|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if there was a new edition I would lobby to get rid of all six.
Item ability does not always need to equate bonuses to rolls.
A flaming sword doesn't need to be +1 to hit, it has other features and utility tied to it already - such as doing fire damage, utility use (setting things on fire, providing illumination, etc).
A strength booster can boost strength by affecting DC checks to lift or break items as well as carrying ability, it doesn't need to add +X to hit and damage.
I would probably dump most of the +X anything and instead go for ability/usefullness to the character who is using the item or seeking it out instead of focusing on the math - that is how you bring an element of mystery back to the arcane. It becomes more about lore, ability - legend and myth than "this gives you +1 extra to hit and damage".
Anyway
|
The forums are full of thread discussing rules or items balance. What is wrong with this?Reading this has caused me to die a little inside. Munchkins are taking over it seems.Please explain this comment.I thought the hallmark of munchkinry was ignoring and destroying game balance? Surely a discussion about how to improve game balance would be antithetical to a true mucnkin's goals?
Anyways, no, belt of giant strength really isn't underpowered.
And changing it back to the fixed scores of 1e/2e instead of modifiers would utterly destroy any semblance of balance--it would negate the penalties of a low strength score
(So, my character has 3 strength...doesn't matter! Just put on a belt of giant strength and I have as high a strength as the poor guy who put an 18 in strength!)3.5 wildshape/polymorph caused the same problems (a polymorphed druid had the same strength as a polymorphed fighter, regardless of their normal stats, negating the advantages of a high strength). PF changed it, and for a good reason.
Just to be correct...3.x changed it.
Well, when 3.x introduced the Point Buy system, that along with the ability to craft items meant that assigning a static Strength score would mean that optimizers would dump Strength at character creation. As magnuskn said, empowering the players made it more important to limit the ways they could "break" the system. Also, the GM still has the freedom to create unusual artifacts.
There's another downside to the older approach to belts of giant strength: wouldn't that just reduce your fighters to people who derived their ability from their magic items? How heroic is that, when any toddler could pick up the same belt and do what you do?
|
|
I think if there was a new edition I would lobby to get rid of all six.
Item ability does not always need to equate bonuses to rolls.
A flaming sword doesn't need to be +1 to hit, it has other features and utility tied to it already - such as doing fire damage, utility use (setting things on fire, providing illumination, etc).A strength booster can boost strength by affecting DC checks to lift or break items as well as carrying ability, it doesn't need to add +X to hit and damage.
I would probably dump most of the +X anything and instead go for ability/usefullness to the character who is using the item or seeking it out instead of focusing on the math - that is how you bring an element of mystery back to the arcane. It becomes more about lore, ability - legend and myth than "this gives you +1 extra to hit and damage".
Anyway
Didnt 4e try something along those lines?
|
|
To me what the problem with magic items was it became to easy to just make your own. 3e made crafting simple and PF has a similar problem.
In 2e a friend of mine wanted to hire a wizard to to make a +5 magic sword for him. The GM said ok, it will cost (incert a stupid amount of gold) and 3 game years.
In 3e it would cost 50k gold and 50 days game time and some exp from the caster.
Not sure how its done in PF, the GM I game with doesnt allow player crafters
It works exactly the same as it did in 3X, except no EXP cost.
|
|
To me what the problem with magic items was it became to easy to just make your own. 3e made crafting simple and PF has a similar problem.
That is part of the equation, but eliminating the need for having a +X cloak of saving by Y level is also part of the problem. Game design and internal number needs (and expected ranges) are controlled by game design and expected number range. If you eliminate the need to have +X whatever, by Y level - you also eliminate the need for said items.
Eliminate the race to X and you eliminate the need to meet that number via boring items.
|
|
To me what the problem with magic items was it became to easy to just make your own. 3e made crafting simple and PF has a similar problem.That is part of the equation, but eliminating the need for having a +X cloak of saving by Y level is also part of the problem. Game design and internal number needs (and expected ranges) are controlled by game design and expected number range. If you eliminate the need to have +X whatever, by Y level - you also eliminate the need for said items.
Eliminate the race to X and you eliminate the need to meet that number via boring items.
I might be wrong I think most level based games have this problem.
There's another downside to the older approach to belts of giant strength: wouldn't that just reduce your fighters to people who derived their ability from their magic items? How heroic is that, when any toddler could pick up the same belt and do what you do?
