As the title says, please don't turn this into an edition war. I don't even care about editions for the purposes of this discussion. What I care about is the fact that Monte Cook has absolutely stated unequivocally that treasure as part of mechanics takes away the "magic" and mystery, in magic items. There have been several threads on these boards that both agree and disagree with that topic. I've taken part in them. I think if you'll read Monte's latest post over at Legends and Lore you'll see exactly why I've always been one of the advocates for a system that does not assume any type of magic items per level. He concisely states exactly what I've always felt about this. Granted there seems to be a bit of an "old school versus new school" feel to the tone of the article, but regardless, the ideas he puts forth are very valid.
Of course the fact that Monte is now in R&D for the oldest name in RPGs and is writing articles like this certainly makes one think that the R-ing and the D-ing are taking a hard look at some of the things that have been cropping up on messageboards for years. I wonder if he's surreptitiously reading posts on here right now?
Citation on him being in R&D and not just writing a blog?
I understand that argument. The thing is I really do not like all powerful special magic items that are intelligent can detract from a game if the end up controling your character but sure feel magical.
As far as I can tell, Monte is only writing the Legends and Lore articles, and not actually working in R&D. Unless L&L is an R&D feature.
It's now time to focus much more on the future of the game. Monte has an unmatched design pedigree in the RPG field, and for that reason we've brought him on board to work with R&D in making D&D the greatest RPG the world has seen.
If you think that means he's just writing a blog so they can get feedback off of it, I guess, then, yeah, he's not technically doing anything for R&D. I doubt seriously though that Mr. Mearls would say something like "to work with R&D" if he wasn't actually some part of the R&D team. I suppose the language is a bit too vague to be perfectly clear what his role is though.
Edit: @doctor_wu... I hear you on that, but I think you can have a +3 flaming sword without it being "all powerful" and without it controlling your character's story. I also, however, think that a +3 flaming sword shouldn't be so ordinary (at certain levels) that it doesn't inspire some awe in both the PCs and their foes.
Citation on him being in R&D and not just writing a blog?
Also the 9/25 entry here:
A short while ago, I started working for Wizards of the Coast again, on D&D. I am currently working with talented members of the R&D staff, exploring various options and experimenting with the game. Which is to say, doing what I really love. At this point, you can think of me as a mad scientist in a rpg design laboratory, concocting crazy creations to see if any of them have any value.
My bold. To be absolutely literal, he says he's working with R&D rather than in R&D.
I personally feel that some expectation of magic items has to be built into the system to give everyone an idea of what to expect. Otherwise trying to build encounters becomes a complete guessing game of what the party can handle. To me, the best way to handle it is to break magic items into two basic groups.
One is your standard, basic magical items that everyone is going to have at least some of; there's no mystery to these, but assuming their presence makes the DM's job a bit easier, and quite frankly trying to withhold them just for the sake of making them seem more cool can come across as petty micromanagement if not done right. The second group is the more powerful/rare/odd/strange stuff. This is where the effort of trying to preserve the mystery and awe is best spent. This is the stuff that truly deserves an aura of mystery and awe, but too often DMs try to lump all magic items together in one big pile. Instead of saying magic items as a whole need to have that mystigue, people need to look at each individual item and evaluate it at that level.
Too often I see people complaining that a +1 sword doesn't have any mystery to it, and that somehow players should be expected to treat it like the +5 holy vorpal greatsword artifact that is required to complete an epic level quest. Expecting that kind of awe and mystery from a basic tool of the trade is a bit much to me when everyone is going to have a magic weapon by level 5 just so they can actually get past a common DR. There may have been a time in earlier editions where all magic items could be treated as rare and mystical, but as combat has become more and more important, and mechanics like DR have been introduced, it's simply not possible to treat all magic items as being mystical and awe inspiring, especially when you have worlds like the Forgotten Realms where level 10 wizards are as common as peasants in some places.
To me, the WBL as a general guideline is fine, as long as people understand it as such, and don't take it as a hard and fast rule.
I wish that you would change the title to be more reflective of the question you are asking as it doesn't help me know what is being discussed here.
[/sarcasm on] So instead it's another I want a low magic game topic[/sarcasm off]
I want some good well though out rules for that too.
As to your question I have no idea if Monte or anyone else can close that particular Pandora's Box about treasure being part of mechanics (if I understand what you mean as being somehow related to WBL assessments and such) We see monster design by CR that does seem to encourage some level of magic items, mostly through stat inflation DR SR and the like on the part of the monsters. But if you throw out that WBL thing how do you deal with that issue? I mean lowering monster Sats seems to be a really effective part of a game where magic items are not required to allow for the protagonists to not get turned into roadkill.
