I agree that the Magic Mart has no place in my games, and that the Big Six are boring. My solution is to replace the Big Six with inherent bonuses that represent the characters getting more powerful as they advance.
Levels 4,8,12,16, and 20:
Characters receive +1 to hit, damage, Armor AC, Shield AC, and Saves
Levels 2,6,10,14, and 18:
Characters receive +1 in a stat of their choice
Levels 4,8,12,16, and 20:
Characters receive +1 in a physical stat of their choice (Str/Dex/Con)
AND
Characters receive +1 in a mental stat of their choice (Int/Wis/Cha)
No extra number tracking or wealth by level charts. Just factor in the extras when they level and get back to the story.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is really complicated, and I think, unnecessary. I've never had trouble just running the game with no magic items at all, rather than replacing them with some kind of ephemeral concept of wealth.
If you don't like magic items, don't use them.
Your issues regarding the "Christmas tree" problems are well argued.
Rather than using WBL, though, I might be inclined to make your "meta-wealth" based on XP rather than WBL. It would end up being a type of XP and therefore is completely intangible. Then you just reduce the total amount of treasure they get by 60%.
However, the basic cost of some items using your "meta currency" would probably have to increase to account for the fact that since those bonuses stack with other bonuses they become more valuable.
Some fun notes:
The average 1st level worker (assuming 10s in all ability scores and 1 skill rank) will roll an average Profession or Craft check result of a 14. (1 rank + Class Skill bonus) According to the Downtime system, such a character can expect an average of 1 gp, 4 sp per day in earnings, for about 42 gp per month. The average cost of living is 10 gp a month and since the rules assume that even children are 1st level NPCs (see Young Characters in Ultimate Campaign), an eight year old can make end's meet and still have enough money each month to buy a suit of armor and a few weapons.
A king, on the other hand, probably has an extravagant lifestyle, which costs 1,000 gp per month. Without getting into specifics on how he's earning that much money in such a short amount of time, if we assume that the king is earning 4x as much as he needs to make ends meet (similar to the child), then we're looking at 4,000 gp a month, for a total of about 208,000 income per year. Taking away 12,000 for living expenses leaves the king with 196,000 gp per year. Assuming all of this is true (it likely varies from ruler to ruler), it isn't until 15th level where a character is wearing a king's yearly salary on his chest, which fits the OP's description of a "king's ransom fairly well.
That said, if we start considering the number of assets that a king would need to generate that much money monthly, it becomes more and more likely that said king is a *lot* more wealthy than the 20th level PC who is wearing 880,000 gp on his chest. It would probably look at this:
PC: Look at me! I'm wearing eight years of your salary on my body!
KING: Cool. I come from a hereditary monarchy. We come from generations of that pittance. If I spent everything I owned, I could recruit a Gargantuan Army of people wearing the exact same amount of wealth you're carrying.
PC: ....
Liquid wealth isn't everything, as my PCs who are living in ramshackle tenants with thousands of GP strapped to their bodies know too well. Personally, I think the kingdom building rules and downtime rules are the best counters for any flaws inherent in the magic item system because in my experience, most PCs would rather invest in their character's future rather than more bling.
But your mileage my vary. Hope you all enjoyed the math, and if you live in the states have a Happy Thanksgiving!
An idea that I have been milling around with is to have the enchantment costs be 10%. So, a sword which is normally 2000 gp for +1 is 200 gp for the +1. A longsword +1 would be 15gp (base price) +300 (masterwork) +200 (+1 enchantment) = 515 gp.
Likewise, hiring someone to cast a spell is 1 gp and not 10 gp x level x spell level.
What I think this means that I will just have to cut down on treasure values, and the economy appears like it will be more viable. It leans more towards a probability of magic items being more common, but in the setting that I want to put it into that is the goal. I am going more for a "similar to modern life because of commonplace magic" concept.
I agree that the Magic Mart has no place in my games, and that the Big Six are boring. My solution is to replace the Big Six with inherent bonuses that represent the characters getting more powerful as they advance.
Levels 4,8,12,16, and 20:
Characters receive +1 to hit, damage, Armor AC, Shield AC, and SavesLevels 2,6,10,14, and 18:
Characters receive +1 in a stat of their choiceLevels 4,8,12,16, and 20:
Characters receive +1 in a physical stat of their choice (Str/Dex/Con)
AND
Characters receive +1 in a mental stat of their choice (Int/Wis/Cha)No extra number tracking or wealth by level charts. Just factor in the extras when they level and get back to the story.
Maybe it is because I am a grizzled old gamer, but I don't like items that boost your attributes. Perhaps what you suggest above is a good solution. Also, many other d20-based games (Spycraft and Star Wars come immediately to mind) also had AC level up as the character does. At first I thought it was strange, but they probably realized the same thing that you did (that it was needed).
Problem: Here are the initial issues I have with the magic item system currently in place.
I agree with your analysis of the problem and the magic mart, I'm unsure this is the best solution. I'm also unsure how large of a problem it is.
This problem has been discussed several times before, hopefully we get some more brainstorming and experience here. This is definitely something I'm going to consider (dotting).
I've posted a ritual for destroying bonus only items and putting the bonus into the character. Your system gives a good idea for the upper limits of body enchantment. It works with existing adventure paths. Body enchantment carries over with true resurrection, and lost levels temporarily suspend just one bonus. It does not carry over to your next character if your character is irretrievably destroyed.
I'm running a experiment in world design to try a subtler fix, a lot of this does not directly deal with the magic mart / big six issues but I wanted to get this on paper and hear some feedback
The Goal:
Character wealth surpasses the availability of powerful magical items. In response the characters spend their wealth on fun/utility/non-big six items.
Item Availability:
A +1 longsword sitting on a shelf is the same equivalent value of a moderate sized tavern sitting vacant, it happens but not often. Low lvl versions of the big six are occasionally available, the reference point will be any moderately sized outfitter will have a cloak of resistance +1 or ring of protection +1 on display for any big spenders coming through.
Item Commissioning: This is the primary source of magical gear, and those who have made it their trade to craft such items are respected by their peers for undertaking such a specialist role, the same respect any master craftsman receives.
Scarcity:
A finite number of NPCs in the region have taken crafting feats. In a small city/large town potions will be plentiful but those that can create wondrous items, ring, arms and armor will be known by name and for the most part already affiliated existing organizations. Those that can make powerful items are limited by the item creation rules (max item caster lvl and time to craft) and will already have other clients on a waiting list.
