Magic Items Should Be More Common Than Spells

[Arturick]

What requires more extraordinary talent: building a house with no deadline, or building a chair in the middle of a barroom brawl (in six seconds to a minute depending on edition)?

In Tolkien's works, magic items were all over the damn place. The elves didn't make anything that wasn't magic. "Hrm, you're going outside? Better take a magic cloak, magic boots, magic food, magic rope, and a magic weapon." Arwen's intimate apparel probably had weather adaptation and anti-bacterial properties.

It is implied that humans and dwarves were equally prolific crafters of magic items, but their kingdoms had been wrecked over three ages of war against a dark god and his endless hordes.

And most of these items were exactly the sort of thing that grognards go into raging fits about: +X weapons and armor, and unremarkable "utility" magic.

The ability to cast a spell, however, was kind of a big deal. "He cured a hedgehog! Our venomous bites and webs will not avail us here! Run!" Spells were largely the domain of archangel/demigod types, and they seemed loathe to use them unless they were fighting their own kind.

This is roughly how it ought to be. It is completely illogical to think that it would be harder to sit down in a workshop and magically make a sword better than it is to spit fire out of your fingertips at oncoming enemy goblins.

In most myths, magic items aren't even made by spellcasters. They're made by noteworthy craftsmen, or comprised of special materials, or they've been quenched in the sweat of a virgin who went jogging on a Thursday.

Now, game designers were reluctant to make rules for actually crafting magic items, because the guy who shoots fire out of his hands every day is supposed to live in a world where magic is "rare and special." But they eventually included rules where making any sort of magic item required the expenditure of Constitution or experience.

This reflected the attitude towards magic items that would constitute "artifacts" or "major macguffins" in D&D. Sure, Sauron poured the majority of his power into the One Ring, but elves were sure as hell not dropping dead from CON loss after making twelve Lembas biscuits. They also didn't get progressively worse at baking Lembas with every completed loaf.

"I can't remember how to make the magic bread!"

"Calm down, Fingolfin! It happens. You just need to go kill orcs for a few days and you'll remember how to make Lembas."

"That... doesn't make any sense!"

[littlehewy]

Well then, make your homebrew world like that. It's pretty easy to do.

Or, are you suggesting that Paizo should redesign the game so that everyone can play PF the way you think it should be?

What's your point here? I don't get what you're crusading for, or why.

[The equalizer]

What you said does make sense if you or whoever running the game chooses to run it that way. You can make magic items alot more common than spells. I've known players who prefer that sort of campaign and there is nothing wrong with it. The reason why spells are alot more common than magic items is because spells require activation and there are only so many. WIth magic items, the static bonus is always there as long as you have it in the right body slot. This is also why in 3.5, there was the experience penalty. This was to offset the permanent floating bonuses of equipped magic items vs having to win initiative and throwing up the right spells during an encounter. I've never viewed the xp penalty as making the character worse at crafting. If it really did make you worse at crafting, there would be some sort of energy drain or penalty to the appropriate crafting skill. Most spells aren't permanent in terms of duration so to make them permanent, casting the spell on its own is insufficient. I more view it as the spellcaster having to pour a certain amount of mystical energies into an item to make it permanently magical during the crafting process. I personally like games where magic items are not commonplace in terms of availability. But many other factors can also influence players into feeling they are not well enough kitted out or they feel they are too well kitted out. This could indirectly lead to your mentioned topic on availability of magic items. The most common factors are normally player gaming preferences vs dm's GMing preferences. In the current game I''m in, the dm has somewhat thrown in some house rules for his game and homebrew world. There are times where my character has trouble shining at what he does best, mainly hitting hard. The balancing mechanism is the extra feats each character gets. Some days, I look at the character and sigh, other times I'm glad to run the character. I was getting too close to the numbers game obsession and that was ruining the gaming experience. However, if you do away with the numbers completely, then you create a useless character. Its challenging sometimes, trying to find a balance.

[Jinx Wigglesnort]

Arturick wrote:

It is completely illogical to think that it would be harder to sit down in a workshop and magically make a sword better than it is to spit fire out of your fingertips at oncoming enemy goblins.

I am a big fan of any sentence that uses magic and logic in the same argument : )

If you want items to be more common, then make them more common.

[LazarX]

Arturick you read a very different version of Middle Earth than many of us had. While magic was present in places such as the Elven refuges, it was pretty much rare or practically unknown anywhere else save in the strongholds of the Enemy who used it exclusively for war. And a lot of what you'd take for granted, such as teleportation and fly magic, simply did not exist. The closest you'd come would be magic granting someone a shape to enhance their travel options. And even that only comes in the context of the great stories.

Much of the magic of the Elven refuges was pretty much an overflow of the nature of the refuges themselves, not bold blatant magic items as seen in the D+D wargame. Much of also what you would attribute to magic was also the result of racial crafting techniques such as elven cloaks, mithril armor, the Silmarils etc.. The truly powerful items were unique creations, frequently unrepeatable even by the creators themselves.

Magic does suffuse Middle Earth, but in a far more subtler way, and in a decreasing way as one progresses from the First Age to the Fourth.

[Arturick]

LazarX wrote:

Arturick you read a very different version of Middle Earth than many of us had. While magic was present in places such as the Elven refuges, it was pretty much rare or practically unknown anywhere else save in the strongholds of the Enemy who used it exclusively for war. And a lot of what you'd take for granted, such as teleportation and fly magic, simply did not exist. The closest you'd come would be magic granting someone a shape to enhance their travel options. And even that only comes in the context of the great stories.

Much of the magic of the Elven refuges was pretty much an overflow of the nature of the refuges themselves, not bold blatant magic items as seen in the D+D wargame. Much of also what you would attribute to magic was also the result of racial crafting techniques such as elven cloaks, mithril armor, the Silmarils etc.. The truly powerful items were unique creations, frequently unrepeatable even by the creators themselves.

Magic does suffuse Middle Earth, but in a far more subtler way, and in a decreasing way as one progresses from the First Age to the Fourth.