To be honest D&D, as it much like Dragonball Z, is level based and those plateaus create an issue where a new big bad appears that takes more than you had before when you beat the last big bad dosen't make for gritty low personal magic, low magic item moderate fantasy Like LOTR. The game plays much more like a magical realism style of story.
I mean a 1st level druid or cleric in a small town can use magic to help excavate a new root cellar and cure the farm injuries of his parishioners and their livestock does not for a world "where magic is divorced from the populace" make.
Fundamentally what you seem to be asking for can be done but requires some serious extreme makeover home edition style changes to both the systems and the approach to the game by the participants
I wish that you would change the title to be more reflective of the question you are asking as it doesn't help me know what is being discussed here.
Fundamentally what you seem to be asking for can be done but requires some serious extreme makeover home edition style changes to both the systems and the approach to the game by the participants
To part the first, I apologize I just did not want this to turn into another Paizo in the Face of 5e thread.
To part the second, that's what I want. That's exactly what I'm asking for: an official Core Rulebook, or Rulebook Supplement (I suppose you could think modular rules at that point) that is built to create a world where magic items (even a +1 sword) have some mystery and intrigue attached to them.
This is not to say that I don't understand, or see, the inherent disparity between a "my cleric just fed and watered the whole town" kind of setting and "low magic" items/WBL. I get it, and I actually do have fun in the current system. I just think, as Monte pointed out, we've come so far that "magic" items, look a lot more mundane in the face of the leveling mechanics.
I just think, as Monte pointed out, we've come so far that "magic" items, look a lot more mundane in the face of the leveling mechanics.
Well again looking at the game as Magical realism where magic, as in manipulation of the world through acts of will piety or faith, and it working is mundane. It is a technology: used, manipulated, and mastered to serve the needs/ goals of those individuals in the world. Much like Boeing mastering aerodynamics means I can fly to see my buddies in Spain. An example of magical realism reads much more like a DnD or PF game than folks would believe if they haven't seen the genre. An angel who stumbles and gets knocked down sounds like he rolled a 1 on a save to me. And we have all seen that sort of thing happen in games.
Well, the game has the assumption that certain stuff will just be a need. You will need a good, expensive magical weapon. Armor is a plus if not a necessity. Stat boosting items are assumed by the system. A level of wealth spent on necessities is assumed by the system. I don't know if that is good or bad. I suspect neutral and I am not really bothered by "christmas tree" and "golf club" complaints. It is needed to work within the system and I don't know how to replicate it without it.
When somebody says "low magic" I shudder. It usually means a character by tenth level will be shafted on necessities, everything is harder than it should be. There is this fake grittiness when the whole game seems to be about being Big Damn Heroes (tm) that Kill Things and Take Their Stuff (tm). What am I supposed to do as a character and a human? Be so wealth and gear and magic deprived that I pass out in glee if the greatsword is another +1 to hit and damage?
For chrissakes, overcoming death numerous times can be a bit ho-hum by 10th level out of 20. So why not a Magic-Mart?
That's kind of my point. WHY does the system do this? At what point did magic items become so necessary they are expected parts of the mechanics; subsequently, is there/can there be a system that does not have this built in, and is still completely valid. I think not only can there be, but there should be. [aside]I've also heard from some of the DEVs that the more you ask for something the more they consider creating it.[/aside]
Because not everyone believes it isn't broke.
True, however, you cannot use 3.X OGL as the foundation if you really want to fix that. Foundations built on the antithesis of what changes you desire to enact and all that.
You can strive as you, Kirth, 'findel, Kolo and EL do to make the C-M-D lessened. We can endeavor to try and develop a set of strategies to make high fantasy low magic work but the system isn't built for that.
True, however, you cannot use 3.X OGL as the foundation if you really want to fix that.Shenanigans.
How so?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I care about is the fact that Monte Cook has absolutely stated unequivocally that treasure as part of mechanics takes away the "magic" and mystery, in magic items.
I agree. Magic items aren't 'magic' in the sense of wonderment and awe anymore - they are commodity items. Now if you buy a +3 sword the vendor asks if you would like that up-sized to +4, fries, and what drink would you like.
S.
He (Monte) certainly addressed three "symptoms" that have been bugging me from 3.0:
treasure ends up being a part of the characters' advancement track, not a reward (...)if magic items are assumed, they lose some of their mystery (...)
(if magic items really were not part of core mechanical assumption) a DM could run as high or low magic a campaign as he wanted (...)