My World:
The APL 4 group is in a frontier region and these are the crafters available, their lvl, and affiliations:
Orc Smith: lvl 5, arms and armor, Orc Tribe
Governors Secretary: lvl 6, wands, Governors Man
Smugglers Adept: lvl 4, wondrous items, Thieves Guild
Goodly Cleric: lvl 6, arms and armor, wondrous items, Goodly Churches
Hedge Wizard: Lvl 9, full item crafting, Laissez-faire
The Constraints:
Right off the bat, items have lead times. From lvl 1 the players have been conditioned to this, "Want a masterwork greatsword? We have one in stock. Cold iron masterwork greatsword? We have cold iron in stock, we have a few orders on the go, but we like you, I'm sure Bruun can get to it tomorrow, stop in the morning day after tomorrow to pick it up. That will be half up front". A few lvls later, this is a week wait for a 5000g item, assuming you are the only client they are working for. A lot can happen in a week game time, emergencies have to be responded to, which sucks when your favorite shield is being upgraded from +2 to +3. This should allow for, while discouraging such behavior.
The Party and the BBEG buy their gear from the same guy. I have no idea what will happen when the party finds this out.
The party will outgrow the region and move to a more populous area with higher lvl crafters. This should be the iconic scene of the confident small town crooks coming to the big city and finding out they are in over their head.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a fix (which will be hated by most):
Eliminate the need for micro bonuses or special weapons.
1) Remove Con bonus to hp (everything, with the exception of high Con) , so most creatures hps will be reduced around 40%-60%.. Con of 15 gives you +1 hp level, 16 gives you +2, 17 gives you plus 3 for every Full BAB HD you have or gain otherwise +2, and 18 Con gives you +4 for every Full BAB HD you have or gain otherwise it gives you +2 when you gain a level. The latter rule does not apply to monsters.
2) Reduce natural ACs of creatures by 1/3 rounded up.
3) 1/2 all the racial stat bonus given at Char gen, max stat 18
4) Save DCs are still increased by casting stat, but stats are capped at 18 (+4) for most starting to middle level characters, so DCs for spells are controlled by level and are not taken out of range due to feats, temp or perm stat boosters or other spells.
5) Introduce an "Average Save" category, reserving bad saves for certain creature types and for Fort saves for casters. Most all PCs classes will sub the Average Save category out for their current "Bad Saves" (with the exception of casters).
6) Eliminate numerical booster feats with the exception of the most basic (weapon focus, weapon spec). Eliminate most feats. A feat that allows you change the enegry type of a prepared spell on the fly - sothing like that can stay. A feat that adds +4 to initiative - gone, +2 skill - gone, etc. Feats should be features of the character, not numerical bonus to X.
7) Eliminate feats that increase the DC of spells or SLAs. Eliminate metamagic feats that increase the damage of spells. Eliminate all metamagic items (metamagic rods). Eliminate magic items that increase saves or make them very rare and affect only one save category (level 12 character item, gives +1 to Fort saves)
8) Eliminate all spells that boost stats (and subsequently, all items). If you feel the need for stat boosters I would suggest only those that affect Str or Dex and they would have a fixed stat value - If under 16, raises it to 17 when worn, if score is already 17-19 gives +1, starting 20 or higher - nothing).
9) Eliminate increasing scores by increasing levels
10) Limit stackable buffs by reducing bonus category types.
11) Bring back potion miscibility table, potions and wands are not spells in items. They are a specific effect generated by said item, not a spell in a bottle or wand.
12) Eliminate crit damage, eliminate crit feats and eliminate TH bonus damage from Str.
13) Bunch of micro changes (too many to list here). Limited item creation, increased DC checks for casting while taking damage, no more Conjure spells getting around MR, etc, etc.
14) If you are PF player or DM and you head hasn’t exploded by this point I congratulate you! Proceed to posting disparaging comments about my lists of fixes and changes.
All that or just run 2nd ed, which seems to be a better system every day I run or read anything about 3rd ed./PF.
So, why didn't you just post the last line and be done with it?
I liked playing 2nd Edition back in the day, but if you hate 3E/PF so much, why bother wasting your time writing all that?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played 2nd ed well into 3rd ed. Picked up the 3rd ed books but never ran they game then I started running the game when 3.5 came out.
I was drawn in (from a DMs perspective) by all the modularity and changes that could be made to creatures. After running that game and then PF for the last 10 years I was very dissatisfied with the experience.
So over time I tried a series of small fixes, changes - you name it. Most were run through a playtest serving as a band aid at best.
I then re-examined the game and saw where the flaws were. And there are a ton, but imo it can be salvaged. Of course it goes beyond the scope of these forums and its a project I am near completing, but I felt there were some merits to d20 gaming over older editions if the issues could be worked out with some effort.
What I posted was a very rough outline to eliminating the big six, basically making PF run more like 2nd ed.
I have invested a TREMENDOUS amount of money into 3rd ed/PF, so the reason why I would pursue a fix is so that I could still use my more recent purchases (and those I get from Swan, FGG or LG) for my game revision. In many ways mid way through PF I felt took. As in hoodwinked. So yeah, I hate, despise and revile the design mentality which went into 3rd ed: CharOp/character building instead of adventure focus, magic mart, min/max and oversimplification of the rules/spells/items/skills/take 10/DC manipulation…too many to name.
See - an interesting thing occurred over the course of several years and it’s the reason why there are so many conflicts on these boards in the vein of old school vs. new school. Many of us old school gamers came along for the ride, and trusting in developer’s good faith we bought, and ran their creative content. And now we are dissatisfied. Some caught on early and never bought in, some bought in and bailed on the hobby or switched systems, while a few went along because while they may not like the system, they liked having a system that was alive, was receiving new content, etc. I'm part of the latter crowd, but the dissatisfaction has set in. And we now find ourselves on an island of discontent – basically stuck with a bunch of other posters and gamers who grew up on this and love the level of power and player entitlement that comes with it. So you get fights and disagreements.
What I did is I took the best parts of 2nd and 3rd (with a few things from 1st) and modified my game. The list I posted wasn't a challenge or insult - it is a practical outline for reducing numbers and the need for numbers in d20 gaming. Lower ACs mean you need less number boosts to hit, lower hp means you need less modifiers to damage and controlled DCs (by level threat ranges) means you don't really need Save boosters.