You did not actually disagree with anything I wrote.

[Jeven]

How common you want magical items to be really depends on the feel you want for your campaign world. Magic is usually assumed to be easier to channel than to permanently bind to an object.

But you could design a fantasy world based on our modern age with magical household appliances, magical vehicles and magical guns everywhere if you like. Anything is possible. It just depends on what sort of feel you want for your campaign world.

At the opposite end you would have a world like that of medieval European legends where it is mostly non-magical with just a few exceptional sorcerers, witches and enchantresses about the place like Merlin, Morgan Le Fey, etc. And what few magic items there are mostly religious relics or items made by the fey, such as Arthur's Sword gifted by the Lady of the Lake.

[LazarX]

Arturick wrote:

You did not actually disagree with anything I wrote.

Yes I did actually. Your imputation is that Middle Earth was full of the common items associated with D+D magic. And that's where I disagree. plus swords, attribute adders, the big Six, in other words were not abundant at all. Much of what did exist was passive adds to skills, such as the cloaks that added to Hide attempts, waybread that would preserve one for long periods on small amounts, or plants that would aid in healing when used by the knowlededgable. Actual things we'd take forgranted, such a spellcasting, weapons with special properties, rings of protection, etc.. etc... range from the pretty damm rare to completely nonexistent.

And most of the magic that I mention as suffusing the Elven Refuges does not last outside of those areas. they're mainly overflows from the Two Elven Rings of Power and when the One Ring is destroyed they are lost for good, which is why the Elves abandon those Refuges at the end of the story.

[Kimera757]

This is in General Discussion and not homebrew. If it were in homebrew, I'd say cool. (I'd also reference Eberron, where there's an NPC class, the magewright, that sits around making items.)

Arturick wrote:

What requires more extraordinary talent: building a house with no deadline, or building a chair in the middle of a barroom brawl (in six seconds to a minute depending on edition)?

If building a chair took XP, I'd think something different. A magic item takes more effort than a spell, which is why it takes longer and requires more effort. It's also way more persistent. You can dispel a magic item for a few rounds or minutes, but you can dispel a spell to simply end.

Quote:

In Tolkien's works, magic items were all over the damn place. The elves didn't make anything that wasn't magic. "Hrm, you're going outside? Better take a magic cloak, magic boots, magic food, magic rope, and a magic weapon." Arwen's intimate apparel probably had weather adaptation and anti-bacterial properties.

I disagree with this. Not that I have proof of disagreement, but I don't believe magic items were common among the elves. The Fellowship was on an important mission, and each member was given a few items. (I wouldn't count Lembas as a magic item, but feel free to disagree. Mithral is sometimes counted as magic, depending on which version of D&D you're talking about. No in 3.x, yes in 4e, so no in Pathfinder.)

I didn't think the elves gave out magic weapons. IIRC those weapons were found, but it's been some years. Certainly they gave out magic cloaks, boots, and a single rope. Also, potentially, light armor.

Quote:

It is implied that humans and dwarves were equally prolific crafters of magic items, but their kingdoms had been wrecked over three ages of war against a dark god and his endless hordes.

I don't believe so. And I say this after reading the Silmarillion. I don't think anyone but elves or Maia ever made any magic items.

Quote:

And most of these items were exactly the sort of thing that grognards go into raging fits about: +X weapons and armor, and unremarkable "utility" magic.

Since so few items were called out (the hobbits weren't sure about the rope, but I'd call that magic) I doubt there were any "boring" magic items like that. At the very least, those magic weapons (such as "Sting", which didn't have a name until they gave it one) glowed in the presence of orcs.

Quote:

The ability to cast a spell, however, was kind of a big deal. "He cured a hedgehog! Our venomous bites and webs will not avail us here! Run!" Spells were largely the domain of archangel/demigod types, and they seemed loathe to use them unless they were fighting their own kind.

This I'll definitely agree with. Apparently Gandalf didn't use much magic for fear of Sauron, leaving us with little clue as to how much magic he could leverage at any one time. (Saruman didn't use much, but then he never really had the chance, at least not in combat.)

Quote:

In most myths, magic items aren't even made by spellcasters. They're made by noteworthy craftsmen, or comprised of special materials, or they've been quenched in the sweat of a virgin who went jogging on a Thursday.

Ritual magic, yes. It's too bad Pathfinder doesn't have such a system. Of course, many of these characters were semi-divine.

Quote:

Now, game designers were reluctant to make rules for actually crafting magic items, because the guy who shoots fire out of his hands every day is supposed to live in a world where magic is "rare and special." But they eventually included rules where making any sort of magic item required the expenditure of Constitution or experience.

I think magic being "rare and special" fell out of the rules and fast. It does depend on the setting, of course, but Golarion and most other D&D settings are high magic. In fact, 3rd Edition doesn't really work unless you have lots of casters and items.

Quote:

This reflected the attitude towards magic items that would constitute "artifacts" or "major macguffins" in D&D Sure, Sauron poured the majority of his power into the One Ring, but elves were sure as hell not dropping dead from CON loss after making twelve Lembas biscuits. They also didn't get progressively worse at baking Lembas with every completed loaf.

That's because Lembas isn't a magic item. It's better bread. It's as magic as German chocolate cake. (Which is a McGuffin in a funny time travel card game I play sometimes.)

And if you insist it's magic, take a look at spells like Goodberry. That's practically creating a magic item that lasts a really long time for a spell, but it costs no XP or Con and didn't in 2e, 3.x or Pathfinder. (In such a case, only "adepts" can bake Lembas.)

Contrast with magic rope. Exactly how many pieces of magic rope do the elves have? We don't know. What about their stealth cloaks? Why didn't Legolas, a literal prince of the Teleri elves, have one before the Fellowship was formed? Probably because the Teleri (essentially wild elves) didn't have any. They went to a very powerful named Noldor elf, the princess of her own kingdom, and got nine of them.

[Morgen]

Magic items are kind of already all over the place in Pathfinder so your pretty much spot on to how things go.