About the second point, I'm aware of the Alenxandrian's excellent article about putting magic back in your magic items but in my experience, it does the trick for the few 10 first magic items and after looses some of its pertinence.
'findel
That's kind of my point. WHY does the system do this? At what point did magic items become so necessary they are expected parts of the mechanics; subsequently, is there/can there be a system that does not have this built in, and is still completely valid. I think not only can there be, but there should be. [aside]I've also heard from some of the DEVs that the more you ask for something the more they consider creating it
First Question: Why does the system do this?
It seems that calculating magic into the overall character class makes the job of the GM easier..I stress Seems.Second Question: At what point did magic items become so necessary they are expected parts of the mechanics?
That would be D&D 3.0! Somewhere in the design of the game they decided to calculate CR with the idea of treasure instead of letting the GM do it. This may have been because of years of bad GM's or because they were designing a game for a Target Audience of 11 to 14 years of age.
Third Question: is there/can there be a system that does not have this built in, and is still completely valid>
YES..Almost every-other gaming system of the market excludes treasure from the challenge. Heros, Paladium, GURPS, Rolemaster, AD&D, AD&D 2nd, D&D, Chainmail, only D&D 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4.0 force this dynamic upon the GM and Players. I would assume this is because after D&D 2nd edition the game was no-longer designed for 16+ year old guys but instead designed for 11_14 years of age.
With Pathfinder or D20 you must separate the concept of Economics and Treasure. The Economics of the setting have nothing to do with the magic power of the PC's. There is no rational or Functional Economy to D20! The base system is designed for young teenagers, and they dont get economics! They however do understand that at X level they should have X value of goods.
It might be better to view Gold as a point system that allows you character to acquire better powers. Because that is exactly what it is.
You get a certain amount of points each level to spend on extra abilities. However these abilities are all considered ITEMS!
At least that's how I View it. It helps me play the game better if I realize that there are no Economics, there is no Treasure, there truly are no magic items, there is only an add on point system that allows one to add different elements (aka Powers and abilities) to their character!
True, however, you cannot use 3.X OGL as the foundation if you really want to fix that. Foundations built on the antithesis of what changes you desire to enact and all that.
IMO, only the foundations of CR and spells are greatly affected by the magic items dependency. Spells don't even need to be re-written, but some shuffling within the spell-lists are necessary to adjust magic rarity IMO.
'findel
That's kind of my point. WHY does the system do this? At what point did magic items become so necessary they are expected parts of the mechanics; subsequently, is there/can there be a system that does not have this built in, and is still completely valid. I think not only can there be, but there should be. [aside]I've also heard from some of the DEVs that the more you ask for something the more they consider creating it/[/aside]
I can't answer the why beyond that fact that it was built into 3rd edition for some reason, perhaps as an unintended consequence, but definitely there. From what I've played of 2nd edition, it was much less of an issue, but combats were set up differently, and most monsters tended to rely on tactics and numbers rather than individual raw power. Once you throw things like DR in as a common thing after 5th level at the latest, as well as things like blindsense/blindsight, scent, and other powerful sensory, movement, and defensive abilities being normal, magic items and special materials become much more required just to break even. Another problem that has to be addressed is that by building it into the system, it is easier to manage; otherwise, it quickly becomes guesswork on the part of the DM, and educated guesses related to relative power levels can be difficult for all but the most experienced DMs. Even 4E, with all of it's focus on giving the DM the final word, built it into the system, probably for this reason.
I think the biggest problem is the paradigm that all magic must have the same level of mystigue simply doesn't work for 3rd edition or anything based on it. In that system, some magic simply becomes basic tools of the trade for commoner and adventurer alike, and I personally think this is a good thing, if contained within reasonable bounds. The challenge is figuring out where to draw the line of what is common and what isn't, as this will vary from individual to individual.
One of the things I find that Linking of Treasure to Character level affects it Rogues. What's the point of pick pocketing if you always going to be the same treasure level.
Rogues Can't steal more than the allotted amount of gold per level! That means the class is set to doing only Disable Device because you just can't get more than you level.
One of the things I find that Linking of Treasure to Character level affects it Rogues. What's the point of pick pocketing if you always going to be the same treasure level.
Rogues Can't steal more than the allotted amount of gold per level! That means the class is set to doing only Disable Device because you just can't get more than you level.
WBL is not a bad thing as long as it is taken to be understood that this is what an average party will have at any given level. It is not necessarily intended to be what every party will actually have at any given level, but a tool for the DM to use to know how to modify their encounters according to how their party stands relative to what is assumed when designing monsters and official adventures. At least that is how I see it.