Again, wasn’t trying to insult anyone – just showing what it would take to run a low magic game under the current framework.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other way to eliminate the big six is, uh, to eliminate them. If you ignore CR, it won't matter.
I certainly agree with some of the things you posted in your laundry list, Auxmalous, but posting something like "All that or just run 2nd ed, which seems to be a better system every day I run or read anything about 3rd ed./PF" doesn't make it look like you're interested in a discussion.
|
|
The other way to eliminate the big six is, uh, to eliminate them. If you ignore CR, it won't matter.
The problem has always been save DCs. If you use CR and run creatures that are closer to party level it won't be us much of an issue - but almost all the classes have at least one if not two save catagories that are garbage. Thus making it harder to run a CR or slightly higher than CR level threat with DCs that spike well out of reasonable range.
Hence the need for trinkets that keep you in reasonable save range.
If class abilities and creature abilities were tied to CR (or closer to CR) then it also wouldn't be as much on an issue, but with all the stats and feats and spells that modify DCs in play, that model just doesn't work.
The other way to eliminate the big six is, uh, to eliminate them. If you ignore CR, it won't matter.The problem has always been save DCs. If you use CR and run creatures that are closer to party level it won't be us much of an issue - but almost all the classes have at least one if not two save catagories that are garbage. Thus making it harder to run a CR or slightly higher than CR level threat with DCs that spike well out of reasonable range.
I'm pretty sure I said to ignore CR.
I never use CR--never have. I also use no magic items and generally discourage full spellcasters. It makes the game run much more smoothly.
|
|
I certainly agree with some of the things you posted in your laundry list, Auxmalous, but posting something like "All that or just run 2nd ed, which seems to be a better system every day I run or read anything about 3rd ed./PF" doesn't make it look like you're interested in a discussion.
TBH Arakhor, I think "interested in discussion" left these boards some time ago if it ever existed. I posting that list was me just thinking aloud. Everyone has the vision of the game they want to play - I just stated that I dislike much of the mentality that went into developing 3rd ed.
Obviously I wouldn't bother with my own conversion if I thought the game was 100% trash, but I don't think people around here are ready to discuss the real problems with this game. That goes to the veteran posters to the devs.
I listed all those things because to me (me), these are the things you would need to remove or change to get the some of the experience I think most people who hate the "big six" are looking for.
I don't like inherent bonus systems (tried those also) or meta credit systems (tried those also) or scaling equipment systems (tried that also) because they are all chasing a dragon tail that they will never catch.
It's the fiddly little bonuses, buffs and metamagic garbage that's the problem - brought on by stat mods that start at score 12, feats that modify DC and damage and equipment that supplements stats. Just a big mess and every system posted in these threads and elsewhere are too afraid to address to tackle main issue. A Core re-write.
TL;DR - I think the game issues with the Big six are fixable if you put in a ton of work. Otherwise play 2nd ed.
|
|
By saying you can pick up any weapon and apply the same bonus. You are encouraging people to carry a golf bag if weapons and constantly swap to the best one for the current monster. Defeat DR by damage type of s/p/b. Even worse, have.an enermy you can only hit on a 20, swap to.a weapon that crits x3/x4 and when you can hit on a very low roll, swap to a 18-20 range weapon.
Getting all your consumables back encourages people to just drink them because they are right about to loose em rightbefore leveling yet this is after they hoarded the stuff for the fiirst 3/4 of level xp gain. You would need to multiply the cost of consumables to keep things fair when they are just getting that treasure back every level.
Do yon really think having to.do the math for your system us easier than getting wbl at each level and buying a few items? Are you trying to sell this system to the people who want to play accounting instead of warriors & casters?
If we are playing a game, why do you gave to dwell on the wealth if a pc vs the wealth if the king or country. Why even bother getting nit picky about the cost of 10 go a month living costs when dealing with so much money. Do you really think the players want to spend time traveling to all the different dealers for wheat, silk, gems, precious metals, cattle that they get it do you think they want to go storm the next castle?
|
|
The other way to eliminate the big six is, uh, to eliminate them. If you ignore CR, it won't matter.The problem has always been save DCs. If you use CR and run creatures that are closer to party level it won't be us much of an issue - but almost all the classes have at least one if not two save catagories that are garbage. Thus making it harder to run a CR or slightly higher than CR level threat with DCs that spike well out of reasonable range.I'm pretty sure I said to ignore CR.
I never use CR--never have. I also use no magic items and generally discourage full spellcasters. It makes the game run much more smoothly.
And by ignoring CR (which I am ok with) how do you measure if a threat is over or underpowered to the party? Or do you care?
So if you are running a 3rd level party of 4, how many carrion crawlers do you throw at them if you ignore CR? Do you look at its hp and AC, save DCs for paralysis or the 8 attacks it has, each of which can paralyze the target? What metric do you use when setting up your dungeon/encounter?
And by ignoring CR (which I am ok with) how do you measure if a threat is over or underpowered to the party? Or do you care?
Well, first, I'm not really concerned with "challenging" the party--I'm far more concerned with presenting a fantasy world with verisimilitude.
That said, I'll just eyeball it--I know the rules and the math behind the game very well, so I can judge it pretty damn well.
So if you are running a 3rd level party of 4, how many carrion crawlers do you throw at them if you ignore CR?
In reality, I probably wouldn't use any carrion crawlers, but I'll go with: "However many carrion crawlers would live there where they are."
I don't care how many make the encounter difficult or easy, I care about the environment and what should or should not be there.
I'm not really big on "monsters" though, so in general, I use npcs with class levels primarily (including animals and stuff with class levels).
Do you look at its hp and AC, save DCs for paralysis or the 8 attacks it has, each of which can paralyze the target?
That certainly would factor into it, yes, if I was concerned with balancing the encounter, which I'm not really.
What metric do you use when setting up your dungeon/encounter?
I don't set up encounters--my players do stuff, and the world reacts. If they go somewhere that a carrion crawler lives, they will encounter it (though they don't necessarily have to fight it if they come up with something else, nor will it necessarily attack anyway, since animals don't really behave that way).
There are a few things directly impacted by the Big Six, which suffer greatly if ignored.
And none of those things really matter because all of the baselines only matter in relation to CR. If you ignore CR, it won't matter.