Seems like you can't walk into a cave without having to fight some wraiths and then end up with an armful of magic swords. Pretty similar to how it worked in Tolkien's work. Named legendary swords just laying about in Troll warren.

I appreciate the idea of starting a counter thread to the dozens (hundreds?) of "low magic" threads but I don't know how constructive it is. The issue there is that a lot of those threads aren't even using a true low magic. Even the actual rules for magic item purchases in the main game are more low magic then some of them.

Not exactly sure why a bunch of people decided they should come in swinging on the OP for a topic like this either. Jeez people. :/

[Starbuck_II]

Lemnas bread was magical; it harmed evil creatrure what ate it.

This is why Gollum refused to eat any.

Also, Galadriel gave a large store of it to the Fellowship of the Ring upon its departure from Lothlórien. One of the elves commented "[...] we call it lembas or waybread, and it is more strengthening than any food by men, and it is more pleasant than cram, by all accounts.""

[Azaelas Fayth]

Lembas was Bread inlaid with Magic.

Actual casting was considered "Lost" during the Third Age as any caster was supposedly taken away by the "Forces Of Evil"

But Magic Items were still crafted. It was just they only crafted what they needed at that time. Which was Survival & Hunting Gear.

[thejeff]

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Lembas was Bread inlaid with Magic.

Actual casting was considered "Lost" during the Third Age as any caster was supposedly taken away by the "Forces Of Evil"

But Magic Items were still crafted. It was just they only crafted what they needed at that time. Which was Survival & Hunting Gear.

Magic in Middle Earth, other than that used by the Maiar and Valar, is generally subtler than we think of in RPGs.

Galadriel wrote:

For this is what you folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem to use the same word for the deceits of the Enemy. But this, if you will, is the magic of Galadriel. Did you not say that you wished to see Elf-magic?

or

Quote:

“Are these magic cloaks?” asked Pippin, looking at them with wonder.

“I do not know what you mean by that,” answered the leader of the Elves. “They are fair garments, and the web is good, for it was made in this land. They are elvish robes certainly, if that is what you mean. Leaf and branch, water and stone: they have the hue and beauty of all these things under the twilight of Lórien that we love; for we put the thought of all that we love into all that we make. Yet they are garments, not armour, and they will not turn shaft or blade. But they should serve you well: they are light to wear, and warm enough or cool enough at need. And you will find them a great aid in keeping out of the sight of unfriendly eyes, whether you walk among the stones or the trees. You are indeed high in the favour of the Lady! For she herself and her maidens wove this stuff; and never before have we clad strangers in the garb of our own people.”

So yeah, magic, from a human point of view. The way elves make things from an elvish point of view. Which makes sense, since elves are magic. The difference between elves and humans is the spirit, the fëa, not the body.

There are hints that the Dunedain could do something like this too. The barrow-blades were "work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for OTOH, the bane of Mordor".
Tolkein also says

Letter 155 wrote:

Anyway, a difference in the use of 'magic' in this story is that it is not to be come by by 'lore' or spells; but is in an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such. Aragorn's 'healing' might be regarded as 'magical', or at least a blend of magic with pharmacy and 'hypnotic' processes. But it is (in theory) reported by hobbits who have very little notions of philosophy and science; while A. is not a pure 'Man', but at long remove one of the 'children of Luthien'.

Tolkien himself was confused about much of this. Partly, I suspect, because his instincts for good story clashed with the philosophical and theological ideals he wanted his subcreation to hold to.

I'm not at all sure about your comments on casting being lost. I know of a few comments about necromancy, but nothing about "casting" being different in the 3rd age. The only things I can think of that seem like casting spells are done by Maia or by their descendents through Luthien. To a lesser extent, possibly, by elves, depending on where you draw the line.

[Adamantine Dragon]

LOL, in modern terms "Lembas" was a vitamin packed power bar wrapped in cellophane to stay fresh. Galadriel herself seemed confused by the hobbits description of "elvish magic". Most of what was viewed as "magic" in LotR was described more as just being really well made by superior craftsmen out of rare materials with unique properties.

If you want to run a Middle Earth style campaign, you probably should ban full casting classes from being PC classes.

Good luck finding players to play that game though.

[master_marshmallow]

i understand why this post exists, but really

this whole notion of "there should be this amount of magic in the game" is completely up to the player, it has nothing to do with the game as a whole

ALL iterations of the game have magic in them to some degree, what that degree is completely depends on who is playing and there shouldnt be this huge argument over how people want to play their games

simple fact is- the mechanics exist for both spells, magic items, and magic item creation

how and if you use them is up to you

the poster who instigated all of these "the ratio of magic:fun should be like this" threads is guilty of the same thing, and in that sense you are just as bad as he is for insinuating that the game should be played one way vs. the other

a simple declarative "i personally feel that magic items should be more prevalent than casters and this is why, so when i play this is how i do it" would be much better than the "everything you believe about this game is wrong" approach we've been getting from so many angles lately

i understand you're just taking a stab at that mind set, but if you're gonna do it, have some class

[Kthulhu]

True magic items were pretty g+*!%+n rare in Middle Earth, and there were pretty lame by D&D standards. Just because a sword has a name and a history, that doesn't automatically make it magical. Being really good bread doesn't mean that lembas was magical, it means that a really good baker made it. Most of Middle Earth's "magical" items are just masterwork examples of whatever it is that they are. Even obviously magical items like Sting don't actually seem to confer any type of combat advantage, it just glowed when orcs were near.

[master_marshmallow]

for what its worth, lembas bread kept you sustained for i think it was 1-2 days just by eating a corner of a piece, and it was intended to be magical

and anduril (aragorns sword) was actually meant to be perceived as magical, in the lore it glowed with a "white flame" which in DnD just meant that it was magical, they just didnt include the glowing of the sword in the movie because they wanted sting to stick out more

and cloaks that give you +whatever to hide/stealth/disguise checks arent really that useless either for our hobbits (and bilbo was even recruited by a party who was looking for a 'thief' c'mon man)

[Adamantine Dragon]

Sting, Glamdring and Orcrist clearly offered some mechanical advantage.

