much wrong with what you said. I don't feel bad about having control as a GM. My games are so sandbox my players bypass entire adventures constantly in favor of their own agenda. The wizard and cleric should be supporting the fighter, it works better in my experience than relying on their piddly one shot save or suck spells. I enjoy magic being rare and interesting. Just because you don't have a sense of wonder about it doesn't mean my players are so jaded.
And finally, yeah, they should spend a lot of their feats on it. Most of the time player characters completely blast through CR appropriate encounters, that is until they meet their kryptonite and get smashed. It is their fault for directly and completely climbing kill you dead feat trees while ignoring their own defenses.
So, with no scrolls, no wands, no potions except those you are graceful enough to grant them from high above, the casters are not only supposed to have enough spell slots to do all their previous duties, but also to babysit the fighter and make him function? Are their players having any FUN being forced into servitude roles? Not to mention, how do they even survive the multiple rounds of mandatory buff-ups without being annihilated when facing anything above their APL?
What i find amazing is that several, apparently experienced, GM's are saying that their games are working very well without MIC and some people are saying that the game can't work without MIC. Where's the breakdown in logic in this?
Reminds me a famous scene from a famous movie:
"I cut your arm off."
"No you didn't."
Wow, didn't know you were a translator from English into ridiculously distorted sarcasm. Does that pay well?Yes. That was ridiculously distorted sarcasm, but the post you are referring to is not.
In case the possibility escaped you, the quests to obtain this equipment probably are a part of the overall storyline. Or they could just be enjoyable sidequests to take a break from the overall plot. Either way, if the players don't want to go on them, they don't have to. They could just sit at home and craft or go shopping at the Magic Mart. That's much more fun.Except that you said they'd have to go do all this stuff instead of just being able to quickly get through the chore parts of the campaign to get to the good parts.
Or is advancing the numbers the goal of your campaign in and of itself?If it were, then drawing out the process of staying level appropriate might actually be enjoyable. But it's not. So mage marts/crafting/whatever = party can, with a minimum of time get the gear they must have to continue functioning, and then proceed to do the things that they actually want to do. Which, generally means advancing character goals. Not grinding for another +1, as you advocate.
I don't know. to me going on heroic quests and recovering mysterious ancient artifacts sounds like fun and sitting in your basement crafting yet another stat booster and/or going shopping sounds like the real chores. But maybe that's just me, and most adventurers prefer crafting and shopping to actual, you know, adventuring.
Just a little reminder of the OP :
This thread is about banning magic item creation feats. Banning magic item creation feats means banning magic item creation feats, it doesn't mean that the PCs won't get the items that they need to win the day. This is up to the GM to make sure that they'll get everything they need to succeed, no matter how they'll get it.
By the way, PCs that will get the items they need without taking magic item creation feats will end up stronger than PCs who took those feats.
COD has a very specific idea of what is fun and that there is only one good way to play the game. I think almost any variation can be fun. Like, "third level characters can kill a dozen 0 level warriors, making them more powerful than anyone in real life. The highest level a character can be in this world...
CoD and I are well-acquainted on the boards, and we cross rhetorical swords frequently. Frequently our conversations fall apart due to our vastly different views on what the game is and/or should be, and vastly different playstyles, assumptions and expectations. As well as his rather tiresome, but strangely endearing habit of insisting that his subjective opinions are objective truth.
Nonetheless, he's smart and can be eloquent, and at times makes some valid points, or at least points that make me think and reexamine some of my own assumptions. So I still continue to engage him at times, in hopes of gleaning a few more gems out of the muck.
Translation:One player, to the other players, in front of the DM: Well, we would really like to advance the plot and do something interesting. But unfortunately the DM is making us jump through a bunch of hoops to get our numbers where they need to be. So instead of being able to focus on something that's actually interesting, we have to drag out the chore of getting ourselves ready to do interesting things.
*players sigh*
Another player: Hey, didn't we already do this?
First player: Well yeah. He made us jump through a bunch of hoops the last time too. But it's been a little while since then, and we need better gear to keep doing our jobs. So unfortunately we have to put up with this because someone *meaningful look at DM* enjoys wasting our time.
And that shows poor DMing if you can see "strings" of the story or the mechanical of the game then it GM doing poor balancing act of suspending disbelief in the game. It is extremely hard to do. I mean you do not go out and fight the Pit fiend at level one.