Spell DCs - Ability Buffs, this directly impacts the ability to land spells
My PCs rarely play spellcasters, thankfully, but wouldn't limiting these be generally viewed as a good thing?
Major Impact - 6+ points easy, quite possibly 10+ (or the equivalent)
Armor Class - Enchanted armor, potentially a shield, natural armor, deflection, etc. Almost all boosts to AC are magical, unlike BAB.
Yes, and I have always hated that AC only raises with magic items for the most part--however, keeping PC ACs low provides me with a huge benefit: it allows me to ignore CR even more and keep even low level enemies threatening to higher level PCs. Goblins still matter at level 10 when they can still hit you.
In other words, I actually like, and prefer, the "bounded accuracy" thing that Next was going for, and dropping magic items from my game basically takes care of that (except for BAB, but that's its own rules snarl).
|
|
Well, first, I'm not really concerned with "challenging" the party--I'm far more concerned with presenting a fantasy world with verisimilitude.
That said, I'll just eyeball it--I know the rules and the math behind the game very well, so I can judge it pretty damn well.
This is an incredibly poor way to convey to someone else on how to run a game. Obviously you don't care/tough DM, I get that. Still, you didn't answer my question.
Do you throw hordes of kobolds or level 1 bandits at the party when they are 10th level, just for the lol of it? Or at one point do you say "this encounter is too weak" or even (I know you wouldn't do this) "too powerful"? Do you ever feel that some encounters are just a waste of time (since they can only hit the players on a very high number rolled, or they are negated easily by a class ability - e.g. a 9th level cleric vs 7 skeletons).
I, as a DM am interested in challenging the party vs. going through the motions or running boring encounters. YMMV, but I think low-level encounters vs. high level PCs doesn't even qualify as anything but filler unless their is a tactical hook or issue that goes beyond the direct threat the skeletons/greenslimes/bandits present to the PC. Such as low-level X Monster/NPC killing NPC villagers in an attack being more difficult to deal with than low-level X Monster vs. a 9th level party.
So if you are running a 3rd level party of 4, how many carrion crawlers do you throw at them if you ignore CR?In reality, I probably wouldn't use any carrion crawlers, but I'll go with: "However many carrion crawlers would live there where they are."
I don't care how many make the encounter difficult or easy, I care about the environment and what should or should not be there.
I'm not really big on "monsters" though, so in general, I use npcs with class levels primarily (including animals and stuff with class levels).
Ah, a 40-400 orcs kind of DM. Ok
I understand the immersion point of things, I run things with an intent at immersion also. It is still a game though.
So if you were running something like the Village of Hommlet and the pcs are going to stop bandits at the ruined moat house - do you put a 10th level fighter running the show supported by a few 6th level sergeants against 1st level adventures because that's what would be there?
Your players must do a lot of running/dodging encounters in your game. Unless there's something your leaving out?
Since this is a level based game, and all my players are not ex-special forces guys irl - I do try to balance things like level, challenge, etc based upon their characters mechanical limitations. I don't subscribed to the "the DM would never throw a vampire at us, we're just 1st level!" mentality, but I do understand that PCs have finite hp, saves and abilities all tied (and limited to) their characters level.
Do you look at its hp and AC, save DCs for paralysis or the 8 attacks it has, each of which can paralyze the target?That certainly would factor into it, yes, if I was concerned with balancing the encounter, which I'm not really.
So why would you look at it or consider it? By your own admission wouldn't.
I'm curious about rate of character death in your game.What metric do you use when setting up your dungeon/encounter?I don't set up encounters--my players do stuff, and the world reacts. If they go somewhere that a carrion crawler lives, they will encounter it (though they don't necessarily have to fight it if they come up with something else, nor will it necessarily attack anyway, since animals don't really behave that way).
So you use whatever fits/takes encounters, but you fiat encounter reactions to mitigate power level of those encounters?
Im actually not that far off from you mpl on the hardcore/whatever is required or makes sense - I used to run 1st through 3rd ed Gamma World where random encounter tables included Death Machines and Warbots - I didn't give a damn about what the players rank/level was. If it was there (random or set due to circumstances) then they had to deal with it.
I run my game worlds a little different though - the world does stuff and the players react. This can include attack, ignore, avoid - I don't base my encounters so much off of level needed but what works, but at the same time I also know that a bunch of level 1 PCs are not going to beat a 10th level fighter with a few 6-8th level underlings and 15 level 2-3 rabble/soldiers unless I am running very fast and loose with the rules.
So short of fiat or DM mercy, I'm not seeing how your "I don't care how many make the encounter difficult or easy" gels with character levels, saves, hps and damage - again, unless you are throwing in whatever the story needs and fiating the actual threat presented/problems the characters have to overcome. That or your players are dying left and right.
I try to balance the immersion with the mechanical realities and limitations of the game. I'm, curious to see how someone not concerned about mechanical issues runs their game without session or module TPK.
What did I miss here?
That there are a lot of story based reasons to go to every side quest before going after the big bad. A nest of a zillion carrion crawlers are not going to be just under the surface.
I hate low magic in fantasy games. Its like an old west game with no guns. All the other methods of getting rid of the dependence on stat boosting items are ok. Some are simple, some are complicated, but as long as the whole table has fun, it's all good.
Do you throw hordes of kobolds or level 1 bandits at the party when they are 10th level, just for the lol of it? Or at one point do you say "this encounter is too weak" or even (I know you wouldn't do this) "too powerful"? Do you ever feel that some encounters are just a waste of time (since they can only hit the players on a very high number rolled, or they are negated easily by a class ability - e.g. a 9th level cleric vs 7 skeletons).
I don't really mentally compartmentalize the game into encounters that way, so it's hard to really answer this. I understand how other people do, so I can have a conversation about encounters and stuff in general, but in regards to how I run things, it's harder.
I don't throw anything at the players. Stuff exists. The PCs interact with it. That's what happens. If they go after hordes of kobolds, then yes, they face hordes of kobolds. It is not really likely that they will do that, though, so I'm having trouble answering your question in a way you will find helpful.
I, as a DM am interested in challenging the party vs. going through the motions or running boring encounters.
I, as a GM, am interested in presenting a world and allowing the PCs free reign to act in it with verisimilitude. I do not care if the PCs feel challenged, and I've honestly yet to encounter a player that cares, either. However, when fights happen organically like this, it has a way of working out where some are challenging and some are not and it has a nice mix to it.