When Bilbo was offering Frodo Sting, he easily thrust it into a wooden bedpost (I always thought that scene was an example of a bad houseguest, and visualized Elrond finding the stabbed bedpost while setting the room up for a new guest, but I digress). Sting easily cut Shelob's webs apart when Sam's dagger (also supposedly 'magical' by some accounts on this thread) did not. If I recall, Glamdring also sundered the Balrog's blade.

So at least Sting, Glamdring and Orcrist had some mechanical advantage over other "masterwork" blades.

[Kthulhu]

+2 vs inanimate objects ain't that impressive. :P

[shallowsoul]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Sting, Glamdring and Orcrist clearly offered some mechanical advantage.

When Bilbo was offering Frodo Sting, he easily thrust it into a wooden bedpost (I always thought that scene was an example of a bad houseguest, and visualized Elrond finding the stabbed bedpost while setting the room up for a new guest, but I digress). Sting easily cut Shelob's webs apart when Sam's dagger (also supposedly 'magical' by some accounts on this thread) did not. If I recall, Glamdring also sundered the Balrog's blade.

So at least Sting, Glamdring and Orcrist had some mechanical advantage over other "masterwork" blades.

I may be mistaken but I think Sting was also known as "Spider's Bane".

[Adamantine Dragon]

shallowsoul wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Sting, Glamdring and Orcrist clearly offered some mechanical advantage.

When Bilbo was offering Frodo Sting, he easily thrust it into a wooden bedpost (I always thought that scene was an example of a bad houseguest, and visualized Elrond finding the stabbed bedpost while setting the room up for a new guest, but I digress). Sting easily cut Shelob's webs apart when Sam's dagger (also supposedly 'magical' by some accounts on this thread) did not. If I recall, Glamdring also sundered the Balrog's blade.

So at least Sting, Glamdring and Orcrist had some mechanical advantage over other "masterwork" blades.

I may be mistaken but I think Sting was also known as "Spider's Bane".

Sting was an unnamed elven dagger that Elrond or Gandalf speculated might have been made for an elven prince. Bilbo named it "Sting" after he killed a spider with it. If it became known as "Spider's Bane" at any point in its history, it was likely well after the end of LotR and was a reference to it's killing Mirkwood spiders and poking Shelob. There is no indication in the books that I can dig out of my memory of the sword having any special abilities vs spiders.

[Dragonchess Player]

IIRC, the 2nd Ed AD&D Birthright campaign setting had something similar: unless the character was descended from a "ruling" (i.e., magical) bloodline, the character was restricted from certain classes (depending on the bloodline). It's certainly possible to create a house-ruled setting that restricts spellcasting PC classes (alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, inquisitor, magus, oracle, sorcerer, summoner, witch, and wizard; possibly also paladin and ranger) to those from a "magical" heritage (possibly even specific heritages for certain classes).

One possibility is to require the Eldritch Heritage feat before the character can take a spellcasting PC class (which also means that spellcasters are required to be multiclassed). Combined with adepts or those with the Master Craftsman feat who create low-grade magical items, as well as using slow advancement and limiting the campaign to 10th level, you can simulate a "low-caster, high magic item" type of world similar to Tolkien's Middle Earth.

Middle Earth is somewhat misleading for many, in that it's pretty much what would be considered a low-level (1st-5th) level campaign during the Third Age (i.e., The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings), with a handful of medium-level characters (Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf, etc.) acting as rulers/patrons. Read Calibrating Your Expectations and The Many Games Inside the World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game for a more detailed discussion of this.

[thejeff]

Kthulhu wrote:

+2 vs inanimate objects ain't that impressive. :P

A better example:

Quote:

Boromir leaped forward and hewed at the arm with all his might; but his sword rang, glanced aside, and fell from his shaken hand. The blade was notched.

Suddenly, and to his own surprise, Frodo felt a hot wrath blaze up in his heart. `The Shire! ' he cried, and springing beside Boromir, he stooped, and stabbed with Sting at the hideous foot. There was a bellow, and the foot jerked back, nearly wrenching Sting from Frodo's arm. Black drops dripped from the blade and smoked on the floor.
Boromir hurled himself against the door and slammed it again.
`One for the Shire! ' cried Aragorn. `The hobbit's bite is deep! You have a good blade, Frodo son of Drogo! '

It's hard to tell, especially in literature, when a weapon is special if it doesn't actually do something, burst into flame, drain souls, freeze enemies, etc. Authors do tend to give clues though and it's silly to dismiss them because they're not statted out in D&D terms.

Whether or not they are "magical" in Tolkien's context is a slightly different question. One that would probably puzzle his characters as I suggested before.

[Arturick]

master_marshmallow wrote:

i understand why this post exists, but really

this whole notion of "there should be this amount of magic in the game" is completely up to the player, it has nothing to do with the game as a whole

I have not intended to level the accusation of badwrongfun. I have merely tried to illustrate that there is a logical disconnect between having a guy who shoots fire be considered "normal" while having a slightly better than average sword be considered "legendary."

I think this mindset also lends itself to the notion that casters get epic battles against Balrogs while falling thousands of feet while non-casters cry and run out of Khazad-Dum with arrows in their butts.

A lot of players would be happy playing the falling badass, but not the tear-stained hobbit.

That said...

If player Wizards and rare +1 swords exist in your game because it makes you and your group happy, then bless you. If you have driven people away from your table (or online discussions of gaming) because you think everyone should agree with, what you consider, your "perfectly reasonable understanding of how magic works," then I have offered an opposing viewpoint for your consideration.

Resume playing High Fantasy or Fallout: New Arnor at your leisure.

[thejeff]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

IIRC, the 2nd Ed AD&D Birthright campaign setting had something similar: unless the character was descended from a "ruling" (i.e., magical) bloodline, the character was restricted from certain classes (depending on the bloodline). It's certainly possible to create a house-ruled setting that restricts spellcasting PC classes (alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, magus, oracle, sorcerer, summoner, witch, and wizard; possibly also paladin and ranger) to those from a "magical" heritage (possibly even specific heritages for certain classes).