It might be better to view Gold as a point system that allows you character to acquire better powers. Because that is exactly what it...The "gold as point-buy for items under the guise of economics" feels like a facade of verisimilitudized realism. It also feels like an expectation on the part of the creators/publishers that
Another problem that has to be addressed is that by building it into the system, it is easier to manage; otherwise, it quickly becomes guesswork on the part of the DM, and educated guesses related to relative power levels can be difficult for all but the most experienced DMs. Even 4E, with all of it's focus on giving the DM the final word, built it into the system, probably for this reason.
the average GM can't possibly be smart enough to adjust the NPCs/monsters to their group's ability level. That's akin to a smack in the face of anyone's GM chops. At some point the creators felt like only 11 year old boys were playing the game, and forgot that they still had a strong following of adults.
This of course leads one down the road where all RPGs become boardgames.
the average GM can't possibly be smart enough to adjust the NPCs/monsters to their group's ability level. That's akin to a smack in the face of anyone's GM chops. At some point the creators felt like only 11 year old boys were playing the game, and forgot that they still had a strong following of adults.
This of course leads one down the road where all RPGs become boardgames.
It's not necessarily about having the smarts, but often more about having the time. The more of the basic aspects of the game that a system can provide help with, the more likely that someone will pick it up and play it on a regular basis throughout all phases of their life, including ones that have little to no free time.
It's not necessarily about having the smarts, but often more about having the time. The more of the basic aspects of the game that a system can provide help with, the more likely that someone will pick it up and play it on a regular basis throughout all phases of their life, including ones that have little to no free time.the average GM can't possibly be smart enough to adjust the NPCs/monsters to their group's ability level. That's akin to a smack in the face of anyone's GM chops. At some point the creators felt like only 11 year old boys were playing the game, and forgot that they still had a strong following of adults.
This of course leads one down the road where all RPGs become boardgames.
Aren't 11 year olds more likely to have the time though?
How so?Nothing is so ingrained in the system that it cannot be changed.
We are internet friends but I disagree. A rifle butt can be used as a hammer or even a battering ram but its not the ideal item to use. Game systems are the same way.
Aren't 11 year olds more likely to have the time though?It's not necessarily about having the smarts, but often more about having the time. The more of the basic aspects of the game that a system can provide help with, the more likely that someone will pick it up and play it on a regular basis throughout all phases of their life, including ones that have little to no free time.the average GM can't possibly be smart enough to adjust the NPCs/monsters to their group's ability level. That's akin to a smack in the face of anyone's GM chops. At some point the creators felt like only 11 year old boys were playing the game, and forgot that they still had a strong following of adults.
This of course leads one down the road where all RPGs become boardgames.
All the 11 year olds that I know would. Also, I hate to play devil's advocate here, but IMO RPGs aren't the kind of games you pick up to play when leisure presents itself.
Example the first: Look at the size of any core rule book.
Example the second: Entire websites devoted to finding players and games. RPGs, historically, are hobbies much more than games. That is kind of why I made the snide boardgames reference at the end of my last post. If making the mechanics easier to use for everybody is the design, boardgames will be the ultimate outcome. If making a fantasy world worth telling stories in, is the design, then you should be able to have either a complete system or an addendum to a system that adequately addresses magic items as rare (or at least not available at Wal-Mart TM). Perhaps, if you are really good at your job, you can even make a world where items are rare, even when casters are not. It just requires the right attitude and mechanics.
So this is the new edition war thread, eh?
Nice.
|
We are internet friends but I disagree. A rifle butt can be used as a hammer or even a battering ram but its not the ideal item to use. Game systems are the same way.
You changed your tune. Before you were saying it was impossible to use a rifle butt as a hammer. Now you say it's not ideal. Which we agree with.
You changed your tune. Before you were saying it was impossible to use a rifle butt as a hammer. Now you say it's not ideal. Which we agree with.We are internet friends but I disagree. A rifle butt can be used as a hammer or even a battering ram but its not the ideal item to use. Game systems are the same way.
Not really I think that in order to change the system enough to really do what we are talking about means a new system. I mean it may involve rolling a d20+ some stuff but RIFT'S also does that I would not call it 3.5, I guess what we disagree on is how much can you strip away and still have "the thing and the whole of the thing." You can hack 3.X a good bit and sort of make do with it but it wont work as well as one built to do the job. Which is what I tried to convey I suppose poorly in the second paragraph of my post way earlier
Also I tend to play for the quest of getting the item not if the item feels magical or not. Also I tend to adventure to stop the evil or track down the missing child not just purely for loot.
I also have thought this character background of a fighter that wanted to be a city guard in a lawful city got cited for littering and got kicked out of the city guard so now he adventures.