You are right, but don't forget we are talking of a world full of stuff immune to non magical means.
It doesn't matter how hard my fighter trains, he is doomed to die ignominiously if he doesn't wear a lot of magic trinkets and doesn't use magic weapons.edit:when i stumble on a thread talking whether NPCs have the same chances of a PC with the same equip, or similar, it usually comes out that NPCs aren't supposed to have access to such equip from the start, they have no wealth and usually cannot go past a few levels in all of their lifespan,so they don't get to try the heroic quests that are the PCs' life.
I think the problem is that it is now far to easy to buy or make magic items and this makes them less special .
Gone are the days when players got excited when it came to casting detect magic on a pile of loot to see what they had , and even minor items where hard won and players where much more careful about what was used and when.
Where as now they only get excited if they find a major magical item and the minor stuff is just tossed into the bag of holding to be sold in the next town
But to get back on topic i think the belts are less powerful over all but players in general are more powerful from the start i don't think I've played in a ny pathfinder game where the characters didn't have at least 16 in there primary stat
If there's that much magic around then yes it does work out like you say. Still a DM has the ability to restrict that flow. I don't keep my party without magic, but it's very much controlled. The vast majoirity of magic has to be found. There are no places to just buy magic, you can find a few items that may or may not be what you're looking for. With the right contacts and enough time and money you can get minor items crafted (+1 or 2 weapons, spell charges stored in items). Major/special items are life works of crazed magi/crafters and again will only be obtained from a dead (or tricked) bad guy. Or given as a gift from a benefactor.
My party just hit 7th lvl, and are in the process of getting some special items. At this point I know the characters well enough to give them something that really fits their character, and will be a bonus to them for the campaign. My water sorcerer has gotten a water elemental trident that has some very helpful spells and functions for him. My Ranter just got a Bow that gives +1 vs standard bad guys/+3 vs non-human ranger enemies/+5 vs his ranger enemies, and has some nice combat assitance giving him some better opportunities in combat.
But, I'm real old school as I got my concepts of magic and it's speacialness in 1E. I don't fear big or powerful items, I fear it becoming no more than something you pick up at the local magic big box store. Once there is no threshold (but money) to obtaining magic it has little worth except as a stat buff. Keeping it special means that the players treasure what they have, and it becomes part of their PC, not simply the equivalent of another set of clothes.
Didnt 4e try something along those lines?I think if there was a new edition I would lobby to get rid of all six.
Item ability does not always need to equate bonuses to rolls.
A flaming sword doesn't need to be +1 to hit, it has other features and utility tied to it already - such as doing fire damage, utility use (setting things on fire, providing illumination, etc).A strength booster can boost strength by affecting DC checks to lift or break items as well as carrying ability, it doesn't need to add +X to hit and damage.
I would probably dump most of the +X anything and instead go for ability/usefullness to the character who is using the item or seeking it out instead of focusing on the math - that is how you bring an element of mystery back to the arcane. It becomes more about lore, ability - legend and myth than "this gives you +1 extra to hit and damage".
Anyway
In a manner of speaking, yes. There were no stat-boosting items, and they had an Inherent Bonuses system which could completely replace the three 'expected' magic item slots with numerical bonuses (weapon, armor, neck). As such, with the necessary scaling bonuses all taken care of, the players and GM were free to create/find magic items that were more interesting, instead of relying on the no-longer-existent must-haves. You could make magic items rare without hosing anybody.
Heck, with the advent of martial healing, you could run an entirely no-magic game without requiring any significant retooling of encounters or other gameplay.
It doesn't matter how hard my fighter trains, he is doomed to die ignominiously if he doesn't wear a lot of magic trinkets and doesn't use magic weapons.
Officially constituting a serious design flaw.
Of course i'm not comparing PnP and the videogame....but i almost only played that ed on comp games.I have some books of it but got them only in the last 2-3 years and only for collection.
Sadly that ed didn't got much attention in Italy,and a lot of the people i know played it only on Baldur's gate and Icewind Dale (i'm playing IwD right now again btw)
So am I the only one who still has the original D&D book and the immortal campaign setting???????
AD&D came as an adjustment of that original D&D. Alignment was way simpler: You were either Lawfull, Neutral or Chaotic. And dwarves and elves were just classes like Fighter, Cleric, Thief or Wizard.