One possibility is to require the Eldritch Heritage feat before the character can take a spellcasting PC class (which also means that spellcasters are required to be multiclassed). Combined with adepts or those with the Master Craftsman feat who create low-grade magical items, as well as using slow advancement and limiting the campaign to 10th level, you can simulate a "low-caster, high magic item" type of world similar to Tolkien's Middle Earth.

Middle Earth is somewhat misleading for many, in that it's pretty much what would be considered a low-level (1st-5th) level campaign during the Third Age (i.e., The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings), with a handful of medium-level characters (Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf, etc.) acting as rulers/patrons. Read Calibrating Your Expectations and The Many Games Inside the World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game for a more detailed discussion of this.

Actually, I'd argue that you can't simulate MiddleEarth with D&D rules. The styles of magic are too different. In some ways Middle Earth is more magical. It's steeped in magic. But the magic is more a part of everything than it is specific spells or items. It's more subtle. Elves don't do magic. They are magic. The Wizards aren't learned spellcasters, they're emissary angels. The Three Rings can preserve entire regions. A broken Oath can bind a population beyond death for thousands of years.

None of them can do any of the flashy things a 5th level wizard can do. But neither can that 5th level wizard do the magic of Middle Earth.
It has it's own logic and it's own magic and it's not a kind that D&D replicates well.

[master_marshmallow]

Arturick wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

i understand why this post exists, but really

this whole notion of "there should be this amount of magic in the game" is completely up to the player, it has nothing to do with the game as a whole

I have not intended to level the accusation of badwrongfun. I have merely tried to illustrate that there is a logical disconnect between having a guy who shoots fire be considered "normal" while having a slightly better than average sword be considered "legendary."

I think this mindset also lends itself to the notion that casters get epic battles against Balrogs while falling thousands of feet while non-casters cry and run out of Khazad-Dum with arrows in their butts.

A lot of players would be happy playing the falling badass, but not the tear-stained hobbit.

That said...

If player Wizards and rare +1 swords exist in your game because it makes you and your group happy, then bless you. If you have driven people away from your table (or online discussions of gaming) because you think everyone should agree with, what you consider, your "perfectly reasonable understanding of how magic works," then I have offered an opposing viewpoint for your consideration.

Resume playing High Fantasy or Fallout: New Arnor at your leisure.

and class is achieved, well put sir

[Weirdo]

Arturick wrote:

If someone would like to make an argument that +1 swords being more rare than guys who cast Magic Missile does anything besides hose over non-casters, I'd like to hear it.

...because if wizards didn't have spells they'd be basically commoners and unplayable as PCs?

...because most players want to have the option of playing full casters, and limiting casting classes makes that difficult?

...because increasing the prevalence of all magic items and not just magic weapons will also benefit casters? And even if it's just magic weapons and armour that are common, clerics, druids, oracles, bards, magi, and inquisitors will get a similar benefit to the fighters?

...because giving everyone a magic weapon at level 2 would make DR/magic pointless?

[master_marshmallow]

WHO GETS MAGIC WEAPONS AT LEVEL 2!?!?!?!?!!?

WHAT GAMES DO YOU GUYS PLAY I WANT IN ON THIS S$@@

[Arturick]

Weirdo wrote:

Arturick wrote:

If someone would like to make an argument that +1 swords being more rare than guys who cast Magic Missile does anything besides hose over non-casters, I'd like to hear it.

...because if wizards didn't have spells they'd be basically commoners and unplayable as PCs?

...because most players want to have the option of playing full casters, and limiting casting classes makes that difficult?

These are arguments for keeping casters, but have nothing to do with the prevalence of magic items.

Quote:

...because increasing the prevalence of all magic items and not just magic weapons will also benefit casters? And even if it's just magic weapons and armour that are common, clerics, druids, oracles, bards, magi, and inquisitors will get a similar benefit to the fighters?

This is a glaring problem with the system in that casters and hybrid casters are X% of a Fighter with super powers added. Taking away magic equipment just makes the Fighter the guy with no super powers and crap equipment.

Quote:

...because giving everyone a magic weapon at level 2 would make DR/magic pointless?

I have not argued for a breaking of Wealth By Level guidelines, so magic weapons aren't really feasible until 3rd to 4th level.

And none of this addresses the core confusion of why some dude mastering the forces of the universe in the heat of battle in six seconds is more acceptable to your verisimilitude than a guy with 16 hours of work making a better than average sword.

[thejeff]

Arturick wrote:

And none of this addresses the core confusion of why some dude mastering the forces of the universe in the heat of battle in six seconds is more acceptable to your verisimilitude than a guy with 16 hours of work making a better than average sword.

Perhaps temporary changes to the forces of the universe are easier than permanent ones?

[Azaelas Fayth]

Remember that WBL is recommended to be Double in a High Fantasy Game. Though even then it won't be relevant til Level 3.

For Middle Earth just use Words of Power.

[kmal2t]

I just read the thread title and lol'd

[thejeff]

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Remember that WBL is recommended to be Double in a High Fantasy Game. Though even then it won't be relevant til Level 3.

For Middle Earth just use Words of Power.

If I was going to run a Middle Earth game in PF, I'd just not allow casters.

Elves, Dwarves and maybe Dúnedain could take Master Craftsman if they wanted to make magic items. Probably slow XP progression. Possibly E6, possibly not, I'd have to think more about that.

Of course, if I was actually going to run a Middle Earth game, I wouldn't do it in PF.

[Vod Canockers]

thejeff wrote:

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Remember that WBL is recommended to be Double in a High Fantasy Game. Though even then it won't be relevant til Level 3.

For Middle Earth just use Words of Power.

If I was going to run a Middle Earth game in PF, I'd just not allow casters.

Elves, Dwarves and maybe Dúnedain could take Master Craftsman if they wanted to make magic items. Probably slow XP progression. Possibly E6, possibly not, I'd have to think more about that.