Look at Star Wars Luke did not fight Darth Vader in the first act of movie one. He built up to it by fighting Sandmen (Orks) then Alien Scum in the bar (Rouges) followed by Strom Troopers( Hobgoblins) extra . So on and so forth. Only After 3 or so fight did he be a light saber (Cool Magic sword). And the latter on he got cool X-wing.
...Simply means everyone, particularly non casters can't do anything, as the gold limits are such that you very quickly hit the point where you cannot buy any items that help you because they are too expensive, even in a metropolis and enemies don't have enough wealth to give said items by killing them so that's the only way you can ever improve your gear past low level items.
Thats cool, that means that the only way to get awesome items is by DM FIAT. So with the help of players wish lists they can get amazing items, when the DM wants to/ feels appropriate to hand them out.
In truth, (despite what I've been talking about on here) my players were banned from item creation feats, but they have above average stats and about triple their wealth level (at least up until just recently). I end up using CR + 4 encounters almost every game, and the players think of them as regular hurtles, rather than game enders.
At that the point on the balence scale 40 kg vs 40 kg balenced for your game. But games vary to DM/ playerer pool and to DM/ player pool. Some (20 point by) vs (CR +1-+3)again balenced. You are playing (Above average Stats & 3 time wealth) vs (CR + 4 or highter) for your game balenced ,but CR +4 in my game with 20 point buy and standard wealth will be off balenced.
The variance is what most people are not seeing. Is all that they see part of the whole not the big picture. Your game wealth 5 times higher that mine so you most be munchkin supper powered. While you look my game say waste time fight skeletons waste of time.
Till been in the game it hard to really say what really balanced.
Well, if the wizard isn't doing good enough the other players should tell him to try harder. No body used to complain that wizards were too good back in the old days of D&D before they quadrupled their spells at first level or let them easily put all of their support spells into wands and scrolls without adventuring, and back when they were expected to support the party rather than do everything perfectly on their own. Most of the time on these boards I see people talking about how good the wizard is. The goodness of the wizard is directly related to its increased resources in later editions...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.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.
Fair enough on the "your game" comment.
As for the old school wizard they eventually got good enough to contribute. A fighter without magic won't be getting better. As the game levels up he will fall farther behind.
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.
+1
What i find amazing is that several, apparently experienced, GM's are saying that their games are working very well without MIC and some people are saying that the game can't work without MIC. Where's the breakdown in logic in this?
I'm sure its quite easy for a game to get along without magic item creation. I'm also sure that things are going to go south without the magic items. If players start taking magic item creation feats left and right its probably a sign that the players feel that their characters were under geared and under prepared.
When someone is telling me that they think a fighter would be viable at their table with a folding boat, a bottle of air, bracers of archery and a dagger +3 i really have to wonder if either 1) they're missing more than a few clues from their players 2) They are doing something else really really weird with their group/games. That's why i try to ask for specifics about builds and encounters.
"I cut your arm off."
"No you didn't."
I'm pretty sure my DM thought the game was going pretty well right before i told him I'd had enough and was leaving a campaign where my only magic item was the deck of illusions. (that wasn't the only problem in that campaign but it was a biggie) Sometimes DM and player ideas of what "works" can vary.
I removed an insulting post.
What i find amazing is that several, apparently experienced, GM's are saying that their games are working very well without MIC and some people are saying that the game can't work without MIC. Where's the breakdown in logic in this?
Reminds me a famous scene from a famous movie:
"I cut your arm off."
"No you didn't."
I did not see any "must have MiC" posts.
Tom, of course you are right. A lot of people on here I think can't see that you can play the game in a lot of ways and still have fun.
You talk about banning magic items for your games, but we can only judge how it will affect our games. If you are going to talk about suggestions specifically for your games then all relevant information such as triple wealth and how they are taking on CR+4 monsters should be included. I know that in my games players don't take on CR +4 encounters unless I use a lot of low level mooks that are not really a threat, by the numbers still count as a high level threat.
I also remember a line in that first post about min maxing. I don't see the CR +4 happening unless you allow every splat book, and the triple wealth also comes from the DM, and makes unintended munchkining very easy.
In short without being at your table the wealth and extra books seems to be more of an issue than anything else.
I know you wanted to focus on item banning, but to me it is like someone saying their car won't start because the alternator went out. I am probably going to suggest they check their battery. They seem to be the culprit more often.