It was possible for a Lawfull Fighter to becomes some kind of a Paladin, that got cleric spells at a third of his/her level after he/she became name level.
Well at least some things were improved since then in my opinion, but it definetly had it's charm.
I just took this pic in my room.
edit:i know, quality isn't great but it is recognizable.
If you look through the 1E DMG, there's a place where it specifically points out that Girdle and Gauntlets stack only with magic warhammers. it does not restrict this to the Hammer of Thunderbolts, which specifically mentions this because the stacking strength bonus of the wielder affects how far you can throw the blasted thing! (i.e. the str bonus has no affect on how far you can throw other magic warhammers)
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aaaaand since you posted all those cool pics of BECMI stuff, note that the Girdle of Giant Strength doubled base weapon dmg in BECMI, and didn't provide a bonus to str at all.
This grossly favors big weapons, of course, but the Weapon Mastery skills of BECMI didn't provide fixed damage bonuses, they increased the dice type and size of your weapons...and the Girdle doubled the end result.
So the BECMI Girdle could end up being the strongest of them all, without allowing you to lift a tank!
I don't have the original sets, except for Warlords. I was going to start collecting them, and then they came out with the Cyclopedia, which basically condensed BECM into one book, so I just bought that.
I still would love to see someone go back and REALLY write up Test of the Warlords as an AP! Heh.
--Aelryinth
Council of Wyrms is 2nd Edition! I own both the boxed set and the later hardback. :)
COUNCIL OF WYRMS FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!
Honestly I much prefer 3.X/PF's version of the item to 1E/2E's -- back in the day, whether or not you had a girdle of giant strength was much much more important to how dangerous your character was in melee combat than almost everything else put together.
And really, how much fun is that?
Honestly I much prefer 3.X/PF's version of the item to 1E/2E's -- back in the day, whether or not you had a girdle of giant strength was much much more important to how dangerous your character was in melee combat than almost everything else put together.
And really, how much fun is that?
I agree. It invalidates mechanical choices made around a character: you either have the Magic Item or you don't. Pathfinder lets the characters be different from each other mechanically, beyond the "fluff" I add via roleplaying. This is what I prefer, and YMMV of course.
This is true, to an extent. But Girdles and Gauntlets were remarkably uncommon given how powerful they were. As loot in modules, they just didn't come up very often, and were naturally prized when they did.
But, yes, there's even a Pregen in Cup and Talisman of Al'Akbar who is a fighter with a 14 Str, and a Girdle of Hill Giant Str. He doesn't get his xp bonus, but he still hammers everything.
Isle of the Ape, the 17th level Pregen fighter has a girdle of Frost Giant Str, and there's a Fire Giant Str in the final tally of loot!
==Aelryinth
I think the rarity even made the problem worse -- because now, once you've played a 1E/2E melee character who had a girdle, every melee character you play thereafter is going to mechanically pale before them until the next time you find one. It's such a huge bonus that it really skews the balance of the game.
You'll think, "Oh, my 16th level fighter can handle this, my last 13th level fighter could beat these enemies." Not while doing half the damage despite being several levels higher he can't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monsters had no con bonus for HP in 1 and 2E. Thus, 1/2 to 1/3 the hit points. (the most powerful dragon had 88 hp in 1E!)
+12 Storm Giant Str is more akin to a +30 Str bonus to damage in PF.
The lower To hit was because AC's were lower. The absolute highest AC in the 1E game was Lolth from the Fiend Folio at -8, or 28 in 3.5 terms.
IN 2E, Gold Dragons got to -11 or -12 (31 or 32), but that's still very low for high level fighters.
You didn't need the TH bonuses as much, so they didn't hand them out.
==Aelryinth
|
|
An actual conversion from 3rd ed to 1st/2nd ed would be like this:
Take the 3rd ed/PF damage bonus and use this as the same damage bonus in the 2nd ed PHB chart.
So a creature in PF such as a Frost Giant, has a Str in PF of 29 (+9 to hit and damage) and cross compare the +9 damage in the 2nd ed PHB, which gives you - a Str of 21...which happens to be the same Str that a Frost Giant actually has in 1st and 2nd ed.
So converting the creatures isn't too hard - dump Con bonus to Hp and use the steps above to calculate the Str values (which btw leads to a lower to-hit for the 2nd ed frost giant since his to hit bonus drops from +9 to +4).