Of course, if I was actually going to run a Middle Earth game, I wouldn't do it in PF.

Neither would I. I would use Middle Earth Roleplaying or Rolemaster from Iron Crown, considering they had the license to make the game from the Tolkien Estate.

[thejeff]

Vod Canockers wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Remember that WBL is recommended to be Double in a High Fantasy Game. Though even then it won't be relevant til Level 3.

For Middle Earth just use Words of Power.

If I was going to run a Middle Earth game in PF, I'd just not allow casters.

Elves, Dwarves and maybe Dúnedain could take Master Craftsman if they wanted to make magic items. Probably slow XP progression. Possibly E6, possibly not, I'd have to think more about that.

Of course, if I was actually going to run a Middle Earth game, I wouldn't do it in PF.

Neither would I. I would use Middle Earth Roleplaying or Rolemaster from Iron Crown, considering they had the license to make the game from the Tolkien Estate.

MERP was a little brutal for my tastes. I'd be tempted to try the recent The One Ring, which I've read but not played.

[Weirdo]

master_marshmallow wrote:

WHO GETS MAGIC WEAPONS AT LEVEL 2!?!?!?!?!!?

WHAT GAMES DO YOU GUYS PLAY I WANT IN ON THIS S++$

It was a hypothetical - my point was that such a game would be very unusual.

Arturick wrote:

Weirdo wrote:

Arturick wrote:

If someone would like to make an argument that +1 swords being more rare than guys who cast Magic Missile does anything besides hose over non-casters, I'd like to hear it.

...because if wizards didn't have spells they'd be basically commoners and unplayable as PCs?

...because most players want to have the option of playing full casters, and limiting casting classes makes that difficult?

These are arguments for keeping casters, but have nothing to do with the prevalence of magic items.

If you're going to say that magic weapons should be more common than casters (or spells), either you need to reduce the prevalence of casters or you need to increase the prevalence of magic items, leading to the aforementioned magic weapon at level 2.

Arturick wrote:

Weirdo wrote:

...because increasing the prevalence of all magic items and not just magic weapons will also benefit casters? And even if it's just magic weapons and armour that are common, clerics, druids, oracles, bards, magi, and inquisitors will get a similar benefit to the fighters?

This is a glaring problem with the system in that casters and hybrid casters are X% of a Fighter with super powers added. Taking away magic equipment just makes the Fighter the guy with no super powers and crap equipment.

The solution to this is to balance out class abilities, not add in loot that boosts everyone's power, thus preserving imbalance.

Arturick wrote:

Weirdo wrote:

...because giving everyone a magic weapon at level 2 would make DR/magic pointless?

I have not argued for a breaking of Wealth By Level guidelines, so magic weapons aren't really feasible until 3rd to 4th level.

Help me to understand then how you propose reducing the prevalence or power of spells relative to magic items without actually reducing the prevalence of spells/casting classes or increasing the prevalence of magic items.

Arturick wrote:

And none of this addresses the core confusion of why some dude mastering the forces of the universe in the heat of battle in six seconds is more acceptable to your verisimilitude than a guy with 16 hours of work making a better than average sword.

Well, it's much easier to light a match than to build a campfire.

I agree that it's a bit odd. I think you have raised some interesting points and done so in a respectful manner. However, I'm not sure how you would accomplish the feel of game you're advocating using the PF system. Sometimes logic does have to take second place to game mechanics.

Arturick wrote:

I think this mindset also lends itself to the notion that casters get epic battles against Balrogs while falling thousands of feet while non-casters cry and run out of Khazad-Dum with arrows in their butts.

A lot of players would be happy playing the falling badass, but not the tear-stained hobbit.

See, my group had a fighter get an epic toe-to-toe fight with an ancient red dragon while the rest of the party mostly healed and buffed him. I've played two casters whose primary function was to buff the martials. Cooperation goes a long way towards making sure everyone gets to be awesome.

Not to mention that making spellcasters themselves more rare but allowing wizard PCs as normal actually elevates the casters due to their rarity - Gandalf was special in LotR not so much because he was powerful (I'd put him only a level or two above Aragorn), but because he was one of the only 5 wizards around.

[Arturick]

Weirdo wrote:

If you're going to say that magic weapons should be more common than casters (or spells), either you need to reduce the prevalence of casters or you need to increase the prevalence of magic items, leading to the aforementioned magic weapon at level 2.

I'm not really demanding that the world submit to a headcount and +1 swords be tallied against arcanists. I'm just saying that I would find it less weird to see 10 +1 Swords in a room than 10 guys who can all cast Fireball, assuming said room is in a world where magic is supposed to be vaguely "hard" or "unusual."

Weirdo wrote:

I've played two casters whose primary function was to buff the martials. Cooperation goes a long way towards making sure everyone gets to be awesome.

My favorite strategies with Wizards are battlefield control to line up kills for the martials and buff-meister for the martials. Polymorphing the party Barbarian into an Annis Hag is some fun stuff.

[master_marshmallow]

I shall reiterate, there is NO proper way to set up the world with regard to the ratio of magic items
All this notion of "ought" and people arguing about it is all nonsense because the state of the world is all subjective
YOU (impersonal, objective you) should be willing to try ALL of them, then if you have a preference, pick one if you must, but don't insist that someones choice is inferior to yours

[Weirdo]

master_marshmallow wrote:

YOU (impersonal, objective you) should be willing to try ALL of them, then if you have a preference, pick one if you must, but don't insist that someones choice is inferior to yours

I don't see that being said in this thread.

Arturick wrote:

Weirdo wrote:

If you're going to say that magic weapons should be more common than casters (or spells), either you need to reduce the prevalence of casters or you need to increase the prevalence of magic items, leading to the aforementioned magic weapon at level 2.

I'm not really demanding that the world submit to a headcount and +1 swords be tallied against arcanists. I'm just saying that I would find it less weird to see 10 +1 Swords in a room than 10 guys who can all cast Fireball, assuming said room is in a world where magic is supposed to be vaguely "hard" or "unusual."