This forum has a very high freeform population. Even so, quite a few people still play actual D&D.
Wrong argumentation.
I play RAW and the game works nicely for me, go figure.
I guess I took it for granted that a game master who bans MIC would probably play a whole bunch of things out of sink with raw (: sorry about that.
Seriously though, I've just been going along with the flow of the conversation on here. No one ASKED me anything about my game......"
For some reason I was thinking MIC was Magic Item Compendium in some of those post. I have to go back and read a few, and when making a post about your game it is normally a good idea to provide all info up front, because if not most people can only go off of how it will affect their games.
As for giving out a lot of wealth. It ides not matter how much wealth I have if I can't get what I want. What good is a diamond to man in the desert that needs water?
My point is this, if munchkining players is the issue then banning MIC feats won't fix the issue.
Except that the only reason why you are doing it is that you need to grind for another +1. Whereas say... crafting can be glossed over with a "______ spends ______ part of the downtime working on a few new magic items." Or "After looking around for a bit, ______ finds the tool he was looking for and purchases it." And then you get back to advancing character goals, whatever...
No, you are doing it because you are an adventurer and that is what adventurers do, you know, go out and seek adventure. What are these character goals and why do you think that they are not advanced by these quests?
Certainly it is a lot easier to say I need X items to be able to defeat Y threat, so let me go into the basement for a few weeks or run down to Magic Items 'R Us and Presto! Change-O! I've got them! If you have an end quest in mind that is all-encompassing and the only focus of your character's existence, I can see your point that sidequests are a waste of time. If, like most campaigns, you don't really know the end challenge, isn't it more fun and heroic to get your items by adventuring rather than shopping and crafting? And they don't have to be side quests, they might be part and parcel of the overall campaign.
I'd like to go the opposite direction.
I ran a game for most of a year where magical items were very common. So common in fact, that everyone started with random 'heirlooms'. In fact, the heirlooms affected character creation.
The setup was a city that had been at war for hundreds of years, off and on. Very isolated, very military oriented. They had some limited trade, and had tons of wealth from digging out gems and such from the inside of the mountain the city was on, plus selling items to the few traders who came to the city and paid big for the magical items.
This city had hundreds of warehouses where food was stored in special storage bins. One warehouse could feed everyone in the city for a year, and there were hundreds of them. And they kept building more. Very paranoid about defense. The military had warehouses of magic items stored, swords, armor, etc.
One player, playing a kobold (it was a monster campaign) rolled randomly +1 full plate adamantine armor, a marshall's medal, and a marshall's tabard. Instead of being a wizard as he originally planned, he went marshall, and had a ball playing the character. Most of the campaign allowed them easy access to trading or buying equipment based on what they found.
What I found was that having easy access to magical items actually ended up having them have more randomized equipment than if I'd restricted it. Instead of them feeling like 'Oh my god, I have to get that +4 str belt NOW' they got items that were cool or fit well with a bit they developed for their character (a half-dragon decided to do a lightning theme, had lightning gloves, electrical damage sword, electrical motifs on his armor, etc). Because they knew they could switch out magic items if they really really needed to the next time they went back to the city, they no longer felt the need to do BIG 6 items unless they started running into things they couldn't handle.
I may have missed it, but I haven't seen it mentioned that PCs making magic items is important if you don't want to keep playing the same old theme - all magic items were made in past, no one knows how to make anymore OR everyone else can make them EXCEPT the heroic PCs!
I think we also get trapped into remembering our early RPG days when magic items were new to us and had that 'sense of wonder'. Once you play enough campaigns that can wear off and is hard to get back. Being drastic with magic item rules may be a bit overkill.
There can be a real sense of special when a PC makes an item - get them to make a drawing, write a cool description.
Just finding stuff in loot all the time can take away from the story as well unless accompanied by a good story.
I feel variety is one of the special things about this RPG. A long campaign should be seasoned with a sprinkling of everything over time :-)
Yes, but this works better without item creation rules IMO. 2nd ed had no item creation rules. It encouraged GMs to be creative with ingreedients needed to make something.
Player: I want to make x
GM: you do some research. You think <cool quest item> will allow you to make it.
Player: ok, I will keep that in mind as we adventure. If we come accross something that sounds like it will work, I want to know.
Or you let players come up with the <cool quest item>.