And I agree with everything else you posted Aelryinth - numbers and the pursuit of numbers is just a design consideration. IMO this is just a mini-game coupled with system mastery and nothing else.
The 3rd ed developers wanted a mini-game of character optimization and an every increasing search for new gear, spells, feats and class abilities that would satisfy X and because that means new product.
The only thing I see left of value in PF and d20 based gaming is the actual creative content (monsters primarily).
You can't truly do a straight conversion, because the upper limit in 1 and 2e was 25. 25 is now a stepping stone as far as Str Scores go.
But yes, as far as how they DID convert them. You'll notice that if you follow the base Str scores of the lesser giants (fire and smaller) they mirror the Str bonuses from 1E exactly.
Cloud and Storm Giants are Size H, and for some reason broke the paradigm, being bigger and stronger then before (although there's a +8 size bonus going from L to H)
But the big thing is the % of a target's damage they do. +12 in 1E was a major can of whoop ass. In 3.5, it's a decent middling amount of damage replicated at level 9 with Power Attack and a 2h sword.
==Aelryinth
Reading this thread has reminded me of what I remember reading back when I played Basic and 2e about the dangers of the "Monty Haul" campaign. Honestly I think that's what this comes down to. The Belt of Strength+2 is really only under powered if the GM allows the players to easily and quickly buy something better.
I've played/ran games with a very low magic item threshold, and I've played games where we went and bought out the magic item shop and opened it for business to fund our wacky adventures. It all comes down to the group, the GM, and what kind of game you want to play.
At the end of the day, if you want the +2 belt to have the same "mythic" feeling that getting the old gauntlets or girdles had, you just need to make it rare. Whether that involves cutting down the amount of gear you make available, or going a step further and just removing the ability to identify magic items' mechanical advantages, is up to you.
You know, even though it would be a pain in the ass, I kind of want to run a game now where I only ever provide in game description of magic items and keep all the mechanical bonuses to myself, lol.
Well in these days Magic items were part of Game Master Guide. So no shopping catalogue for players in Players Handbooks.
All of this 2ed talking made me desire there was an old days Forgotten Realms PbP to play/run.....for now i'm back on Icewind Dale, the complete ed :)
I just took this pic in my room.
edit:i know, quality isn't great but it is recognizable.
Ah thank goodness, I started to think I was the only relic here. ;)
Council of Wyrms is 2nd Edition! I own both the boxed set and the later hardback. :)
Yup, got the boxed set too. I liked the 'priest handbook', 'skill and powers' and the 'castle guide' as well. It made cleric less overpowered and allowed some diversity. And the Castle guide gave a real nice insite into the economy of a stronghold and the social circumstances in it. Skills and powers made a lot more sense then the skills in the AD&D core as they let you start out with a skill check equal to your relevant stat and no progression.
COUNCIL OF WYRMS FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!
I really liked the first adventure(Not the Draka, I believe) where you just crawled out of the egg and immediatly got a set of ogres per hatchling to deal with. And the extermination of any human was fun as well, only demihumans were valid to the dragons. But the rules for half dragons were introduced as well there.
Well in these days Magic items were part of Game Master Guide. So no shopping catalogue for players in Players Handbooks.
Correct and magic items could not be created unless you gained acces to the permanancy (high level was it 6th spell level?) spell. And that could provide serious setbacks as one of the possibilities was losing 1 con.
All of this 2ed talking made me desire there was an old days Forgotten Realms PbP to play/run.....for now i'm back on Icewind Dale, the complete ed :)
Did you play it on the high setting as well??? Where all monsters were quadruple hp + 80 hp. It was possible to start playing on that setting as your summonees from Monster summoning also got that adjustment. That sure gave some awesome xp at low level. The only thing that became worthless was the horn of Valhalla which gave 3 or 4 level 2 berserkers which were really good at level 1 and 2 but worthless at that high setting (what was the name of that setting again???).
|
|
You can't truly do a straight conversion, because the upper limit in 1 and 2e was 25. 25 is now a stepping stone as far as Str Scores go.
But yes, as far as how they DID convert them. You'll notice that if you follow the base Str scores of the lesser giants (fire and smaller) they mirror the Str bonuses from 1E exactly.
Cloud and Storm Giants are Size H, and for some reason broke the paradigm, being bigger and stronger then before (although there's a +8 size bonus going from L to H)
But the big thing is the % of a target's damage they do. +12 in 1E was a major can of whoop ass. In 3.5, it's a decent middling amount of damage replicated at level 9 with Power Attack and a 2h sword.