Let's avoid any edition war mongering in here, please-and-thank-you.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I understand the 'christmas tree' argument. How do you downscale the 'plusses' now? I mean if you have something like superior (+1) masterwork (+2) and Artisan (+3) and put magic on top of that, one could argue weapons are set. So (pulling numbers out of a hat) if you're expecting +3 weapons at 9th level, you're unlikely to see a true 'magic' weapon until 10+ level.
I could see two concerns of a game w/o the plusses.
1) The melee types fall behind in damage even faster. If you upscale the feats (say Weapon focus gives +2 and Weapon Specialization gives +4) then you're back to the same old except it's no longer the bright shiny object giving you the bonuses. (This might be acceptable for some).
2) Saves also suffer. Unless you change the saves (what's the term in 4e?) you're going to have a lot more frustrated players. "Ok, yeah, he made his save again because of his high bonuses, and half your party was roasted by dragon breath. Yes, you needed 19 or higher to survive."
(Whether this is a limitation of the d20 becoming less relevant with bonuses or not is a seperate discussion.)
As to the Christmas tree effect, I think 3.x's "stacking" (elaborated on in PF) helps. A cloak of the Manta Ray is a luxury item, "Hmm, I can give up my bonus for swimming?" but if you can merge them, then (say) a +1 cloak that protects its wearer as Resist Elements isn't completely unattractive to a +2 cloak.
Just random thoughts. How do you make a system that characters w/o the christmas tree survive, but characters with their trees don't laugh off. Sure experienced GMs can adjust on the fly...
Aren't 11 year olds more likely to have the time though?It's not necessarily about having the smarts, but often more about having the time. The more of the basic aspects of the game that a system can provide help with, the more likely that someone will pick it up and play it on a regular basis throughout all phases of their life, including ones that have little to no free time.the average GM can't possibly be smart enough to adjust the NPCs/monsters to their group's ability level. That's akin to a smack in the face of anyone's GM chops. At some point the creators felt like only 11 year old boys were playing the game, and forgot that they still had a strong following of adults.
This of course leads one down the road where all RPGs become boardgames.
All the 11 year olds that I know would. Also, I hate to play devil's advocate here, but IMO RPGs aren't the kind of games you pick up to play when leisure presents itself.
Example the first: Look at the size of any core rule book.
Example the second: Entire websites devoted to finding players and games. RPGs, historically, are hobbies much more than games. That is kind of why I made the snide boardgames reference at the end of my last post. If making the mechanics easier to use for everybody is the design, boardgames will be the ultimate outcome. If making a fantasy world worth telling stories in, is the design, then you should be able to have either a complete system or an addendum to a system that adequately addresses magic items as rare (or at least not available at Wal-Mart TM). Perhaps, if you are really good at your job, you can even make a world where items are rare, even when casters are not. It just requires the right attitude and mechanics.
You may not see it as something to pick up in your leisure, but many players do and, of course, the gaming companies would tend to disagree with you. As for the magic items being a separate system, that is basically what 4E did, and, in my opinion, that is the biggest change they made, and it changed the entire feel of the game. 3.x and 2nd edition had it very much ingrained in the system through and through. 4E tried to get away from that, at least partially, and ended up with what felt like a completely different game. I'm not saying that is bad, but to me at least, it was definitely different, and part of what made it feel like a system that I would not be playing regularly. To me, magic is not something you can just slap on as an addendum and still do it well. 4E tried, and ended up with a system where certain items were needed more than ever, and the rest where completely ignored instead of merely largely ignored.
If the core system doesn't at least establish a base line, than you're not adjusting, you're making it up wholesale, and most DMs either can't or don't want to do that much work just to get the system playable. Even an addendum type thing still requires significant alteration of the baseline that goes beyond simply adjusting/tweaking. Setting the baseline in the middle close to what PF did is best overall. It's about the same to adjust it up or down, and those who choose to use the baseline get a perfectly playable game that may not be perfect, but it's close enough that the majority of players and DMs aren't going to complain.
You may not see it as something to pick up in your leisure, but many players do and, of course, the gaming companies would tend to disagree with you.
I feel like you entirely missed the point of what I was saying. OF COURSE you play RPGs in your leisure time. What you don't do is just pick them up and play on a whim, like you might a board game.
"Hey, I've got an idea, let's play some Pathfinder today."
"Sounds good, let me just peruse this instruction manual quickly..."
If you're playing just about any RPG you've put some front time into understanding the game long before you ever actually play. Heck, even if you're playing with pregenerated characters, you still put in some time to understand the basic combat mechanics. I'll go on record saying, nobody just up and decides to play an RPG for something to kill leisure time. They either have a background of RPG experience, or have at least examined some sort of ruleset prior to sitting down to play.