YMMV, but I think low-level encounters vs. high level PCs doesn't even qualify as anything but filler unless their is a tactical hook or issue that goes beyond the direct threat the skeletons/greenslimes/bandits present to the PC.
And that is probably because you haven't considered the problem with zero magic items and very few, if any, spellcasters in the party. A dozen skeletons against a party of level 8s is a serious threat when there's no healing magic or potions or wands--every swing carries the risk of attrition with it.
Ah, a 40-400 orcs kind of DM. Ok
Er, I wouldn't say that. I don't randomize this. I would have decided well ahead of time how many orcs live there based on what makes sense in the world.
I understand the immersion point of things, I run things with an intent at immersion also. It is still a game though.
So if you were running something like the Village of Hommlet and the pcs are going to stop bandits at the ruined moat house - do you put a 10th level fighter running the show supported by a few 6th level sergeants against 1st level adventures because that's what would be there?
Two things:
1) I would never consider a random bandit leader to be 10th level. Ever. What makes the most sense for a bandit leader would probably be 3rd level--4th or 5th level maybe if he was particularly amazing.
2) I also really dislike level 1 because that's when things are the swingiest. I've only started games at level 1 (or even 2) a handful of times in the past 20 years of GMing. Most of the time, I start at 3rd, or sometimes 5th or 6th.
So, if I was running a game like Village of Hommlet (I hate running other people's adventures, though, so I wouldn't be literally running it), I'd have 3rd level PCs and maybe a 4th or 5th level bandit king with 3rd level sergeants and 1st level mooks.
Your players must do a lot of running/dodging encounters in your game. Unless there's something your leaving out?
They rarely run, but avoiding fights is always a huge focus--and should be--in every rpg I run. Fights are the worse case scenario, because fights always carry the risk of death. Fights are a last resort, not something you go looking for.
Since this is a level based game, and all my players are not ex-special forces guys irl - I do try to balance things like level, challenge, etc based upon their characters mechanical limitations. I don't subscribed to the "the DM would never throw a vampire at us, we're just 1st level!" mentality, but I do understand that PCs have finite hp, saves and abilities all tied (and limited to) their characters level.
And I understand all that, too. However, I also know that I don't use any magic items and that I rarely have any spellcasting PCs.
So, just as an example, I never use enemies with instant death abilities (there's no resurrection in my games--if you die, you're dead--except Breath of Life), energy drain, ability drain, permanent curses, or any other permanent debilitating effects that you need specific spells to remove. The issue is that these sorts of things only exist in the game to eat gold.
You have to pay to remove this stuff because they want to curtail wealth, but since I don't have wealth in the first place, there's no need for wealth eating monsters.
And without Wands and Potions of Cure X Wounds, everything that can deal damage is dangerous to you. Even if the party could never die to bandits 5 levels below you, a lucky crit can ruin your week and make it far more likely you'll get killed by later threat.
I'm curious about rate of character death in your game.
In 20 years of GMing my own material (i.e. not modules, APs, etc.), I've had zero deaths in D&D, one TPK in a Godlike game (where that sort of thing is kind of supposed to happen) and two death's otherwise: one was in Legend of the Five Rings when a PC willingly sacrificed himself to let the party escape, and another in a two person game of Dhampir (an obscure old world of darkness game in the kindred of the east line) where the death provided an awesome climax to end the game on, so it worked out wonderfully.
I have once run someone else's stuff--for a few months, I tried running Serpent's Skull just to try something new--and I hated it and had 5 deaths in like 8 weeks. The PCs didn't mind, but I did--drove me nuts. I won't be doing that again.
So you use whatever fits/takes encounters, but you fiat encounter reactions to mitigate power level of those encounters?
I don't think I would put it that way, necessarily. I don't think it's fiat to think an animal wouldn't necessarily assault anyone walking nearby. The point of my statement was that I don't force fights--the PCs fight or don't based on the situation, not me deciding it's time for a fight to fill out some encounter-per-day requirement.
Im actually not that far off from you mpl on the hardcore/whatever is required or makes sense - I used to run 1st through 3rd ed Gamma World where random encounter tables included Death Machines and Warbots - I didn't give a damn about what the players rank/level was. If it was there (random or set due to circumstances) then they had to deal with it.
I think we might be farther apart than you think. Where we seem to be closest, though, is that I think 2e is a better edition, overall, than 3rd.
So short of fiat or DM mercy, I'm not seeing how your "I don't care how many make the encounter difficult or easy" gels with character levels, saves, hps and damage - again, unless you are throwing in whatever the story needs and fiating the actual threat presented/problems the characters have to overcome. That or your players are dying left and right.
I don't know, it works out--must be just intuitive.
The thing is, though, I'd generally prefer to be running a different game than 3rd edition D&D--it's far from my favorite, for sure.
|
|
This has been dealt with before, pretty well, actually. Check out these threads:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2krje?An-alternative-to-magic-items-please-revi ew
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ih7v?Magic-Items-Fixing-the-Big-Six-Three-Rule s
Basically here's how it works: Characters get 25% of the WBL expected, which they will get in the form of cool shit you want to give them.
Players get a pool of points equivalent to 75% of the WBL they would have, which they can spend on any sort of "essential" or character improving item they might feel they need. They don't have to fight to get the items they feel they need in order to have the build they are going for. The prices of the bonuses in points is directly converted from the price of the item.
As the bonuses are innate, you may see players having more of a variety of weapons, and that should be okay. If all the weapons you go to use are +5 weapons, then it's fine if the GM passes you an axe, a mace, and a bow as well, and you may actually consider using them.
They system he laid out could use a little bit of polish and likely a bit of adaptation for your specific purposes, but it handles the issue pretty nicely in general.
Actually, pretty similar to what you have up above, but with the numbers scaled down.
|
|
@MPLIndustries: I'm glad that works for you.
I think were I to want to run that sort of low-magic game, I'd use a different system, like RoleMaster, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Dungeons and Zombies, Dark Ages World of Darkness, or (most likely) RuneQuest 6/Magic World/Open Quest 2/Legend, and just not use the magic option, which is trivial, and nothing in the game assumes any kind of power level. (And that's not saying that's a bad thing, I quite like the BRP fantasy systems, I like Unisystem (Dungeons and Zombies) and I like RoleMaster too (Except Character Creation, which takes way too long).