==Aelryinth
Actually you can do a straight conversion (and it's easier to check existing creatures from one edition to another).
Even with the slight vairance, the damage bonus to Str is close to 1e/2e - with Cloud having Str 35 = +12 (1 more than older edition) and Storm having a Str of 39 = +14 (2 more than older edition).
Stat conversion and rebuilding isn't that hard based on stats (converting Str as I suggested up thread and stripping away Con bonus to HP). The biggest abstraction and where they just did whatever they felt they needed to do is the area of Natural Armor. Conversions for thses would be mostly DMs choice - though I think a good correlary would be to reduce natural armor by 1/3 value (rounded up), for the hight Natural Armor values.
Sorry for the sidetrack - but yes, you are right about the % of damage they do in comparison to 3rd/PF eds. The latter editions have every ever scaling numbers + plus bonuses for Feats on top of magic damage, spell boosts and crit multipliers.
@Snowleopard: Nope, standard difficulty.My last version of it didn't include TotL and it was wiped out from the hard disk some years ago.Since i can't remember what happened to the CD-rom i DLed the complete ed from GoG (and this time i have TotL too :) ).
The catch is i no longer have my old PCs and had to start a new game with only 1st level,cannot play hard mode from the start w/out hig level PCs.
Anyway i got to the lower Dorn's Deep (the fire salamander mines) around lvl 10 with everyone,then started HoW until i'm ready for the great white wyrm, near the expansion's end.
Then i went into TotL and closing to its end now; my current party:
human paladin 14
human fighter 15
elf mage 15
elf druid 18
half elf thief 19
dwarf cleric 17
I plan to finish TotL, going back to HoW, kill the wyrm and finally returning to the original game for the last quests.
Actually, the giants got scaling 'nat armor' bonuses in 1E and 2E, they just didn't call them that.
I believe the range was Hill Giants AC 5, frost 4, fire 3, Stone 2, cloud 1 and Storm 0, but I could be wrong. Those are basically +5 through +10 Nat AC, since they didn't get Dex bonuses.
In 2E all they did was add armor on top of that base 1E AC. So Storm Giants went to -6 from 0 since they picked up Banded Mail, or something. Fire Giants went to -2 with Chain Mail. It was actually the first instance where "natural ac" stacked with armor.
==Aelryinth
I'm just reading my old copy of the Monster manual 2 ed. for giants AC
It says:
Cyclops 3/2
Frost giant 0
Desert giant 1
Fire giant -1
Jungle giant 3
Hill giant 3
Forest giant 8
Mountain giant 4
Fog giant 1
Cloud giant 0
Rock giant 0
Cliff giant 0
Storm giant -6
Ettin 3
Firbolg 2
Fomorian 3
Verbeeg 4
i think it is just fine
if you got a belt who gives you a static strength other types of builds just become more powerfull
like a magus could start off with 12 strength and would be gunning for that belt ASAP and from then he would be an awsome caster with 18 int and posibly other verry good stats aswell and stil kick ass martialy
same with sorcerrers
now to get a verry high STR score you need to dump a stat to get to get to hiogh STR scores as you cant wait for a belt to give you a good score.
my magus has 20STR with a belt +2 and is making his +4 now wich brings hiom to 22 but he still has that naagin 7 on CHA :-)
I'm just reading my old copy of the Monster manual 2 ed. for giants AC
It says:
Cyclops 3/2
Frost giant 0
Desert giant 1
Fire giant -1
Jungle giant 3
Hill giant 3
Forest giant 8
Mountain giant 4
Fog giant 1
Cloud giant 0
Rock giant 0
Cliff giant 0
Storm giant -6
Ettin 3
Firbolg 2
Fomorian 3
Verbeeg 4
Exactly. What they did is take the giant's AC from 1E and throw on extra ac for armor.
So Fire Giants were AC 4 and threw on +5 for Chainmail, resulting in AC 1. Frost Giants were AC 5, did the same thing for ac 0.
cheap and effective way to up the AC of the giants.
==Aelryinth
I already mentioned it, but now i ask directly: is there any chance of a pbp using 2nd ed AD&D ? i would love to try run/play one. Just finished Icewind Dale (again) and now i'm eager to remember those times.