As for the magic items being a separate system, that is basically what 4E did, and, in my opinion, that is the biggest change they made, and it changed the entire feel of the game. 3.x and 2nd edition had it very much ingrained in the system through and through.
I thought we established that 3.0 was where the magic items as part of the system entered in. 2nd edition still had a pretty fair amount of rarity and mystery attached to magic items did it not?
4E tried to get away from that, at least partially, and ended up with what felt like a completely different game. I'm not saying that is bad, but to me at least, it was definitely different, and part of what made it feel like a system that I would not be playing regularly. To me, magic is not something you can just slap on as an addendum and still do it well. 4E tried, and ended up with a system where certain items were needed more than ever, and the rest where completely ignored instead of merely largely ignored.
I really don't want to edition war here, so I'm only going to say this. I'm not asking for a new magic items only system as an addendum. What I'm asking for is a system where magic (perhaps that includes spells and casting classes, perhaps not, depends on the creativity of the developers) items retain their mystery, and rarity. Where a magic amulet that increases the warrior's strength causes celebration and wonder, not an "it's about time I got that cause I'm X level" response.
If the core system doesn't at least establish a base line, than you're not adjusting, you're making it up wholesale, and most DMs either can't or don't want to do that much work just to get the system playable.
I'm not making anything up wholesale if I'm buying a book that Paizo published called "The Magic Adjustment Bureau." Then I'm taking a published product and running with it, so I don't have to put in any more extra time than I would with any supplemental book or new rule system.
Even an addendum type thing still requires significant alteration of the baseline that goes beyond simply adjusting/tweaking. Setting the baseline in the middle close to what PF did is best overall. It's about the same to adjust it up or down, and those who choose to use the baseline get a perfectly playable game that may not be perfect, but it's close enough that the majority of players and DMs aren't going to complain.
If an addendum is created by the original developers that readjusts the baseline, then the tweaking is taken care of. Meaning, if Paizo publishes a book and says "This can be used to replace the magic rules system in the Core Rulebook," then I get to decide if I want to use the Core Rulebook or the new system. If you like the Christmas Tree of magic items, you keep it, but I get to read the new rules system for magic items and run with it if I want to. It's a new baseline. That's what I'm advocating.
As a DM I'm mixed about magic items being more ambiguous and them having a n actual set of rules and guidelines about how they should stack up to character level. In second edition I found that it was frustrating trying to figure out how much to reward a player and how much to give a player starting at a higher level. When 3rd edition came out and began to provide rules for making magic items (something that had been longed for in our 2nd edition games) but rules for how much they might cost and what a character might be expected to have at level 5 vs. level 10 I was ecstatic.
Then came the Christmas tree effect, something present in 2nd edition but which blew up in 3rd.
Then came the impression that 'market value' meant a PC could just find and buy these magic items willy nilly.
Then came the complaints when I run published modules about "Oh yay, yet *another* cloak of resistance +1, guess we're turning that tent into a pavilion now". Magic became so necessary to the game that a clan of hillbilly ogres apparently had enough skill and resources to all have Ogre Hooks +1 (large size so, naturally, all had to be sold, and the PC's expected there to be a ready market for such things... only reason I permitted it was they were so pissed at the magic item selection from Rise of the Runelords that they likely would have rioted if I denied them their chance at getting stuff they could use).
My brief experience with 4th edition showed me similar things save that magic items (and magic in general) had been dulled considerably as far as potency went. Gone were the days of the wizard taunting the PC's only to teleport away or the PC's having boots of flying that could last forever. At least with the first three core rule books (not sure if any of the subsequent supplements did anything to address the dulling of magic items or if it was ever viewed as anything that needed to be addressed.
On top of that, items were now ho-hum. Sure a +1 sword was never truly all that special in 2nd edition (at least not in my eyes) but my gods did players eyes widen in awe at the sight of a sunblade or holy avenger. Now PC's see "Holy flaming longsword +1" and yawn. I try to spice it up some, but it only goes so far. I still like avoiding the Christmas Tree effect by providing more Wondrous items than weapons and stat boosters, using flavor text and the like, but that only goes so far.