Personally, if I'm going to play Pathfinder, I want a setting that eventually goes high power (a world famous fighter is likely 14th level+, they new rookie town guard is a level 2 or 3 (likely fighter, but maybe not), and the captain of the guard is typically level 6 to 8). First level NPCs are horribly incompetent, or completely inexperienced. The guy running the Thieves' guild or Mages' guild is at least level 8, likely closer to 11 or 12. Melee Types above 8 are common, but they're typically either adventurers (which are not uncommon in my games), in the military, working as mercenaries, or working as guards for a duke or something - they've usually moved on from the City Guard by then. If the City has a crafter's guild, the guy is also likely level 8-12, with some levels in Expert, and maybe some PC levels, and several crafting feats.
I also tend to want players to have access to magic if they want it if I'm going to run Pathfinder. A Party with a cleric, a summoner or synthesist, a druid, a ranger, and a wizard is totally kosher at my table. I'm more likely to allow the beefy character builds without scrutiny than someone who comes up to me with a typical TWF Stabby Rogue. I'll let him play it if he really wants to, but I will explain to him that he's very likely built a weak character, and he may want to rebuild it. If he does, I'll help him build something that does a better job keeping up (keeping with his base concept as close as I can if he wants it, and likely using a bunch of archetypes).
I don't stick to CR like it's a law (If the PCs intentionally go into a red dragon cave at level 5 I'm not going to coddle them) but I typically tend to add NPCs they stand a chance against in the plots they are likely to follow up on. They will know that at level 4 they will have a hard time taking on the famous bandit king who has been raiding the countryside head on, and that if they want to get involved in that, perhaps they should do so by harrying his underlings until they have the personal power or sufficient backup to take him on head on. I think there should be a decent chance of failure at a major boss fight.
I do think that WBL is an important part of the game's balancing mechanism which matters if you're going to care about balancing the players against CR Appropriate Foes (Which I basically use as a guage of what they can handle in terms of Monsters and Beasts and NPCs). I suppose if I was doing almost all NPCs the lack of magic items would be easier to account for, but that would require building many, many, many NPCs, as I don't think the couple books of pre-built NPCs I have would cut it.
I think the appeal of this sort of system allows you to use the same number balance the system has baked in so you can use CRs as guidelines instead of needing to know your player's stats to know what they can handle, and lets you swap out all of the boring +x to bla items for items that are interesting (or I suppose, not use them at all) without radically changing the character's abilities from what players might expect. As an added bonus, the players can get points they can allocate to stuff as the game goes on, giving them gradual character improvement between levels, which if you don't level them quickly, may make them happier.
I have no objections to running a grittier fantasy game, or a lower magic fantasy game, but I simply have a hard time seeing why I would want to use Pathfinder to do so when IMO it doesn't do a very good job of it.
I think were I to want to run that sort of low-magic game, I'd use a different system, like RoleMaster, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Dungeons and Zombies, Dark Ages World of Darkness, or (most likely) RuneQuest 6/Magic World/Open Quest 2/Legend, and just not use the magic option, which is trivial, and nothing in the game assumes any kind of power level. (And that's not saying that's a bad thing, I quite like the BRP fantasy systems, I like Unisystem (Dungeons and Zombies) and I like RoleMaster too (Except Character Creation, which takes way too long).
I dislike 90% of the systems you listed, especially Runequest, to be honest, but yes, I would rather play a different system, you're right (Savage Worlds, for example, or at the very least, Iron Heroes--I like both Worlds of Darkness, but not for a fantasy game).
Also note that I like magic and want there to be magic--I just don't like/want ubiquitous, quadratic, world-shaking magic that eclipses anything and everything a non-magical character could do and fundamentally alters the setting by its mere presence.
I have no objections to running a grittier fantasy game, or a lower magic fantasy game, but I simply have a hard time seeing why I would want to use Pathfinder to do so when IMO it doesn't do a very good job of it.
Because some groups will only play Pathfinder. By being the most popular RPGs around, d20-based games have insidiously convinced many gamers that they are the only RPGs around or that they are the only good ones. It is very hard to get people who have only experienced say, Pathfinder, to play anything but Pathfinder.
On the other hand, I have another group that refuses to touch a d20 to save their life, because they're so angry at the system for doing that to gamers. /shrug
There are some good elements in even the most jacked up systems. Just be careful to drain out the poison and let the thing change to fit it's new surroundings. The storyteller system had almost no overall levels. Game balance was still maintained by esthetic rules rather then bean counting.
Because some groups will only play Pathfinder. By being the most popular RPGs around, d20-based games have insidiously convinced many gamers that they are the only RPGs around or that they are the only good ones. It is very hard to get people who have only experienced say, Pathfinder, to play anything but Pathfinder.
On the other hand, I have another group that refuses to touch a d20 to save their life, because they're so angry at the system for doing that to gamers. /shrug
I have found that there are different reasons why people stick to a particular system. Some reasons are:
1) Investment, they want to continue to use what they have already bought, especially if it is a considerable library.
2) Time or effort. Some people do not want to learn a new system. They have already put time into learning one system and they want to keep going with what they know. The similarity in games is both a selling point and a deterrent.
3) Rumors. People hear things "X game sucks" so they might not want to give it a try.
4) Bad experiences. Some games are good, but the group and/or game master are bad. This creates a bad experience, which turns people off from a particular game.
I have tried a great many, many games over the years. Most of them had some really cool features. Some were just outright unplayable as written. Some games I played more extensively than others.
But I grew up with Dungeons and Dragons as my mind's version of fantasy gaming. I started with the red box Basic set and moved on to the AD&Ds. There are things about D&D that other games cannot emulate. With GURPS, while I loved the magic system, the combat took forever (even with experienced gamers) and characters were too easy to kill. With Savage Worlds, it is a fun system (that only a few will play with me) but in my opinion just does not pull of the D&D fantasy, and particularly sucks for dungeon crawls. Mutants and Masterminds can actually pull off a lot of it, but its main problem is that it does not do well with the looting aspect of fantasy gaming.
I have seen some really good ideas in this forum. House rules are great, but with too many, especially those that change the fundamentals of the game, you are effectively playing a different game altogether. That is fine, but keep that in mind when you are trying to game with others. Some will like it, some will hate it.