Player: we just killed a dragon. Can I bath the sword that slayed him in the blood of his heart to make it dragon bane?
GM: Roll know(aracana): you think you know the rituals to do such a thing, but to make it permanent you will need to carry a piece of the dragon with the sword always.
Player: cool. I remove the wooden handle and carve a new one out of the dragon's knuckle bone.
This completely removes the gp requirement, allowing players to do interesting things with wealth instead of focusing on magic items. It makes that sword mean something to the player, so that they have a stake in its fate rather than just being the next upgrade they got in the shop 2 towns over. And it puts control into the hands of the GM, so that players have a harder time bypassing or trivializing encounters appropriate for their level, either creating an arms race or forcing the GM to not give them anything interesting for a while.
Yes, but this works better without item creation rules IMO. 2nd ed had no item creation rules. It encouraged GMs to be creative with ingreedients needed to make something.Player: I want to make x
GM: you do some research. You think <cool quest item> will allow you to make it.
Player: ok, I will keep that in mind as we adventure. If we come accross something that sounds like it will work, I want to know.Or you let players come up with the <cool quest item>.
Player: we just killed a dragon. Can I bath the sword that slayed him in the blood of his heart to make it dragon bane?
GM: Roll know(aracana): you think you know the rituals to do such a thing, but to make it permanent you will need to carry a piece of the dragon with the sword always.
Player: cool. I remove the wooden handle and carve a new one out of the dragon's knuckle bone.This completely removes the gp requirement, allowing players to do interesting things with wealth instead of focusing on magic items. It makes that sword mean something to the player, so that they have a stake in its fate rather than...
I have let, and even encouraged, players to dig up things like this. I've had them stop adventuring for two days to carve up a bulette for
A) Armor bits
B) Teeth and Claws
C) Specific Bones (big thick leg bones, etc)
D) Specific organs (heart, brain, tongue, reproductives)
Also for dragons they killed, a dino, etc. Another player always bought rare woods in town and while traveling by ship carved MW bows and shields to sell at the next port.
I've had them use the parts when enchanting, and I assign a GP value to the parts, to cover part of the MIC, and then just mentally make that part of the WBL (which I only loosely follow usually).
I'd like to go the opposite direction.
I ran a game for most of a year where magical items were very common. So common in fact, that everyone started with random 'heirlooms'. In fact, the heirlooms affected character creation.
The setup was a city that had been at war for hundreds of years, off and on. Very isolated, very military oriented. They had some limited trade, and had tons of wealth from digging out gems and such from the inside of the mountain the city was on, plus selling items to the few traders who came to the city and paid big for the magical items.
This city had hundreds of warehouses where food was stored in special storage bins. One warehouse could feed everyone in the city for a year, and there were hundreds of them. And they kept building more. Very paranoid about defense. The military had warehouses of magic items stored, swords, armor, etc.
One player, playing a kobold (it was a monster campaign) rolled randomly +1 full plate adamantine armor, a marshall's medal, and a marshall's tabard. Instead of being a wizard as he originally planned, he went marshall, and had a ball playing the character. Most of the campaign allowed them easy access to trading or buying equipment based on what they found.
What I found was that having easy access to magical items actually ended up having them have more randomized equipment than if I'd restricted it. Instead of them feeling like 'Oh my god, I have to get that +4 str belt NOW' they got items that were cool or fit well with a bit they developed for their character (a half-dragon decided to do a lightning theme, had lightning gloves, electrical damage sword, electrical motifs on his armor, etc). Because they knew they could switch out magic items if they really really needed to the next time they went back to the city, they no longer felt the need to do BIG 6 items unless they started running into things they couldn't handle.
I find in my group's montey haul campaigns we have simmilar effects happen. If your level 5 and have your big 6 covered, and you fall into an extra 10k, most players I have played with will not upgrade their big 6. Most will look for something interesting. As a GM, you can dangle a neat item in front of them (My DM likes to randomly pull his 2nd ed Magic Item Encyclopedias and flip to a random page), and players will jump at the opportunity. You never know when that pirate statue that makes everyone on the ships deck dance or the jug that produces random chemicals every day will come in handy. Give players a nifty item and they will chose it as long as they don't feel like they need to upgrade the mundane.
There's no reason you can't give out X amount of GP worth of materials towards thematically appropriate item crafting: For example taking out the gorgon= 2,000 gp towards a strength related item.