I would like some sort of happy medium, maybe a ranking system for an items potency not limited by gp. Provide a 'rough gp equivalent' for each tier that is subject to the DM's arbitration, and instead of a 'starting wealth' table maybe something like "In a moderate magic world A PC of 7th level might be expected to have 3 low magic items and 1 medium magic item + XXXgp worth of mundane gear. This way players might avoid feeling 'entitled' to buying items in the marketplace or to selling them for a specific amount of gold and it might bring more luster back to that dragons hold beyond all the shiny gold pieces. I think gold in general is kind of pushed too far with so many entrances of '1000gp worth of material' kind of making a pc think all they need to do is cross off 1000gp from their list.
I'm torn, but I can definitely see where people who prefer the old ways are coming from.
Honestly that's probably what I'd do. I kind of like the tier system 4e put together, so perhaps something that matches with magic items.
Minor: your disposables, low level/charges wands, and particularly weak magic items that provide neat things like boots that give you +5ft to movement or a pack that reduces its encumbrance level by 1.
Low: Your +1, +2 magic weapons, cloaks of resistance +1 etc.
Moderate: A higher bonus on the above, some figurines of wondrous power...
Etc, etc, etc.
Of course the magic items would need an overhaul, Cloak +1 seems so factory, expecting there to be a Cloak +2, +3, +4, +5 etc. Which only makes them seem more off the assembly line. So a little more mysticism might help. A cloak of shadows that renders the wearer nigh invisible in the murky darkness, perhaps providing a +10 bonus to stealth but only in shadowy illumination or only in the evening is, in my opinion, more interesting then Cloak of Stealth +5.
Making comparisons between editions is not automatically an edition war. 3rd edition may be where the problem is most evident, but looking at WotC's reaction to that particular aspect of 3rd edition is useful to show how hard it is to go backwards and try to pretend the intervening edition doesn't exist. The reality is that even if you don't like how 3rd edition does it, it has colored that current market with such strength that most people view it, and not some earlier edition as the baseline now, at least as far as the DnD brand is concerned.
Making comparisons between editions is not automatically an edition war. 3rd edition may be where the problem is most evident, but looking at WotC's reaction to that particular aspect of 3rd edition is useful to show how hard it is to go backwards and try to pretend the intervening edition doesn't exist. The reality is that even if you don't like how 3rd edition does it, it has colored that current market with such strength that most people view it, and not some earlier edition as the baseline now, at least as far as the DnD brand is concerned.
Very true.
I'm still of the mind, though, that the entire system does not have to be scrapped and replaced in order to remove the Christmas Tree effect, or to create a system where the mystery and wonder are returned to magic items. Again this kind of leans toward a sort of modular rules system. Take the Core magic rules, or use the "Ultimate Magic Tracts" magic system, and plug it into your game. The rest of the mechanics stay as is; feats stay the same, skills stay the same, maybe even the cost of magic items stays the same, but magic item rarity returns, and PCs, NPCs, and monsters alike are still playing a balanced game across the levels.
Maybe I'm deluded to think that, but I've seen some of the creativity that Paizo has at their disposal. I'd link to think they could get it done, and done well.
As my own addendum, I wanted to thank Laurefindel for the link to the Alexandrian's discussion of magic items. I found it both enlightening, and entertaining.
Honestly that's probably what I'd do. I kind of like the tier system 4e put together, so perhaps something that matches with magic items.
Minor: your disposables, low level/charges wands, and particularly weak magic items that provide neat things like boots that give you +5ft to movement or a pack that reduces its encumbrance level by 1.
Low: Your +1, +2 magic weapons, cloaks of resistance +1 etc.
Moderate: A higher bonus on the above, some figurines of wondrous power...
Etc, etc, etc.Of course the magic items would need an overhaul, Cloak +1 seems so factory, expecting there to be a Cloak +2, +3, +4, +5 etc. Which only makes them seem more off the assembly line. So a little more mysticism might help. A cloak of shadows that renders the wearer nigh invisible in the murky darkness, perhaps providing a +10 bonus to stealth but only in shadowy illumination or only in the evening is, in my opinion, more interesting then Cloak of Stealth +5.
That's really how I've come to approach it. I take the values from the wondrous items charts and assign rarity based on that. Anything that would fall under the minor wondrous item chart is common, perhaps as common as dirt; buying it is fairly simple in the appropriate sized community. This gives access to the basic +1 and a lot of +2 items, keeping the players happy, and maintaining the basic assumptions of the game. Anything that would fall under the medium wondrous item chart is known about and can be acquired reasonably easily in most cases if it is truly desired, but it isn't just available for immediate purchase except in the largest of market metropolises. This allows for reasonable advancement of the basic stuff, while encouraging people to upgrade rather than plan on getting new stuff every time they want to up their +'s. Anything beyond that is purely in the DM's realm, and is the stuff of either true one of a kind masterpieces that a craftsman makes once his entire career or the stuff of legend, although if people want to research something and roleplay it out, I am certainly open to that. This way, people who are really interested in pushing their +'s to the extreme limit can, but it takes more than coin and "god" wizards popping instant spells to achieve it; it actually requires significant effort.