Really depends on the room. The war room of a moderately powerful noble? I would absolutely expect to see more magic swords. A university? More 5th level wizards (though not necessarily wizards with fireball, that's like asking about flaming swords rather than just magic ones).

Actually, if we're talking about weighing number of arcanists of level 3+ against magic items the magic items are guaranteed to come out on top, since almost all characters of level 3+ have at least one magic item, but not all characters of level 3+ are arcanists. PF is already a pretty item-rich system.

[littlehewy]

Arturick wrote:

littlehewy wrote:

Well then, make your homebrew world like that. It's pretty easy to do.

Or, are you suggesting that Paizo should redesign the game so that everyone can play PF the way you think it should be?

What's your point here? I don't get what you're crusading for, or why.

Down, fanboy! Down!

For the record, I like Paizo and their products. I think they pretty much do it the "right" way for my tastes.

My post was intended to address the fundamentally bizarre concept that "I make swords marginally better" is somehow radically different from "I blow fire out of my rear end."

As I stated, blowing fire out the rear end is actually way less common than making cool swords in most myth and fiction. It was made harder in many role-playing games for purely meta-gamey reasons (making your character better should be a controlled progression) and enshrined into geek lore through some slavish obsession to "magic items are special."

Sure, magic items are more "stable" than the effects of most magic spells (that don't kill you, that tends to stick), but we're talking about "what can my magic item crafter do in 16 hours of work" vs. "what can my spellcaster do in six seconds."

Also, where the hell did the magic items in the dungeon come from? If magic items are in ruins, but nobody knows how to make them, then it turns every campaign setting into "Yor: Hunter From The Future."

Magic was uncommon in the Shire because the Shire was part of Post-Apocalyptic Arnor after the war against the Witch King of Angmar.

If someone would like to make an argument that +1 swords being more rare than guys who cast Magic Missile does anything besides hose over non-casters, I'd like to hear it.

Um ok, I wasn't sure what he point of your post was, and you insult me by calling me fanboy. Let me try again. Please don't call names anymore.

I don't understand what your point is, and I'd like you to explain it more clearly.

Are you suggesting the system should be redesigned?

If so, I disagree.

Are you saying that PF/Golarion should be more like Middle Earth?

If so, I disagree. That setting was created for a novel written by one guy, and the same magic/item rules in a different setting would be far less fun to play, for myself (and many others, I assume). Plus, there are games designed for Middle Earth already.

Are you exploring a concept, a though-experiment?

If so, great. Although I don't understand the underlying antagonism, but I like exploring concepts, and if this is your motivation I probably would have been interested in discussing it with you before the name-calling.

Are you ranting to blow off steam?

If so, fine, lots of people do that here, and generally it's at least slightly amusing.

If it's none of the above, could you please enlighten me as to what your point is.

Or at least, that's what I meant with my first post when I was genuinely interested in what you were trying to say and why. Now, I couldn't really give a flying crap.

[Dragonchess Player]

thejeff wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

... you can simulate a "low-caster, high magic item" type of world similar to Tolkien's Middle Earth.

Middle Earth is somewhat misleading for many, in that it's pretty much what would be considered a low-level (1st-5th) level campaign during the Third Age (i.e., The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings), with a handful of medium-level characters (Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf, etc.) acting as rulers/patrons. Read Calibrating Your Expectations and The Many Games Inside the World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game for a more detailed discussion of this.

Actually, I'd argue that you can't simulate MiddleEarth with D&D rules. The styles of magic are too different.

You did see the word "similar" that I used, didn't you? Why don't you read what I actually wrote and the linked articles before resorting to strawman arguments?

The problem with fiction versus game is that in fiction, magic is usually ineffable and vague, allowing the author to have it accomplish or fail to accomplish/be prohibited from accomplishing exactly what is necessary for the plot at any given moment. In a game system, on the other hand, magic has to be specific and quantified or the game will devolve into arguments over what the characters can do.

[Mystically Inclined]

My confusion comes from: Pathfinder should be this way because Middle Earth was this way.

Pathfinder is a system of rules designed for an uncountable number of custom worlds.

Middle Earth is a single world, described in a different medium.

Granted, LOTR is incredibly influential to fantasy settings. It's also not the only influential setting, and so far it's the only example used.

Kind of like saying "Elementalist Wizards are doing it wrong- Avatar: the Last Airbender did it the right way."

[Kimera757]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

The problem with fiction versus game is that in fiction, magic is usually ineffable and vague, allowing the author to have it accomplish or fail to accomplish/be prohibited from accomplishing exactly what is necessary for the plot at any given moment. In a game system, on the other hand, magic has to be specific and quantified or the game will devolve into arguments over what the characters can do.

Could we use another universe then? I've not read any Harry Potter books, but I understand it's a "Magic A is Magic A" setting, so the spells always work the same way and follow specific rules. The Dresden Files is pretty similar, although there's a bit more wiggle room there, it seems.

[thejeff]

Kimera757 wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

The problem with fiction versus game is that in fiction, magic is usually ineffable and vague, allowing the author to have it accomplish or fail to accomplish/be prohibited from accomplishing exactly what is necessary for the plot at any given moment. In a game system, on the other hand, magic has to be specific and quantified or the game will devolve into arguments over what the characters can do.

Could we use another universe then? I've not read any Harry Potter books, but I understand it's a "Magic A is Magic A" setting, so the spells always work the same way and follow specific rules. The Dresden Files is pretty similar, although there's a bit more wiggle room there, it seems.

Yes, but the rules aren't really defined for us. They may be known to (some of) the characters, but there are plenty of times in HP when a new spell appears apparently just to solve the plot. Or is introduced earlier like Checkov's Spell leaving us waiting to see what it will be used for. Of course, this is largely justified by the viewpoint character being a student not familiar with the magical world. We're learning it as he is and don't know the full range of magic any more than he does.