And you don't have to interrupt the plot to go item hunting. If someone wants to make a wand of fireballs having the hearts of the fire elementals in happy sunshine mountain as a suitable component, and happy sunshine mountain just happens to be en route to your next stop, no more suspends disbelief than putting the wand of fireballs in the next treasure hoard.
I removed a couple posts.
It is possible for two people to disagree without one of them being an idiot.
I removed a couple posts.
It is possible for two people to disagree without one of them being an idiot.
I'm pretty sure that's common sense. You should know by now, common sense is verbotten on the internet. That means that any two random people on the internet arguing as loud as they can type are probably both idiots. :)
@Krak/Caineach: 2ed had a very interesting magic item creation system, and even there, it said something akin to "Nobody will be surprised if <wizard character> came out of his tower with a sword+2 after a month of isolation."
But yes, I remember 2e being all about tying fluff to items. An example I remember reading about was a potion of spider climb, which needed the voice of a spider, and the boots of speed, which needed the essence of haste. Lots of options for interpretation. If you were smart, you could get these easily by applying spells, or hunting down creatures for icky fleshy bits.
And this CAN be brought along to PF, but for items that make a difference. It is kinda silly to claim that you need "The Might of a Mountain" to make a belt of Str+2, which gives you a +1 to hit and damage in melee. +4 is a maybe, but +6 Str & Con, and now we're talking POWER.
But now, it is expected that a wizard can make his scrolls (a cornerstone of ANY wizard ever played around our table), the alchemist can brew his potions (someone tell me why HE is worth playing with this nerf) and the party has at least one caster with Craft Wondrous so the rogue can feel useful, and the MAD people can get their sorely needed stat-boosters.
And then you remember that NPCs cannot have gear upgrades for the most part, because they are incapable of affording them, and therefore the pry it from the enemy's cold dead hands approach doesn't work, and that PF heavily nerfed the gold caps on towns, so you can't just buy it either. Which means you get it by making it yourself, or you don't get it.
What about treasures? Last time I checked, finding treasures was a big part of D&D/Pathfinder.
What about BBEG with powerful magic items? NPCs don't have to ''afford'' magic items, they can just have them if the GM wish so. If the PC fighter is specialized with the longsword, then the fourth-level bandit leader (read BBEG) can wield a +1 cold iron longsword if the GM say so, as a ''gift'' for the PC fighter, even if that means that he (the BBEG) would end up with more wealth than he ''should''.
I'm not saying that magic item creation feats should be removed from any campaing, I'm just saying than a specific campaing could work just fine without them.
What about BBEG with powerful magic items? NPCs don't have to ''afford'' magic items, they can just have them if the GM wish so. If the PC fighter is specialized with the longsword, then the fourth-level bandit leader (read BBEG) can wield a +1 cold iron longsword if the GM say so, as a ''gift'' for the PC fighter, even if that means that he (the BBEG) would end up with more wealth than he ''should''.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what led GMs to banning PCs from crafting their own magical items in the first place. Magical weapon envy. The gaming group of adventurers keeps fighting more and more bad guys who only have magical armor and magical weapons that only the Fighter can use, and the "one-half" rule ruins selling the stuff nobody can use. The Druid, Rogue, and sometimes the Cleric look on in envy at the +2 armor and +3 longsword (three different kinds) that the Fighter has at Level 10. Meanwhile, the Sorcerer and Wizard each have a single masterwork dagger attached to their belts because no one has found a BBEG with a Returning +1 Dagger. The Ranger is miffed at his +1 longbow (no STR bonus) because he can't find anything better.
So the Wizard gets a temper and starts taking Craft Wondrous Items, Craft Wand, Craft Magical Arms and Armor and after a year of gaming time is sporting a new +4 Bracers of Armor and a +4 Headband of Intellect combination, along with his DR 5/- vestments. The Ranger sees this and barters for a +3 Longbow of Shocking (+2 STR), while the Rogue is willing to pay top gold for the Wizard making an Armor of Stealth next month. The Cleric, not to be outdone, also has the feats and is making his +5 Holy Avenger next week. The Sorcerer is now known to his friends as "Mr. Wand", for obvious reasons.
The Fighter sees the spotlight moving away from his Conan/He-Man build and starts complaining to the GM before, during, and after the game about "all the magical stuff in the game ruining the encounters".
That pretty much sums up my last decade's worth of gaming.