Same kind of tiering goes for spells. 1-3 are common, 4-6 can be found, but may require making some friends first, and 7-9 are truly the stuff of legends, high priests, and archmages who aren't going to share their secrets on a whim.
To me this solves the problem the best. It allows players to have access to a certain range of shiny things without having to beg for them, making them happy(which is not a bad thing), but still allows me, as the DM, a level of control and power in setting the overall tone for the campaign world. It does mean that high end monsters are a bit more of a challenge, but I tend to prefer lots of comparatively equal or even individually weaker foes over a single massively powerful solo bad guy anyway for a number of other reasons, so I haven't really run into a problem on that score yet. I also tend to try to deemphasize the role of chasing the +'s to the extreme by setting up encounters so that raw numbers or single spells aren't always going to be auto wins. Specific goals beyond merely winning, tactics, allies, and mundane preparation are often just as important.
I'm still of the mind, though, that the entire system does not have to be scrapped and replaced in order to remove the Christmas Tree effect, or to create a system where the mystery and wonder are returned to magic items. Again this kind of leans toward a sort of modular rules system. Take the Core magic rules, or use the "Ultimate Magic Tracts" magic system, and plug it into your game. The rest of the mechanics stay as is; feats stay the same, skills stay the same, maybe even the cost of magic items stays the same, but magic item rarity returns, and PCs, NPCs, and monsters alike are still playing a balanced game across the levels.
Maybe I'm deluded to think that, but I've seen some of the creativity that Paizo has at their disposal. I'd link to think they could get it done, and done well.
The system doesn't have to be scrapped, but it's important to note that this actually involves multiple systems that would have to be changed. You reduce access to magic items, you have to figure out how to deal with DR and the other common powerful monster abilities, as well as the relative power of the full caster classes. It also ultimately effects the whole CR system, which can be a challenge newer DMs still getting a feel for the different monsters and powers.
Ultimately magic is tied into DnD. You can change where you set the baseline, but (and note this is not be inflammatory, just stating a fact) for every person who liked that 4E removed a lot of the truly powerful spell effects and magic items, someone else was disappointed because to them, DnD is truly powerful spell effects and magic items. Most of the latter people chose to play PF, and the presence and eventual access to at least some of that kind of magic is kind of expected.
You can slow the access down, but if you truly want low magic, 4E is in many ways a better model to start from. You can do it in PF, but no matter how you do it, it's going to take a lot of effort and tinkering with a lot of different parts of the game, and you have to be careful that the actual players being affected by this are onboard with the idea, and aware of it from the start. It boils down to the fact that Paizo could probably do what you suggest, but just like with epic content and psionics, there may not be enough genuine interest among the players to justify putting that level of effort into it unless they simply start planning PF 2.0.
@sunshadow21 in relation to your last two posts.
#1: I want to play in that game. :D
#2: Thanks for bursting my dream bubble. :(
I guess I'll just play this system and complain about it until PF 2.0 comes out then. :P
Edit: I really will be an old man by the time that happens.
#2: Thanks for bursting my dream bubble. :(
Just because Paizo is unlikely to do it, doesn't mean that the fans can't. Indeed, if he hasn't been mentioned yet, Kirth, along with several others, has done something along those general lines. Other projects are floating around the boards as well. The key is not expect an official project like that for a while; it's not a high priority to them, and several fan based projects exist to fill that gap, and do a pretty good job from what I've seen and read about them.
I think magic items are one of those areas where storytelling and gameplay get into a bit of a conflict. From a storytelling aspect, yes I prefer magic items being rare. From a gameplay standpoint, my players like getting magic items almost as much as they like XP, and I tend to give out items as a reward (although something like a robe of useful items is preferable to an amulet of natural armor in most cases).
I also don't think that magic should necessarily be rare by default. Yeah, I like games where high-level mages are rare and magic items aren't commonly sold in stores. At the same time, I like the ability for a local mason to hire a mid-level wizard to help him build a structure or for a farmer to have a magic plow that has been passed down for generations. I like reminders that the setting is magic and that people know magic exists, even if it's not commonplace.
All that said, I will agree that the rules should not automatically figure magic items into the equation in order to grant some flexibility for those who have different preferences. I think Pathfinder takes a step in the right direction by providing brief guidelines for low- and high-magic games and suggesting that challenges be adjusted appropriately, although more specific guidelines would always be welcome.