One idea that I have tossed around, but not played with yet, is similar to the "Guns Everywhere" but for magic items. Have the enchantment costs be 10%, so a Sword +1 would cost 515 gp. In theory this would keep magic items to more "realistic" values. Sure, everyone COULD have one, but that is still 515 gp, and many people cannot afford that.
Lets take an example. A town is harassed by a minotaur and his goblin followers. One of the town elders constructs a corn maze, and the Minotaur moved in. The town then advertised the corn maze as a unique dungeon. The Minotaur of course used all the loot from the town to buy a vicious battle ax (it causes bleeding wounds). The ax would be either +1 or not depending on your system.
Lets take an example. A town is harassed by a minotaur and his goblin followers. One of the town elders constructs a corn maze, and the Minotaur moved in. The town then advertised the corn maze as a unique dungeon. The Minotaur of course used all the loot from the town to buy a vicious battle ax (it causes bleeding wounds). The ax would be either +1 or not depending on your system.
blink...blink...???
|
|
Oh. I see what he's saying.
He's saying the quality of the axe becomes less important than the person wielding it with these changes.
Yes.
In this system, that would likely be a masterwork axe, or it could be a magic axe that causes bleeding wounds. And depending on which variant of this innate system you use, either the bleeding stacks with your innate bonus, or you have to trade the equivalent +X to make it do bleed damage.
I was recently invited to join an L5R game with some friends from PFS. It's a huge change, but I'm quite liking it so far.
Personally I never liked sifting through all the magic items out there, so the lack of that in L5R is very satisfying.
I encourage all to give that system a try. Great role-playing, and feels real and deadly as well :)
Good read guys, Im particularly interested as Im beginning my Pathfinder campaign and intend it to be very low magic in nature. I have a long history of RP but am new to this system, caught up in the hype I suppose but Im concerned about what Im reading that somehow magic items are integral to the balance of the game as PCs advance.
My RP background is primarily a Hyboria type of setting (indeed 4+ years of Hyboria specifically) and therefor I have a fondness for grittier more mundane action. I understand Galorian will be a change for me and I welcome it, but not to the level of High Magic Im detecting.
If I tone down my game, limit magic items to the wonderous and rare things I feel they should be, (Where a 6th level fighter MIGHT have a +1 sword and a ring of protection, MAYBE) do I really need to consider implementing some supplemental stat bonuses?
I prescribe fairly closely by the way to mplindustries notion that the world does not comform to the PCs. I design my world with perhaps a nod to their capabilities but dont scale the setting with them as a priority. I consider the CR but its merely advises me of how difficult a situation is likely to be, it doesnt rule it out.
|
|
@RGrove0172
Pathfinder is balanced based on the assumption that the good majority of the player's WBL will be used on improving the character. However, some classes benefit more from the money spent than others, as well.
If you simply strip out the magic items, some classes will be hurt by this decision much more than others. Notably, classes reliant on pets or magic will be hurt less than those relying on attacking with magic weapons.
Yes, you could yank out the magic system. However, that WILL have side-effects, and here are some of the side effects you'll experience:
1. The CR System, the built-in system that helps you know how much of a chance the players have to survive a challenge will be worthless. Some encounters of a CR will be much more difficult, others will be much easier. You can expect that the encounters against opponents who use less equipment (beasts, monsters, mages, NPCs with Pets) to be much more difficult. This will make it much harder to guage how hard an encounter will be, and as a result, also much harder to fairly guage how much EXP it should be worth to overcome the encounter.
2. Some enemies may be nigh impossible, due to an inability to overcome their Damage Reduction using magic weapons. Damage Reduction and similar effects are suddenly much much more powerful.
3. Some Character Classes will be significantly worse without the money they would normally be spending on magic gear. Fighters and Rogues will be much worse, Wizards will have way less spells, Rangers, Druids, Paladins, Summoners will be closer to the same power level, clerics and oracles and sorcerers will be largely unaffected. In many cases, this isn't going to be random, a number of the more powerful classes will be unaffected, while a number of the weaker classes will be affected much more drastically. I would feel even worse for the guy who chooses the rogue class.
4. Due to #3, there's a good chance you'll have much more unbalanced adventuring parties, which could lead to some players having less fun because they're much less able to compete with their items removed.
d20 Conan, and many of the other RPGs I mentioned aren't nearly so item dependent, and it sounds like that's what you're used to. You can make due with whatever weapon is on hand. If you do that in Pathfinder, it will throw the balance off a great deal.
If you are highly familiar with the Pathfinder materials, you could compensate that some by limiting character options, and being able to eyeball the encounters accurately enough to guage survivability, and ditch the experience system built into pathfinder.
However, I think the easiest approach for an item-light game (without throwing all the game balance out the window) would be to give the players 75% WBL, allow them to buy their item enchantments and other power enhancing 'items' with it, and have these be things you simply apply to the character, rather than things you apply to their items. That fighter doesn't have a +4 Greatsword anymore, he has a Masterwork Sword, and his combat skill is such that he's got the +4 enhancement to hit and damage, and can overcome damage reduction and whatnot.
If you want a less magical game, don't let them spend their money on enchantments like flaming and such other obviously magical enhancements, and instead let them take things like Holy and +Xs and whatnot. Then if you ever do introduce a magic weapon, just make it a "flaming" sword, and they can trade out one or more of their +1s in order to make use of the obviously magical flaming property (with a tradeoff rate based on the number assigned to the magical property in question in the book).
I would advise you give the money as innate bonuses, but limit what it can be used on. Don't let them use it on consumeables, and you might want to limit their ability to reallocate it as they level. You can give the "money points" out gradually, according to the WBL scale you're using, and it gives them some gradual character improvement between actual character levels.
I would not advise throwing out the magic items and the CR System, for the reasons mentioned above. MPLIndustries might be able to pull it off, with a high degree of system mastery, and experience as a d20 publisher. My experience with every GM who has tried this in the past has been that it resulted in a complete lack of game balance and got in the way of enjoyment of the game. Following WBL and having ready access to the gear you want for your character by level is a pretty important balancing aspect of the system, and getting rid of it will make things much more difficult for you to balance, so I strongly recommend either using the items as the game expects, or making that part of character advancement instead. Personally I'm on the side of making it part of character advancement in my own games not out of a desire for lower magic, but out of a desire to not have to track how much money I gave them or if I've given them adequate access to sources to buy whatever gear they want and thus have to worry about it messing with the game balance. If I just let them spend some points, then I don't have to track that anymore, and it makes things simpler for me as the GM.