I'm not familiar enough with the Dresden Files to be sure, but I suspect the same basic problem exists. It's not so much that magic is, in universe, vague and ineffable, as that the author doesn't give a giant text dump of how everything works, what's possible and what's not, complete with lists of spells and item and/or the rules for creating your own. Which you need in a game, but don't in fiction.

Dodging back to Tolkien for a moment, he probably thought longer and more deeply about how magic worked in his world than most authors, but it was in metaphysical terms not scientific ones. As a result the magic in Middle Earth feels coherent and feels magical, as least to me.
Magic in Harry Potter may be more structured and logical, but usually it seems as if Rowling just made up an effect and something vaguely Latinish to call it.

[kyrt-ryder]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

LOL, in modern terms "Lembas" was a vitamin packed power bar wrapped in cellophane to stay fresh. Galadriel herself seemed confused by the hobbits description of "elvish magic". Most of what was viewed as "magic" in LotR was described more as just being really well made by superior craftsmen out of rare materials with unique properties.

If you want to run a Middle Earth style campaign, you probably should ban full casting classes from being PC classes.

Good luck finding players to play that game though.

I don't know about that... I've seen a lot of campaigns being discussed that cut out tier 1 and 2 classes, they seem to get along pretty well without the full casters, so long as the DM adjusts his expectations according to the shift in power and versatility.

[kyrt-ryder]

Weirdo wrote:

Arturick wrote:

If someone would like to make an argument that +1 swords being more rare than guys who cast Magic Missile does anything besides hose over non-casters, I'd like to hear it.

...because if wizards didn't have spells they'd be basically commoners and unplayable as PCs?

...because most players want to have the option of playing full casters, and limiting casting classes makes that difficult?

...because increasing the prevalence of all magic items and not just magic weapons will also benefit casters? And even if it's just magic weapons and armour that are common, clerics, druids, oracles, bards, magi, and inquisitors will get a similar benefit to the fighters?

...because giving everyone a magic weapon at level 2 would make DR/magic pointless?

....'Wizard' is a game construct that could just as easily be replaced by something more comparable to a bard mechanically.

....'full casting' in this game tends to be so flexible that the guy swinging the pointy stick feels like a henchman there to serve the spellcaster.

.... increasing the prevalence of magic items only benefits casters more if you're not using wealth-by-level, otherwise those casters could just turn that wealth into whatever they want anyway, either through their own feats or by contacting their guild/temple/mentor/whatever.

.... DR/magic is already pretty much pointless, except to the poor non-caster schmucks who either have to pay out the ass for an oil of magic weapon for each such encounter, or are dependent on the casters to provide it instead of winning the encounter themselves and mitigating total damage taken.

[Weirdo]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

....'Wizard' is a game construct that could just as easily be replaced by something more comparable to a bard mechanically.

You can rebuild the wizard class if you want, but if you remove the wizard's spells they don't feel wizardy. One of my friends commented that one of his favorite things about PF was the fact that casters get unlimited per-day uses of their cantrips/orisons, because always having at least a little magic makes you feel like a real wizard.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

....'full casting' in this game tends to be so flexible that the guy swinging the pointy stick feels like a henchman there to serve the spellcaster.

Which may mean that casters and martials need to be rebalanced relative to each other, but it doesn't mean that you need to remove casters, turn them into non-PC classes, or prevent them from using spells in combat.

It may also mean that your spellcasters aren't being cooperative with their buffing. My group has never had a problem with the casters feeling superior or more cool than the non-casters.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

.... increasing the prevalence of magic items only benefits casters more if you're not using wealth-by-level, otherwise those casters could just turn that wealth into whatever they want anyway, either through their own feats or by contacting their guild/temple/mentor/whatever.

If you keep WBL exactly as-is and use current magic item values, you are not actually increasing the prevalence of magic items (at least not for your PCs).

If you use WBL but adjust wealth up so characters acquire more magic items, casters get an equal benefit because if the fighter is picking up a magic sword at level 2 the caster is picking up a ring of protection +1, or two 1st level Pearls of Power. If the fighter gets his belt of strength earlier the wizard gets his headband of intelligence earlier. The only way to give martials a benefit over casters is to selectively decrease the cost of weapons and armour, and even then clerics, druids, oracles, magi, bards, and inquisitors will get a significant boost, so all you'd be doing is hurting wizards, sorcerers, witches, and maybe summoners (who still get armor!).

I'm not sure what you mean about casters turning wealth into whatever they want.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

.... DR/magic is already pretty much pointless, except to the poor non-caster schmucks who either have to pay out the ass for an oil of magic weapon for each such encounter, or are dependent on the casters to provide it instead of winning the encounter themselves and mitigating total damage taken.

It still currently means that low-level characters have to spend an action to magic up their weapons, which means the encounter is more difficult than if it didn't have DR or if magic items were ubiquitous by the time you fought something with DR/magic.

The question was: what is one non-arbitrary reason for there to be more people capable of casting 1st level arcane spells than +1 weapons?

The answer was: because most players of high-fantasy games like the option to play wizards starting from level 1, but don't want to hand out magic weapons at level 1.

[Bill Dunn]

Vod Canockers wrote:

Neither would I. I would use Middle Earth Roleplaying or Rolemaster from Iron Crown, considering they had the license to make the game from the Tolkien Estate.

I would point out that, by my recollection, MERP does have the Rolemaster equivalent of +n weapons and PCs can even start with them.

That's part of the beauty of the much over-maligned +n items in D&D and PF. They can be entirely subtle and yet have an impact - they make great models, along with other items that add skill bonuses but otherwise act in an unflashy manner, for natural elven magic as understood in Middle Earth. With that in mind, it's really hard to declare that ME is low magic or just how prevalent subtle magic is. Gandalf, Aragorn, Boromir - they all could have been loaded up with a lot of subtle stuff and we would never have known about it.

And it most certainly wasn't just elves making magic stuff. Clearly the dwarves did, even to the point of the Erebor dwarves making magical toys that ended up in the hands of dozens of hobbit children. Again, the difference is in the subtlety. No winged boots, wands of fireball, apparatuses of the crab. Just cool, flavorful, or subtle stuff.