My point was the +1 can be yanked, but the bleeding quality is part of the story. The party wizard can cut out the Minotaur's heart and make some bull's strength potions at almost no cost. You take out the magic ax and put in a bag of gold it just becomes boring. No story, no drama, and no fun.
|
|
As a side note, since you're new to Pathfinder, Pathfinder has a few problems of classes which many people feel are sufficiently mechanically terrible as to be avoided at all costs, only worth being used for a level or two in another built if you need something specific. (It's controversial, and some people will disagree, but you should still be aware of it and consider it yourself), and "try to meet the character concept any other way possible, or abandon the concept". Typically this is referring to Monks and Rogues. There are some specific monk and rogue builds that contribute okay, but they aren't the most commonly built options. Often in my games (because I have some experienced players and some inexperienced players) I suggest these classes be avoided unless the player really knows what they're doing, as I've hard players get upset about either not contributing much, or being saddled with another player who can't contribute, and feeling they were stuck traveling with a liability (seriously, it happened).
For the Rogue, I typically suggest playing a Bard or Ranger with Archetypes. You can mix and match some ranger archetypes to get a good urban tracking combat rogue, and you can get a good charismatic party buff rogue from bard plus archetypes. For some rogue concepts, You might be able to work with a Fighter, Barbarian, or Magus, using a few archetypes. You might even be able to use a Synthesist Summoner if you want a magic heavy rogue type. The Summoner doesn't get a ton of skills, but you can use evolution points to grant skill bonuses.
In a game that doesn't use very many traps (in my experience, that's most games) trapfinding (bonus to finding traps, plus the ability to disarm magical traps) is not a Necessary ability. If it IS a necessary ability, a number of other classes and archetypes get trapfinding:
01) 1st level rogue
02) 3rd level urban ranger
03) 1st level trapper ranger
04) 1st level seeker oracle
05) 1st level seeker sorcerer
06) 1st level crypt breaker alchemist
07) The 2nd level bard/alchemist/wizard spell Aram Zey's focus
08) 2nd level detective* ability from APG called Arcane Insight
09) 6th level archaeologist bard
10) 2nd level archivist bard
11) 1st level pathfinder delver prestige class
12) 1st level Sandman Bard
13) 1st level Crypt Breaker Alchemist
14) A Barbarian with Trap Sense to set it off and survive.
And If nothing else:
15) Infinite Detect Magic + Dispel Magic
A Variety of Monk type (depending on how they're built/played) builds that are more able to keep up:
01) Fighter/Ninja Multiclass.
02) Paladin/Ninja Multiclass.
03) Ranger with Unarmed Strike or monk themed weapons.
04) Unarmed Strike Magus.
05) Alchemist (internal alchemist) prestiging into master chymist.
06) Master of many style/two-weapon warrior. Snake, Panther, or Dragon Style.
07) Master of many style/Brawler Fighter With Snapping Turtle Style.
08) Paladin
09) Cleric
If you're an accomodating GM, you could consider letting them swap out some of their regular weapon proficiencies for the asian ones (which are only really exotic because they're asian, not because they're better weapons), or consider allowing them to trade some class skills they have for ones that closer match the monk themed concept, and neither would be at all gamebreaking.
If you're a bit flexible as a GM, many of these are quite awesome, and I haven't noticed any of them to be overpowered. They're highly lauded by the community: Multiclass Archetypes
|
|
My point was the +1 can be yanked, but the bleeding quality is part of the story. The party wizard can cut out the Minotaur's heart and make some bull's strength potions at almost no cost. You take out the magic ax and put in a bag of gold it just becomes boring. No story, no drama, and no fun.
Oh. Gotcha.
You could still have the magic axe be part of the story. In my variant of the system, you'd still have the magic axe, but the player would have to trade a couple of their innate +1s to make use of its magical properties (giving them a reason to increase their innate +1s beyond +5 even if they can't use more than +5 on an attack. If they DO come across magic items, they can make better use of it.), and a character without sufficiently advanced combat skill (didn't put enough points in it) wouldn't be able to make use of its magical properties. In the hands of a 6 year old, it's just a large masterwork axe. Pass it to a skilled warrior, and it has the bleed property.
Though they's still have to deal with the problem of using an axe sized for a large creature.
Hmm. Dotting for great interest.
I grow a bit weary of handing out several cloaks of resistance.
My point was the +1 can be yanked, but the bleeding quality is part of the story. The party wizard can cut out the Minotaur's heart and make some bull's strength potions at almost no cost. You take out the magic ax and put in a bag of gold it just becomes boring. No story, no drama, and no fun.Oh. Gotcha.
You could still have the magic axe be part of the story. In my variant of the system, you'd still have the magic axe, but the player would have to trade a couple of their innate +1s to make use of its magical properties (giving them a reason to increase their innate +1s beyond +5 even if they can't use more than +5 on an attack. If they DO come across magic items, they can make better use of it.), and a character without sufficiently advanced combat skill (didn't put enough points in it) wouldn't be able to make use of its magical properties. In the hands of a 6 year old, it's just a large masterwork axe. Pass it to a skilled warrior, and it has the bleed property.
Though they's still have to deal with the problem of using an axe sized for a large creature.
That works fine. I was trying to throw the low magic threadjackers off the bandwagon and into oncoming traffic. :)
|
|
The way I fixed CWBL and the big six in particular in my games is to give them as part of the progression, and then allow PCs to use up to 5 "iconic" magic items based on their level and such, thus eliminating the need for a magic mart as they don't need as many magic items (since they'd be useless) and the ones they do have are more for utility rather than "more power".
Here's a link for the full description of the wealth rules I use in my games.
mplindustries: Alas, the option of not using magic items is not really an option. The entire system is tuned for the characters to have these magic items. To remove them requires retuning the entire system.
I'm with mplindustries on that one. The system is tuned for the characters to have this kind of magic items... against the officially appropriate CR. Rather than boosting the PC's power by about 20%, reduce CR by about 20% and you're about there.
If you're running an official AP or PF society game, this doesn't work.
If you're running an homebrewed game, it's close enough to work just fine, especially if you also ditch the spells which the big 6 emulate (magic weapon, bull's strength etc)
I understand that this is not the option you're looking for, but it is a valid option.